CARACAS. – The Latin American left in its most representative voices Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, from Brazil; Gustavo Petro, from Colombia, and Gabriel Boric, from Chile, have been complaining with different nuances to the Nicolás Maduro regime for the obstacles imposed on free and transparent elections in Venezuela.
And although for many the demands have lacked more forcefulness, or it is thought that they maintain a very low profile, it is also believed that they have made efforts for a possible orderly and non-violent transition.
“I believe that these leaders work behind the scenes at a very low profile, which seems logical because Maduro and his group believe that they can still win this election and they are not going to confirm that they are talking about a transition because it would be admitting defeat,” said the professor of history of the Central University of Venezuela and political analyst, Pedro Benitez, interviewed by DIARIO LAS AMERICAS
But Lula and Petro’s decision not to send electoral observation for July 28 is discouraging and is interpreted by some as a bad sign or as a “strategic retreat” or an attempt to “wash their hands,” as the analyst points out, But the fact that President Lula da Silva asked Maduro for a large presence of international observers in the July presidential elections during a telephone conversation is more than a “behind the scenes” position.
From a desired “democratic” image of Maduro where not even allies come to observe, this official announcement by both leaders, Brazil and Colombia, not to send observers, is as if they had given up in the search for a non-violent solution. , a first reading with which Benítez agrees. But the development of this story remains to be seen.
Liberal democracy
In any case, the historian believes that regardless of the judgment of Petro, Lula and Boric, the three act attached to the institutions for which they were elected. “That is, they have an important appreciation of liberal democracy,” he said.
He considers that “it is obvious to them that Maduro feels great contempt for the liberal democracy that they value. Boric has made criticism in a more open way, Petro a little more hidden. And Lula, as a veteran politician, we can presume that this is also his position.”
Migratory wave
Within his analysis he also mentions the criterion that Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro has become a country that generates problems.
In this context he referred to the unprecedented wave of migration in the region. Never have so many people moved from one country to another in such a short time. According to the figures, 7.7 million Venezuelans have left in the last 10 years, of which 6 million are located in South America, with half of these in Colombia.
There are a million Venezuelans in the Lima Metropolitan Area alone and at least 500,000 in Chile and this causes concern. The north of Brazil has also become the receptacle of this social crisis, he said.
The analyst pointed out that the people who emigrate to these countries are the most disadvantaged Venezuelans who cannot afford a plane ticket or obtain a visa. That is, they have fewer resources and live in more difficult conditions, so they must be cared for.
Likewise, the expert referred to the issue of insecurity where, for example, in Chile there is concern about criminal groups and drug trafficking networks that could be operating in that nation and in different regions in South America.
Crisis social
The expert maintains that “these leaders see that what Maduro’s permanence is going to do is further aggravate the social crisis and, as surveys indicate, a very important percentage of Venezuelans are seriously considering emigrating, if (Maduro) continues in office.” can”.
He explained Benitez that Petro and Lula do not want Chavismo to collapse but, on the contrary, for it to go to the opposition from where it can be recomposed and reorganized, following the example of the Workers’ Party in Brazil, of Kirchnerism in Argentina, among others.
In particular, he considers that Lula da Silva, a very pragmatic politician with a lot of experience, sees that the Venezuelan situation is unsustainable with Maduro in power and would prefer a transition like the one that occurred in Bolivia. And although 2019 and 2020 were very turbulent for that nation, the MAS returned to power in internationally recognized elections with a person other than Evo Morales (Luis Arce). “That is to say, the MAS recomposed itself. It quickly changed its image in a very short time and, bridging the gap because they are different circumstances, these presidents would expect the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to do something similar.” At the end of the day neither Lula nor Petro are enemies of Chavismo, the analyst added.
When asked about whether Chavismo, if it left power, could have new opportunities in the future, he responded that (Chavismo) in 2021, adding votes from its allies, obtained almost 4 million in elections for mayors and governors. “One estimates that this could be their vote in the presidential election, if we take into account that the PSUV loses, but retains that vote.”
In that context “it would continue to be the first party in the country because at the end of the day it is facing a coalition of parties that is the one that is nominating Edmundo González Urrutia. The PSUV is a political organization structured at the national level with very important geographical implementations. Experience shows us that it will not disappear overnight, but that it will continue to be an important political force.”
Without democratic current
He specified that he is not sure that there is a democratic current in Chavismo. “One assumes so. But we don’t know. “We would enter an unprecedented situation in terms of what attitude the Chavista leadership will have in the event that they lose the presidential elections.”
Based on precedents, when Chavismo has lost, it has recognized it, “but then it uses the control it has over the institutions to annul the political result as happened with the 2015 Assembly and previously with governorships and mayoralties. So there can be a transition without violence, but that does not mean that it is orderly, which could be something chaotic or turbulent.”
Finally, he said that if “Maduro remains in power in an election where he has pushed the bar so hard and committed so many abuses, the layer of legitimacy would be almost null. Therefore, we would have the Nicaragua scenario. That is why these leaders would prefer that Maduro lose and that Venezuela enters another stage and not have to carry that burden (somewhat heavy and uncomfortable) that their adversaries in the region always bring up of being linked to or having supported authoritarian governments such as those of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.”
(email protected)
Source: INTERVIEW WITH HISTORIAN AND POLITICAL ANALYST PEDRO BENITEZ
