With very few exceptions, the entire Latin America, Caribbean and North America have now rejected the results of Venezuela’s elections held on 28 July. This was crystalized during last week when the Organisation of American States (OAS) adopted a resolution calling on the Venezuelan government to “expeditiously publish the presidential election records, including the voting results at the level of each polling station” and “respect the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty through an impartial verification of the results that ensures the transparency, credibility and legitimacy of the electoral process.” The election records are contained in the electronic reports generated by the voting machines that are in use in Venezuela. The “impartial verification” of those electronic records are also sought by the resolution. President Lula of Brazil and Petro of Colombia have already gone further and called for new elections in Venezuela and these calls have been supported by the United States. President Maduro has rejected the demand.
Extensive civil unrest has followed the declaration of results by the National Electoral Council (CNE) that President Nicolas Maduro received 51.95 percent of the votes as opposed to 43.18 percent for Edmundo Gonzalez. The opposition PUD claimed that Maduro obtained 30.46 while Gonzalez obtained 67.08. The CNE, which is the lawful authority over the elections, has not published the electronic records as has been demanded both the opposition and the public. The unrest was manifested by widespread demonstrations, arrest and detention of thousands, threats of arrest of opposition politicians, some of whom have gone into hiding or are seeking asylum in foreign embassies and the killing of scores of demonstrators.
The noble sentiments of the progressive, charismatic, Hugo Chavez, who won free and fair elections in 1998, 2000 and 2006 with substantial majorities, could not be sustained after the drop in oil prices and his affliction with cancer, which ultimately resulted in his passing. After reversing a coup supported by sections of the army in 2002, Chavez built an alliance with the army to counter the strong rightwing sentiments then, and still, prevailing in Venezuela. Allegations that this alliance was cemented by the then incipient corruption which had begun to seep into his movement, gained currency. At the present time, there are allegations that widespread corruption sustains the present regime, give it its raison d’etre, and in alliance with the army, form an entrenched section of the petit bourgeoisie utilizing anti-imperialist language to attract sympathy. The Venezuelan regime is ‘blowing in the wind,’ against the sentiments of the spread of liberal democracy by way of free and fair elections and market solutions to solve economic problems. Even Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, a noted Venezuelan apologist, is unable to invoke the anti-imperialist bogey in support of Maduro.
The Venezuelan Government appears to be entrenched. It clearly seeks to ride out the current international hostility by bluster and internal repression. It has already survived the extensive sanctions imposed by the United States and is prepared for their reimposition after their relaxation by the US when encouraging measures for free and fair elections. It is quite likely that discussions are going on in order to encourage a resolution of the crisis. Two proposals are circulating, namely, amnesty for Maduro and presumably his closest colleagues and the formation of a coalition government with the opposition. This would obviously be a transitional arrangement to a departure of Maduro and his party from the government. Such an outcome is possible if the major countries in the region including Brazil, Colombia, Argentina and Chile, supported by the US, unite behind this proposal. This is a preferable outcome because it is unlikely, with the ironclad support of the military, that popular anger would be enough to remove the Maduro Government. It is only when the army withdrew its support from the Sheik Hasina Government in Bangladesh that the Prime Minister was forced to flee. That does not appear to be on the cards for Maduro.
The continued existence of the regime of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela is not in Guyana’s interests. As a dictatorship, its actions are not determined by the interests of the people of Venezuela, by popular opinion or by the dictates of international law. They are solely determined by what is necessary for the survival of the regime. This allowed the Venezuelan regime to brazenly rig the referendum last December regarding Essequibo thereby giving it a (false) mandate to incorporate Essequibo as part of Venezuela. It also allowed Maduro to solemnly sign the Joint Declaration of Argyle for Dialogue and Peace between Guyana and Venezuela in December last and then promptly violate it. Venezuela’s military and threatening build-up on Guyana’s borders are not subject to any popular scrutiny whereas an elected government might have been. While Venezuela’s opposition has no materially significant difference with the government as regards Venezuela’s claim to the Essequibo, a more rational and less confrontational approach would provide some security to Guyana, reduce the possibility of military confrontation and improve relations between the two countries.
(This column is reproduced with permission from Ralph Ramkarran’s blog, www.conversationstree.gy)
