The election process in Venezuela is not an easy one to unravel from a distance. We know, on the one hand, that the Maduro regime has become increasingly repressive and that the repression has hit organisations of the working class hard. And we know that the right-wing opposition that is claiming victory has no interest in democracy and only wants to benefit from Venezuelan oil and US patronage.

Nicolás Maduro has claimed victory in the election but has refused to publish the records that might prove that victory. The opposition has produced what they claim are records, but they are, of course, disputed. 

And underneath it all, a victory for the opposition has been an objective of the US ever since Higo Chavez came to power and would be fundamentally in American interests. 

This is the context for this article on Venezuela. The article emphasises the danger of a far-right victory while expressing the need for the election results to be published. 

Venezuela faces significant challenges due to political unrest. Photo: Brasil de Fato/Lorenzo Santiago

Dear reader, the mainstream media claims that there is a dictatorship in Venezuela. They say that Maduro rigged the election, that the opposition has abided by the rules, and that the US is concerned about democracy in the country. Many people believe this version of the story. But is it really the case?

We are inviting you to understand what is happening in Venezuela from a different perspective, outside the dominant narrative. We argue that the Venezuelan far right, with US support, is seeking to violently seize power, as it has attempted several times in the recent past. The main objective is to gain control of the world’s largest oil reserves.

A bit of history to understand the present

Hugo Chávez’s election as President in 1998 opened a new chapter in Venezuela’s history. Chávez led a left-wing nationalist government with intense popular participation. Supported by mass mobilization, he nationalized oil, as well as companies owned by the local oligarchy, and instituted social programmes that transferred part of the oil revenue to the poorest people, among other measures which had a significant impact. As a result, he gained significant popularity.

Chavismo’s shift to the left was met with fierce hostility from the local bourgeoisie and the US. Neither US imperialism nor the Venezuelan oligarchy accepted the loss of control over oil. In 2002, an attempt to overthrow Hugo Chávez through a classic business and military coup was defeated by monumental popular mobilization. Since then, the traditional bourgeoisie and the US have continued to try to remove Chavismo from power, usually employing violent methods.

The revolutionary process in Venezuela did not reach the point of a complete break with capitalism, as it did in Cuba in 1961. Nevertheless, it achieved a valuable gain: national independence from the US, the dominant imperialist power. The effect of the revolutionary gain in sovereignty allowed the country to make significant social and democratic advances. There were limits and problems under Chávez’s government, such as strong economic dependence on oil extraction.  But it is fair to acknowledge that Venezuela advanced and achieved greater sovereignty and social development.

After Hugo Chávez’s premature death, Nicolás Maduro became President in 2013, having legitimately won the elections. A few years later, Venezuela suffered a severe economic crisis. The rapid drop in international oil prices caused the country’s GDP to collapse. This combined with a renewed offensive from the US, in collusion with the old Venezuelan elite, to try to remove Chavismo from power.

Under Trump’s command, US imperialism imposed a severe economic blockade, with hundreds of sanctions, as well as the seizure of Venezuela’s reserves abroad—an action maintained by Biden, who only recently eased some of the sanctions. The country was largely prevented from exporting its main product abroad. The inevitable result of the blockade was that Venezuela sank into a terrible social crisis, leading to the emigration of more than 7 million people since 2016. 

Certainly, there were mistakes by Maduro’s government, but the main responsibility for the mass hunger that plagued the country lies with the US, which imposed a criminal blockade.

At the same time that Trump tightened the e-blockade, the far-right internal opposition carried out numerous violent actions. Aiming for power, they adopted civil war methods, such as mobilizing armed militias. There was even a self-proclaimed president without any legitimacy, Juan Guaidó. It is worth noting, dear reader, that the current leader of the Venezuelan opposition, María Corina Machado, who is prominent in the Brazilian media, has long been one of the most radical leaders of the far-right coup movement.

Will the far right ensure democracy?

Our criticism arises from the fact that there has been repression and curtailment of freedoms against leftist sectors, social movements, and trade unions. We are also critical of the economic policy that is exacerbating inequalities, with some privileged layers, such as the military top brass and some businessmen, getting richer, while broad sectors of the working class face undeniable hardships, with squeezed salaries.

It seems to us a mistake to analyze the democratic question outside of the concrete historical context: the reality of a country economically blockaded by the US and internally hit by a far-right opposition. Corina Machado and Edmundo Gonzáles, the latter of whom ran against Maduro in the most recent election, do not represent a democratic alternative. On the contrary, they are directly associated with violent coup attempts and are subject to American interests to the extent that they advocate for the complete privatization of the state oil company, PDVSA.

We consider, dear reader, that the Maduro government has indeed taken an authoritarian course in recent years. But this does not apply to the repression of the coup opposition, which is fully justified—if we compare it with the Brazilian case, would it be undemocratic to decree the ineligibility and imprisonment of Bolsonaro for attempting a coup? 

However, correct criticisms of Maduro must not make us lose sight of the fundamental issue. What is at stake in Venezuela right now is not the authoritarianism of the current regime but the danger that the far-right might seize power violently, destroying national sovereignty and the remaining democratic freedoms, and handing over the oil and other natural resources of the country to the Americans. This would be disastrous, not only for the Venezuelan people but also for Latin America as a whole. The triumph of Corina Machado’s far right would strengthen Milei in Argentina, Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Kast in Chile, among other far-right leaders on the continent. Trump, for instance, is an enthusiast of Maduro’s downfall at the hands of the opposition.

On records and coups

Venezuela’s electoral body, the CNE, stated that Maduro won the elections. The opposition does not accept the result, alleging fraud. The records presented by Corina, which supposedly support the accusation, are notably suspect—their authenticity cannot be verified. On the other hand, the Venezuelan state, on the basis that there was a hacker attack on the transmission of electoral data, has not yet presented detailed counts or the official records.

We believe it is correct to acknowledge Maduro’s electoral victory, which was proclaimed by the country’s institution with the legal authority to do so. Otherwise, it would be to trust the accusations of a far-right leader, María Corina Machado. On the other hand, we consider it necessary to publish the official records to confer proper legitimacy to the result. It should be in Maduro’s interest, above all, to prove in detail his electoral victory.

However, we judge that the central issue is not the official records or those of the opposition. The main danger is the outbreak of a civil war in Venezuela led by the far right. Even before the highest court in Venezuela ruled on the electoral count, Edmundo González proclaimed himself president. And Corina Machado called the armed forces to disobedience and insurrection, in addition to encouraging violent actions in the streets. Once again, they choose the path of the open coup.

Finally, dear reader, in our opinion, what should guide the Left’s stance on Venezuela is the defense of threatened national sovereignty and opposition to the coup attempts by the old oligarchy. The fall of Maduro at the hands of Corina Machado is only in the interests of the far right and US imperialism. The far right’s takeover would open a bloody chapter in Venezuela with unpredictable consequences. They would include everything except democracy. 

This editorial was first published in Portuguese on the website of the Leftist Brazilian group Resistencia.