Venezuela

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Nicolás Maduro Is President of Venezuela Whether the U.S. Likes It or Not

      by

      When the United States arranged an exchange of prisoners with President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela last week — sending home two nephews of Mr. Maduro’s wife who had been convicted of drug trafficking in a swap for seven Americans held in Venezuelan jails — it exposed the incoherence of U.S. policy toward Venezuela.Even as it negotiates with Mr. Maduro, the White House continues to insist that Juan Guaidó, an opposition politician, is the real president of Venezuela. The United States has no formal diplomatic relations with the Maduro government, and the embassy in Caracas has been closed since early 2019, shortly after President Donald Trump recognized Mr. Guaidó as president in an unsuccessful, long-shot bid to force Mr. Maduro from power.It is time for the Biden administration to accept that the Guaidó gambit has failed and that most Venezuelans, and most of the international community, have moved on. The White House needs a Venezuela policy based on fact, not fiction. And the fact is that Mr. Maduro is president of Venezuela and Mr. Guaidó is not.Accepting reality will have many potential benefits — not least to the Venezuelan opposition, which is in the midst of a turbulent effort to remake itself.After Mr. Trump announced his support for Mr. Guaidó in January 2019, dozens of other countries followed Washington’s lead. But today, only a dwindling handful continue to recognize Mr. Guaidó as Venezuela’s president, and, like the United States, eschew direct diplomatic ties with Mr. Maduro’s government.And that list is getting shorter.Gustavo Petro, the newly elected leftist president of Colombia, moved quickly after taking office in August to abandon his country’s recognition of Mr. Guaidó and reopen its embassy in Caracas. That change is crucial because Colombia has long been Washington’s most important ally in South America and a key supporter of Mr. Guaidó.Brazil, another powerful backer of Mr. Guaidó, could be next, if Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva retakes the presidency in a runoff election later this month.Mr. Guaidó was always president in name only — he had no government and no power to act inside Venezuela. He showed courage when he defied Mr. Maduro’s repressive regime, but he never had a viable plan, beyond vague hopes for a military coup or for U.S. intervention. And he was wedded to Mr. Trump’s sanctions-heavy approach, which exacerbated Venezuela’s economic crisis.Mr. Guaidó’s claim to an alternate presidency rested on his role as head of the National Assembly, but his legislative term ended last year, and at that point many of his supporters inside and outside of Venezuela gave up on the notion.Today, Mr. Maduro is stronger than he was three years ago, and the opposition is in disarray.Dropping the pretense that Mr. Guaidó is president would set U.S. policy on a rational foundation but would not be an endorsement of Mr. Maduro. It could facilitate talks with Mr. Maduro over key areas, including the wave of Venezuelan refugees entering the United States and possible changes to economic sanctions related to oil exports. A resumption of consular activities would make it possible for citizens to obtain or renew visas and passports.One of the greatest beneficiaries could be the Venezuelan opposition, which is in a turbulent, and necessary, state of flux. The opposition has been harshly repressed by a Maduro government committed at all costs to staying in power; while the opposition has made many missteps, it is the primary political force in the country committed to democracy and the defense of human rights, and it is therefore critical to finding a solution to the country’s crisis.Over the last two years, most mainstream Venezuelan opposition parties have been thrown into crisis, hemorrhaging activists, splitting apart in leadership squabbles or watching once-loyal voters defect.The government has frequently stepped in to stir the pot, using the courts or electoral authorities to order the takeover of parties by substitute leadership that is considered suspect by the rest of the opposition. But in most cases, the divisions were there to be exploited.Venezuelans are fed up with opposition parties that often seem more interested in fighting with each other than in improving the country’s fortunes.At the same time, new parties have emerged, organizing around new leaders.The political changes were evident in elections held last November. The opposition won a third of the mayorships around the country, after previously holding fewer than one in ten. And although the opposition won just four governorships out of 23, it received a majority of votes in all but a few states. The reason it didn’t win more governorships was that multiple opposition candidates split the vote, essentially handing victory to candidates allied with Mr. Maduro.The lessons of November were powerful. The election showed that Venezuelans still see the ballot box as a way out of the nation’s troubles. It unmasked the weakness of the government party among voters. It demonstrated, once again, that lack of unity is the opposition’s Achilles’ heel.And it revealed gains for the nontraditional opposition, with about half of total opposition votes going to candidates outside the coalition led by the four mainstream parties, according to Eugenio Martínez, a journalist who specializes in election analysis.Venezuelan politics are now aimed at a presidential election that will take place in 2024.Will the opposition come together to choose a single candidate, or will it remain divided? The United States has urged Mr. Maduro and the opposition to resume negotiations that could lead to improved electoral conditions. But who will sit across the table from Mr. Maduro’s negotiators?So far, Washington has thrown its weight behind the Unitary Platform, a rebranded coalition led by Mr. Guaidó and the traditional parties, which is seeking to steer the choice of a 2024 candidate and which controls the team that would negotiate conditions with Mr. Maduro.But by continuing to uphold the fiction that Mr. Guaidó is president of Venezuela, the administration makes it harder for the opposition to go through the necessary process of reforming itself. The United States must acknowledge reality — as it relates to who actually governs in Venezuela and the need for Venezuelans to fashion the opposition that they choose. That is the only way that Washington can play a constructive role in solving Venezuela’s crisis.William Neuman is a former New York Times reporter and Andes region bureau chief, and the author of “Things Are Never So Bad That They Can’t Get Worse: Inside the Collapse of Venezuela.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 175 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      'A man without morals': Chicago mayor chides Texas governor for expelling migrants – video

      by

      Chicago’s mayor, Lori Lightfoot, criticised Texas’s governor, Greg Abbott, accusing him of cruelty and racism for expelling dozens of migrants from Texas by bus. ‘With these continued political stunts, Governor Abbott has confirmed, what unfortunately many of us had already known – that he is a man without any morals, humanity or shame,’ said Lightfoot at a press conference on Thursday. Seventy-nine Venezuelans arrived at Chicago’s Union Station late on Wednesday, officials said. ‘Last night, we showed our mettle, the best of who we are,’ Lightfoot continued, praising the city’s effort to welcome the new arrivals.

      ‘They are human beings’: Chicago mayor welcomes migrants bussed by Texas More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      John Bolton says he ‘helped plan coups d’etat’ in other countries

      by

      John Bolton says he ‘helped plan coups d’etat’ in other countriesFormer national security adviser to Donald Trump says US Capitol attack was not a coup because it was not carefully planned John Bolton, a former national security adviser to Donald Trump and before that ambassador to the United Nations under George W Bush, said on Tuesday he helped plan coup attempts in other countries.January 6 testimony tells chilling tale of democracy hanging by a threadRead moreSpeaking to CNN after the day’s January 6 committee hearing, Bolton said it was wrong to describe Trump’s attempt to stay in power after the 2020 election as a coup.He said: “While nothing Donald Trump did after the election, in connection with the lie about the election fraud, none of it is defensible, it’s also a mistake as some people have said including on the committee, the commentators that somehow this was a carefully planned coup d’etat to the constitution.“That’s not the way Donald Trump does things. It’s rambling from one half-vast idea to another plan that falls through and another comes up.”His host, Jake Tapper, said: “One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.”Bolton said: “I disagree with that, as somebody who has helped plan coups d’etat, not here, but you know, other places. It takes a lot of work and that’s not what [Trump] did. It was just stumbling around from one idea to another.“Ultimately, he did unleash the rioters at the Capitol, as to that there’s no doubt, but not to overthrow the constitution, to buy more time to throw the matter back to the states to try and redo the issue.“And if you don’t believe that you’re going to overreact, and I think that’s a real risk for the committee, which has done a lot of good work.”Jake Tapper: “One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.”John Bolton: “I disagree with that. As somebody who has helped plan coup d’etat, not here, but other places, it takes a lot of work.” pic.twitter.com/REyqh3KtHi— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) July 12, 2022
      Tapper returned to Bolton’s remark about having helped plan coups.Bolton said: “I’m not going to get into the specifics.”Tapper asked: “Successful coups?”Bolton said: “Well, I wrote about Venezuela in in the book and it turned out not to be successful.“Not that we had all that much to do with it, but I saw what it took for an opposition to try and overturn an illegally elected president and they failed. The notion that Donald Trump was half as competent as the Venezuelan opposition is laughable.”Bolton devotes considerable space to Venezuela policy in The Room Where It Happened, his 2020 memoir of his work for Trump.In 2019, the US supported the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido’s call for the military to back his ultimately failed attempt to oust the socialist president, Nicolas Maduro, arguing Maduro’s re-election was illegitimate.Before Bolton joined the Trump administration, it was widely reported that Trump wanted to use the US military to oust Maduro. In August 2017, Trump told reporters: “We have many options for Venezuela, this is our neighbour.”Among other gambits, Bolton’s book describes work with the British government to freeze Venezuelan gold deposits in the Bank of England.In his newsletter, The Racket, Jonathan M Katz, author of the book Gangsters of Capitalism, said: “The United States has indeed sponsored and participated in lots of coups and foreign government overthrows, dating back to the turn of the 20th century [and] Bolton was personally involved in many of the recent efforts – in Nicaragua, Iraq, Haiti and others”.But, Katz added: “Generally, officials do not admit that sort of thing on camera.”The Room Where It Happened review: John Bolton fires broadside that could sink TrumpRead moreKatz wrote: “Keep in mind that throughout the 2019 crisis, Bolton insisted that the Trump administration’s support for … Guaidó … was anything but a coup. He literally stood in front of the White House at the height of the affair and told reporters: “This is clearly not a coup!”In those remarks, in April 2019, Bolton said: “We recognize Juan Guaidó as the legitimate interim president of Venezuela.“And just as it’s not a coup when the president of the United States gives an order to the Department of Defense, it’s not a coup for Juan Guaidó to try and take command of the Venezuelan military.“We want as our principal objective the peaceful transfer of power but I will say again, as [Trump] has said from the outset, and Nicolas Maduro and those supporting him, particularly those who are not Venezuelan, should know, all options are on the table.”On CNN, Tapper said: “I feel like there’s like this other stuff you’re not telling me.”Bolton said: “I think I’m sure there is.”TopicsJohn BoltonDonald TrumpJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsVenezuelaAmericasnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuela celebró unas elecciones controversiales, pero Maduro demostró su poderío político

      by

      Los observadores europeos dijeron que las elecciones no fueron libres ni justas. Mostraron cómo el gobierno del presidente, por impopular que sea, puede ganar excluyendo y dividiendo a los opositores.CARACAS, Venezuela — El martes, los observadores electorales de la Unión Europea afirmaron que las elecciones regionales de Venezuela fueron desvirtuadas por condiciones desiguales de participación, violencia y órdenes judiciales contra los líderes de la oposición.No obstante, la participación de funcionarios internacionales independientes —los primeros que presencian unas votaciones venezolanas en 15 años— resaltó que el presidente Nicolás Maduro se ha consolidado en el poder de Venezuela de una manera profunda, desde que asumió el cargo en 2013.Según los analistas y los líderes de la oposición, después de años de reprimir con fuerza a la disidencia y socavar los vestigios de las instituciones democráticas venezolanas, Maduro perfeccionó un sistema político en el que no le teme al escrutinio internacional cuando se enfrenta a oponentes que ya han sido analizados con atención.El gobierno demostró que al impedir que contiendan los líderes más destacados y populares de la oposición, fomentar la apatía entre los electores y conservar la lealtad de una minoría dependiente de las dádivas del gobierno, puede ganar las elecciones sin recurrir al fraude descarado, incluso con un apoyo popular mínimo.Pese a manejar una economía destrozada y, según las encuestas, tener el apoyo de solo el 15 por ciento de la población, el gobernante Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela ganó al menos 19 de las 23 gobernaciones, así como la mayoría de las alcaldías. De acuerdo con un estudio de las principales universidades del país, uno de cada cinco venezolanos ha huido del país bajo el mandato de Maduro y el 95 por ciento de los que se quedaron no ganan lo suficiente para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas.En el triunfo aplastante del partido gobernante tuvieron mucho que ver las divisiones internas de la oposición. Algunos líderes opositores boicotearon las elecciones, como sucedió en otros comicios recientes. Quienes decidieron participar dividieron los votos con facciones que habían pactado con Maduro o adoptaron una línea menos dura contra el presidente para sacarle provecho a la apertura económica que se ha permitido en los últimos años.La misión de los observadores de la Unión Europea señaló el martes que no podría decir que las elecciones del domingo hayan sido libres ni justas debido, en parte, a las ventajas competitivas de las que goza el partido en el gobierno y a la falta de un Estado de derecho.El presidente Nicolás Maduro a su llegada a su casilla de votación, acompañado de su nieta.Yuri Cortez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“Esta situación política, junto con las graves condiciones socioeconómicas, es la que ha provocado el éxodo de millones de venezolanos”, explicó Jordi Cañas, representante del Parlamento Europeo en la misión de observadores, durante una conferencia de prensa celebrada el martes en Caracas.Sin embargo, la misión subrayó varias mejoras en materia democrática durante las elecciones del domingo, y llegó a calificar el sistema de procesamiento electrónico de los votos como “confiable”.Estados Unidos, que no reconoce el gobierno de Maduro, consideró que las elecciones habían sido muy fraudulentas, pero recomendó a los candidatos de la oposición que decidieron participar que conservaran los pocos cargos democráticos que aún tenían.El domingo, en las casillas de votación de Caracas, muchos electores manifestaron tener poca confianza en la imparcialidad de las elecciones pero comentaron que, en algunos casos, habían decidido presentarse porque consideraban que su voto era un último recurso en la lucha por el cambio.“Sé que todo el proceso está controlado”, comentó Blas Roa, un carpintero de Caracas de 55 años que votó por primera vez desde 2015. “Pero si no voto, no estoy contribuyendo en nada”.La mayoría de los venezolanos no se molestaron en hacerlo.Solo el 42 por ciento de los electores emitieron su voto, la menor participación en cualquier elección en la que haya contendido la oposición en las últimas dos décadas. Después de 20 años de gobierno socialista, pocas personas siguen albergando esperanzas de que se produzca un cambio radical, en vez de eso se están enfocando en aprovechar la nueva apertura económica con el fin de mejorar sus precarios ingresos.La apatía fomentada por el gobierno resultó ser la mejor arma de Maduro en las elecciones, aseveró el líder opositor Freddy Superlano, quien contendió por la gobernación del estado ganadero de Barinas, el cual solía ser un importante bastión del Partido Socialista y es el estado natal del fundador del partido, Hugo Chávez.El martes en la tarde, la contienda todavía era demasiado cerrada como para declarar a algún ganador.Según Superlano, el resultado habría sido diferente si las facciones de la oposición hubieran apartado sus recelos para organizar una campaña conjunta.“Estamos luchando no contra un candidato, sino contra todo el poder del Estado”, señaló vía telefónica desde Barinas.Isayen Herrera More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      In Venezuela’s Flawed Vote, Maduro Shows One Way to Retain Power

      by

      European observers said the elections were neither free nor fair. They showed how President Nicolás Maduro’s government, however unpopular, can win by excluding and splitting opponents.CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela’s regional elections on Sunday were distorted by an uneven playing field, violence and injunctions against opposition leaders, European Union election observers said on Tuesday.But the mere presence of independent international monitors, the first in 15 years to witness a Venezuelan vote, underlined how profoundly President Nicolás Maduro has cemented himself into power in Venezuela since taking office in 2013.After years of suppressing dissent with force and subverting the vestiges of Venezuela’s democratic institutions, Mr. Maduro has perfected a political system where he no longer has much fear of international scrutiny when competing against carefully calibrated opponents, according to analysts and opposition leaders.The government showed that by banning the most prominent and popular opposition leaders from running for office, dividing opposition parties, encouraging voter apathy and keeping a loyal minority dependent on government handouts, it can win elections without resorting to outright fraud — even with minimal popular support.The ruling Socialist Party won at least 19 of Venezuela’s 23 governorships, as well as the majority of mayoral offices, despite presiding over a destroyed economy and having the support, polls show, of only about 15 percent of the people. One in five Venezuelans has fled the country under Mr. Maduro’s rule, and 95 percent of those who remain don’t earn enough to meet basic needs, according to a study by the country’s main universities.The ruling party’s sweep was greatly aided by the divisions within the opposition. Some opposition leaders boycotted the vote, as most of them did in other recent elections. Those who chose to participate divided votes with factions that had made pacts with Mr. Maduro or adopted a softer line against the president to take advantage of the economic liberalization that he has allowed in recent years.The European Union observation mission said Tuesday that it could not call Sunday’s vote free or fair, in part because of the unfair advantages enjoyed by the ruling party, and the lack of rule of law.President Nicolás Maduro entering a polling station in Caracas with his granddaughter.Yuri Cortez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“There’s a political situation that’s together with the grave socioeconomic situation has provoked the exodus of millions of Venezuelans,” Jordi Cañas, the representative of the European Parliament with the observer mission, said on Tuesday at a news conference in the capital, Caracas.The mission, however, highlighted several democratic improvements in Sunday’s elections, going as far as to call the country’s electronic vote processing system “reliable.”The United States, which does not recognize Mr. Maduro’s government, called the election deeply flawed, but commended the opposition candidates who decided to participate to keep the few democratic offices they still held.At polling places in Caracas on Sunday, many voters expressed little confidence in the fairness of the election, but said they had decided to show up anyway, in some cases because they viewed their vote as their last tool in a fight for change.“I know the whole process is controlled,” said Blas Roa, 55, a carpenter in Caracas, who voted for the first time since 2015. “But if I don’t vote, I’m not doing anything.”Most Venezuelans didn’t bother.Only 42 percent of voters cast ballots, the lowest turnout in any election in which the opposition had participated in the last two decades. After 20 years of Socialist rule, few in the country still nurture hopes of radical change, focusing instead on taking advantage of the new economic freedoms to improve their precarious livelihoods.That government-induced apathy ended up being Mr. Maduro’s biggest weapon in the elections, said the opposition leader Freddy Superlano, who ran for governor in the ranching state of Barinas, once a major Socialist Party bastion and home of the party’s founder, Hugo Chávez.That contest remained too close to call Tuesday afternoon. The outcome would have been different, Mr. Superlano said, if opposition factions had put aside their misgivings and mounted a concerted campaign.“We’re fighting not against the candidate, but against all the power of the state,” he said by telephone from Barinas.Isayen Herrera More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Bloodied Venezuelan Opposition Returns to Elections for First Time in Years

      by

      UPATA, Venezuela — His opposition to Venezuela’s authoritarian leader had left him bloodied by government thugs, forced him into hiding in a foreign embassy and pushed him into a nearly two-year exile in Italy, where he sold bread in a train station as he thought of home.Américo De Grazia’s political defiance had also cost him his marriage and his savings. And yet here he was, back in his hometown in southeastern Venezuela, sweating through his shirt sleeves on stage — one of thousands of opposition candidates running in an election this Sunday that they are almost certain to lose.“We are in a time of turbulence,” Mr. De Grazia, 61, told voters as drums beat behind him, “and that demands we fight.”The political parties who oppose Venezuelan’s autocratic leader, Nicolás Maduro, have for years refused to participate in elections, arguing that to do so would legitimize a man who has spent nearly a decade jailing enemies, detaining journalists, co-opting political parties and banning key opposition figures from office, all as the country has fallen into an economic and humanitarian crisis.But on Sunday, the opposition will make a return to the ballot box, putting up candidates in gubernatorial and mayoral races across the country, an about-face they say is meant to rally a disillusioned electorate ahead of a future presidential vote, which should legally take place in 2024.Supporters of Mr. De Grazia cheering during a speech.Mr. De Grazia’s political defiance cost him his marriage and his savings. The conditions — while nominally better than in past years, according to the nonpartisan Venezuelan Electoral Observatory — are far from freely democratic, and the shift is a gamble for the opposition.Mr. Maduro, who faces both economic sanctions and an investigation in the International Criminal Court, is hungry for democratic legitimacy, and he is likely to use the election to push the United States and the European Union to ease their positions against him.Supporters of Ángel Marcano, the candidate for the ruling party, gathering for a rally in downtown Ciudad Bolívar.A warehouse with the former President Hugo Chavez’s likeness emblazoned on the front.But the shift is also a sign of just how desperate many Venezuelans are for anything that looks like a shot at change. And Mr. De Grazia’s fight to become governor of one of the country’s largest states is emblematic of that desperation.“This election is not free, not fair, not transparent, nothing like that,” he said over lunch one day after a campaign rally where he handed out tiny pieces of paper bearing his name, face and personal phone number — homespun campaigning in difficult times. But, “to beat this regime you have to confront it.”Bolívar, a sprawling state in Venezuela’s southeast, is home to steel and aluminum plants and large deposits of gold, diamonds and coltan. Despite these resources, its people have suffered greatly amid the country’s economic decline. Ninety-five percent of the nation now lives in poverty, according to the Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Caracas.In Bolívar, families line up daily outside food kitchens, and children die regularly of treatable and preventable conditions — malaria, hydrocephalus, malnutrition — because their parents cannot afford medication.A couple making a pot of soup that will feed over a dozen children in their community in the state of Bolivar.Roxana Sánchez, 20, with her son, Anthony, 7 months, who a doctor in Bolivar diagnosed with severe malnutrition, with the boy weighing little more than his birthweight.In interviews in six municipalities across the state, many people said that an influx of dollars that began two years ago, after Mr. Maduro’s decision to relax economic regulations that had once defined his government, had percolated little beyond the richest families.Mr. De Grazia is the son of Italian immigrants who started a string of bakeries in Bolívar in the 1950s. The original shop, Panadería Central, is still open across the street from the home where Mr. De Grazia lives with his mother, who runs the bakery.He entered politics at 14, and eventually became a vocal critic of the governments of Hugo Chávez and his successor, Mr. Maduro, who held themselves up as champions of a socialist revolution.Mr. De Grazia’s career has often focused on workers’ rights and corruption in the mining industry. He was a congressman for a decade, and said that he had been beaten up at least four times in the National Assembly. In the last instance, the results of which were caught on camera in 2017, men wearing ski masks left him bleeding on the legislature’s patio.In 2019, he supported a decision by the head of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, to declare himself interim president, a move backed by the United States and dozens of other countries.Afterward, Mr. Maduro’s government issued capture orders for Mr. De Grazia and many other opposition figures, forcing him to flee. He went first to the Italian Embassy, where he lived for seven months, and then to Italy, where he worked in a bakery run by one of his seven children.It was around that time that his wife issued an ultimatum: Leave politics or we split. They split. “She could no longer take that life,” he said. “This is part of the price.”Supporters of Mr. De Grazia in El Palmar, Venezuela.A boy resting on his grandmother’s shoulders during an assembly in support of Mr. De Grazia in Upata, Venezuela.But in Italy, Mr. De Grazia became increasingly convinced that the opposition coalition he once backed had no plan to move beyond a stalemate. He said that electoral abstention had left the coalition disconnected from voters and almost weaponless in the fight for fairer election conditions in 2024.In February, he announced that he would participate in this year’s vote. He left the coalition, and was booted from the party he joined at 14, called Causa R. In April he declared his candidacy for governor.Several months later, much of the coalition that had rejected him declared that they, too, would participate in the vote. Among the candidates running this year is David Uzcátegui, of Miranda State, who called abstention “an error.”“The vote is an instrument you can fight with,” he said.Mr. De Grazia and many other opposition candidates have limited chances of winning. In a report ahead of the vote, the Venezuelan Electoral Observatory said that while the government had allowed a broader spectrum of participation in this election than in past years, it continued to “restrict full freedom to exercise suffrage” in myriad ways, among them the illegal use of public funds to campaign for the ruling party.Hundreds of political prisoners remain locked up, while many voters fear they will lose benefits if they don’t cast a ballot in favor of Maduro-backed candidates.Takeaways From the 2021 ElectionsCard 1 of 5A G.O.P. pathway in Virginia. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuela Opposition Parties Will Take Part in November Elections

      by

      The opposition parties grouped in the so-called Unitary Platform and led by Juan Guaidó announced a reversal of their stance of boycotting recent votes.CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuelan opposition parties announced Tuesday that they will participate in the regional and municipal elections scheduled for November, reversing their previous stance of boycotting recent votes.The announcement came days before the opposition and the government of President Nicolás Maduro are expected to meet in Mexico City to continue negotiations on finding a common path out of Venezuela’s political standoff. Both sides agreed to discuss electoral matters as part of the dialogue, which officially began earlier this month.The regional and municipal elections are scheduled for Nov. 21.The opposition parties grouped in the so-called Unitary Platform and led by Juan Guaidó boycotted previous elections, including the re-election of Mr. Maduro as president in May 2018, arguing that Venezuela lacked the conditions for free and just contests.The group decided to participate in the upcoming elections after a “difficult internal deliberation,” motivated by the serious challenges facing the country and the “urgency to find permanent solutions,” according to a statement issued by the group.The decision to enter the elections was agreed to by various parties, including Voluntad Popular, of which Mr. Guaidó is a member.Millions of Venezuelans live in poverty amid low wages and high food prices resulting from the world’s worst inflation rate. The food assistance agency of the United Nations has estimated that one of every three Venezuelans is struggling to consume enough daily calories.The country’s political, social and economic crises, attributed to plummeting oil prices and two decades of government mismanagement, have continued to deepen with the pandemic.“We know that these elections will not be fair, conventional elections; the dictatorship has imposed serious obstacles that put the expression of change of the Venezuelan people at risk; however, we understand that it will be a useful field of struggle” toward future presidential and legislative elections, the group’s statement said.Following the announcement, Mr. Maduro in televised remarks said that the “popular sovereignty has been reimposed.”“I’m going to sit in my armchair, with the TV on and my popcorn, to see Juan Guaidó voting on Nov. 21,” Mr. Maduro said. “And there, I will applaud because we managed to include him in democracy again.” More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Venezuela: el largo retorno a la negociación

      by

      Con la designación de nuevas autoridades electorales, Venezuela inicia, otra vez, la posibilidad de una negociación para salir de la crisis.Los planes opositores —desde la imposición de un gobierno interino hasta una supuesta implosión dentro del sector militar, pasando por la fantasía de una invasión desde Estados Unidos comandada por Donald Trump— fracasaron rotundamente. Y las maniobras del chavismo por conseguir alguna mínima legitimidad internacional y por lograr eliminar las sanciones internacionales al régimen no han tenido ningún éxito. Ambos bandos, nuevamente, están obligados a regresar a lo que detestan: reconocerse y tratar de llegar a un acuerdo.Las dudas, entonces, vuelven a dar vueltas en el aire: ¿Es posible, acaso, confiar en el chavismo, que ha desarrollado un modelo autoritario y ha demostrado que solo usa la negociación para ganar tiempo y buscar legitimidad? ¿Es posible confiar en una oposición dividida, con planes muy diversos, que ya ha demostrado que no es capaz de negociar ni siquiera consigo misma? En ambos casos, la respuesta es no.Quizás ninguno de los dos lados entiende algo indispensable: sobre la mesa de negociación no están las intenciones. La confianza no se debe poner en lo que piensa o en lo que desea cada bando sino en los acuerdos concretos que se establezcan para mejorar, aunque sea poco, las condiciones de los venezolanos; y en los procedimientos y en las garantías que haya para que estos acuerdos se cumplan. No es lo ideal. Es lo posible.Una de las consecuencias más peligrosas y nefastas de la polarización política es el purismo moral: el proceso que sacraliza la propia opción política convirtiendo cualquier postura diferente en una suerte de pecado ético, de enfermedad social. Tanto el chavismo como la oposición hablan desde el “lado correcto de la historia”, se proclaman y declaran como estandartes de verdades inamovibles, como destinos religiosos. Desde estas perspectivas, obviamente, cualquier tipo de acuerdo con un adversario solo es una forma de traición.Pensar que la única negociación posible implica la salida de Nicolás Maduro de la presidencia y la renuncia del chavismo a todas sus cuotas de poder es tan ingenuo e irreal como, del otro lado, proponer como condiciones para la negociación el levantamiento inmediato de las sanciones sobre Venezuela y el reconocimiento internacional de los poderes ilegalmente constituidos. Hay que comenzar por cambiar el punto de partida. “Todavía ninguna de las partes quiere terminar de aceptar que la negociación no es una opción sino que es la única opción verdadera”, ha dicho el experto en políticas públicas Michael Penfold.La tragedia del país en tan enorme como compleja: abarca una crisis política que mantiene dos gobiernos paralelos, dos asambleas y un proyecto en marcha de un parlamento comunal; una debacle económica casi absoluta, con cifras récord de inflación y un aparato productivo destruido. La situación social es alarmante, a nivel de emergencia humanitaria, agravada además por las sanciones y la pandemia. Y a esto habría que sumarle los problemas con el crimen organizado, con el narcotráfico, con la guerrilla colombiana, con la minería ilegal en el Amazonas venezolano…El empleo sistemático de la represión y de la censura estatal, la persecución institucional de cualquier disidencia, el ataque a medios de comunicación y organizaciones no gubernamentales, han permitido al chavismo consolidar una dictadura eficaz, que garantice su permanencia en el poder. Pero sigue siendo gobierno pésimo, corrupto y negligente, incapaz de resolver los problemas del país. El chavismo puede administrar el caos pero no puede conjurarlo ni solucionarlo.Este país inviable forma parte del dilema interno del chavismo y también de cualquier posible negociación. La situación de la gran mayoría de la población, sometida por la pobreza y con el riesgo de la pandemia, es cada vez más crítica. Durante un tiempo, tanto el chavismo como la oposición usaron esta realidad como elemento de presión. Por fin, ahora el primer punto del acuerdo parece estar centrado en la atención a la urgente necesidad de atención médica y alimenticia de los venezolanos. Un programa de vacunación masiva solo debe ser el inicio de un plan conjunto, que reúna a todos los sectores de la sociedad alrededor de esa prioridad.Nada garantiza que estos esfuerzos, sin embargo, signifiquen el inicio del camino hacia la reinstitucionalización o hacia la vuelta a la democracia en el país. Venezuela no parece estar cerca de una transición. Pero ciertamente hay un cambio importante en el escenario político. Aunque el chavismo se encuentre más consolidado internamente en su modelo autoritario, sigue sin poder resolver su problema con la comunidad internacional. Eso lo obliga a negociar.La oposición está en una posición menos ventajosa. Necesita negociar para, entre otras cosas, reinventarse. Y tal vez debería empezar por dar la cara ante la ciudadanía, por ofrecer una disculpa y un argumento que haga más digerible el salto que va del “cese de la usurpación” a la “mesa de negociación”. El largo retorno al verbo negociar supone un cambio profundo en el ánimo colectivo y demanda una explicación.La designación de las nuevas autoridades del Consejo Nacional Electoral, aun teniendo una mayoría chavista, abre la posibilidad de garantizar unas elecciones más equilibradas y transparentes, confiables, con observación internacional; permite retomar el camino de la política y del voto. También vuelve a abrir un viejo dilema: La negociación con el chavismo y la participación de la oposición en un proceso electoral ¿legitiman la dictadura? Sí, probablemente. Pero también permiten conquistar otros espacios, crear y establecer otras relaciones, interactuar de otra manera con la sociedad civil organizada, generar una comunicación distinta y directa con la población. No solo es un tema de estrategia sino de redefinición del proceso, de la acción política. Como dice la politóloga Maryhen Jiménez: “Si la democracia es el destino, la democracia también tiene que ser la ruta hacia ella”.Una mesa de negociación no es una fiesta. Es una reunión forzada, donde además intervienen muchos otros actores, donde existen distintos niveles de interacción y debate. ¿Hasta dónde está dispuesto a ceder y a perder el chavismo? Es muy difícil saberlo. De entrada, de seguro solo intenta eliminar las sanciones sin arriesgar su control autoritario en el país. La oposición y la ciudadanía pueden enfrentar esto negociando y presionando.No hay otra manera de hacer política que la impureza. La única forma de intervenir en la historia es contaminándose con ella. No existe otra alternativa.Alberto Barrera Tyszka (@Barreratyszka) es escritor venezolano. Su libro más reciente es la novela Mujeres que matan. More