In the midst of uncertainty surrounding the possibility of elections in Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro, who has been in power since 2013, has made efforts to demonstrate that the country upholds a democratic system. However, his recent statements have sparked controversy and unease within the political system, resonating within the international political community. In one of his recent speeches, he declared that if the opposition were to win the elections, the country would face a “bloodbath” and a civil war. These remarks, widely circulated by the international press, raised doubts about the integrity of the electoral process and heightened tensions with one of his key political allies, Brazilian President Lula da Silva.
Maduro’s comments followed a discrepancy in polling results regarding voter intentions, even though opposition candidate Edmund González is leading his counterpart in most surveys by a significant margin. Maduro insists that these results are false and merely represent a political maneuver by the opposition to turn Venezuela into a “Milei Argentina.” This discrepancy in polling data prompts us to consider the quality and integrity of the research and public opinion institutions in Venezuela, which have often overestimated opposition support in previous elections. Such variations generate a lack of confidence in polling processes, complicate predictions about election outcomes, and create the perception that polls are being used as biased electoral tools to facilitate electoral fraud.
It is crucial to remember the importance of maintaining democratic systems through organized, accessible, and transparent elections as a cornerstone of political stability and good relations among regional states. While some regional leaders have specific political and ideological alliances, supporting anti-democratic rhetoric and actions can undermine government trust and increase the risk of political and economic sanctions from the international community.
In light of this scenario and the calls for a stance regarding Maduro’s statements, President Lula da Silva expressed his concerns, affirming that electoral outcomes must always be respected in a democratic system. Additionally, Brazil announced its intention to send observers to ensure transparency in the electoral process on July 28 in Venezuela, appointing the Special Advisor for Foreign Policy, Celso Amorim, to oversee election transparency and facilitate dialogues between the government and the opposition.
Lula’s remarks had an immediate impact, as Maduro responded by suggesting that “Da Silva should drink chamomile tea to calm his nerves,” followed by questioning the transparency of the Brazilian electoral system, claiming that electronic voting machines are un-auditable. This exchange further escalated tensions between the two leaders. Furthermore, Maduro’s statements prompted an immediate response from Brazil’s Supreme Electoral Court President, Minister Carmen Lucia, who decided not to send technicians to observe the presidential elections in Venezuela—a decision that could undermine the transparency of the electoral process, highlighting the need for more distinguished international oversight to ensure the legitimacy of electoral outcomes and the respect for democratic rights.
It is worth noting that Brazil has been the primary international mediator for the political and economic reintegration of Venezuela into the global system, seeking peaceful and viable solutions to the Venezuelan political crisis. Resolving this political crisis would positively impact political and economic stability in Latin America.
Support for democratic transformation in Venezuela has direct implications for Brazil and the region. Political instability in Venezuela could lead to an increased flow of migration to Brazil and other neighboring countries, thereby putting additional pressure on their social and economic resources and necessitating a reassessment of political strategies in the context of regional security.
Finally, what can we highlight from this political scenario? Firstly, there is political pressure from South American countries on Maduro to adhere to democratic principles, respect human rights, and contribute to the return of Venezuelan migrants to their homeland. Overcoming the economic crisis in Venezuela is also essential for regional stability. This would help alleviate the migration crisis caused by the significant displacement of Venezuelans in recent years, as many countries in the region lack adequate political, economic, and social structures to accommodate the high influx of migrants, which currently exceeds six million people.
Secondly, the continuation of Maduro’s regime or the rise of a new opposition government could lead to different trajectories. A new government could mean a resumption of broader international relations, with a tendency for the country to reorganize its diplomatic negotiations with the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Conversely, Maduro’s continued rule may perpetuate isolation and the continuation of sanctions. It is crucial to emphasize that non-transparent elections increase distrust in results, undermining the democratic system, particularly when power exchanges are absent. Therefore, a peaceful transfer of power in the country could facilitate institutional balance, enhance the credibility of democracy, and strengthen the independence of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
In conclusion, the tensions between Brazil and Venezuela are not new. Although Brazil recognizes the importance of reintegrating Venezuela into the regional and international system, questions about Maduro’s political actions—particularly the exclusion of two opposition candidates from the electoral race, interference in the conflict with Guyana, and insistence on adhering to the Barbados Agreement—reflect Maduro’s determination to persist in his path, even if it leads to diplomatic challenges. These tensions reveal the complexity of the political situation in Venezuela and its ramifications for the region, exacerbating disputes between Venezuela and Brazil and undermining the potential for dialogue in favor of any international recognition.
