Left, democracy, and Venezuela


The conflict in Venezuela is not essentially a confrontation between the left and the right, but between democracy and anti-democracy.

Therefore, those of us who consider ourselves to be on the left because we are committed to the fight against inequality and discrimination, but who also believe that a genuine left must be democratic, must oppose the authoritarianism of the Maduro regime, as many of us have done in the past, and reject its attempt to perpetuate itself in power with electoral results that all indications suggest are fraudulent. We must also condemn the de facto state of siege in Venezuela and the violent repression against social protests against it, with the same vigor that we once rejected the excessive repression of the Duque government during the social unrest of 2021.

These electoral results cannot be accepted because they have not respected minimum democratic standards, as stated in the restrained but forceful statement from the Carter Center, which was officially invited as an international observer by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE) because, according to its own words, of the “seriousness” and well-earned “prestige” of the center. It would be absurd for the Venezuelan authorities to question it now.

This electoral process was already very questionable before the July 28 vote, for at least three reasons: first, due to the obstruction of the registration of opposition candidates, with unacceptable arguments, including the disqualification of Corina Machado. Second, due to the obstruction of voter registration, especially for migrants abroad, the vast majority of whom are probably against Maduro. In Colombia, only about 7,000 Venezuelans were able to vote. Third, due to the restrictions on democratic freedoms during the campaign and the obvious partiality of all Venezuelan authorities, including the CNE, in favor of Maduro.

Despite the playing field being totally unbalanced against it, the opposition decided to participate and all indications are that it clearly won the vote, but Maduro was proclaimed president, without any clarity or transparency. The CNE has not made the voting records public and, after an interruption of several hours due to a supposed cyberattack, released an implausible result. It is very difficult, almost impossible, not to conclude that there was a monumental fraud.

With the evidence available so far, I am convinced that this fraud existed and I reject it. However, I understand that relevant actors who seek to mediate in this crisis, such as President Petro, and not just columnists like me, take more prudent positions and do not yet speak of fraud, but instead demand the publication of the records and a recount, with independent and international verification. I share this prudence of Petro’s (which many of his followers would criticize as tepidness if it were taken by another person in another context) in order to attempt peaceful and democratic solutions to the Venezuelan crisis. But that prudence must be firm and consistent and it has not been: it is incomprehensible that the Government abstained in the OAS for a resolution that was in that direction and it is a setback that the joint statement of Colombia with Mexico and Brazil speaks of a recount but does not expressly demand independent international verification, since neither the CNE nor the Supreme Court can be trusted for that work as they are institutions totally co-opted by the Government. Colombia must demand that human rights violations cease and that the publication of the records and the recount be immediate and with international verification to be credible and to avoid a worsening of the violence and repression.