Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s ruling party coalition won all but one governorship in regional elections on May 25, in a vote marked by low turnout and preconditions for opposition parties’ participation, The New York Times reported. The ruling coalition also won more than 82 percent of the seats in the country’s National Assembly, according to the country’s electoral council. After the elections, Maduro’s government appointed a governor of the Essequibo region, which Guyana administers but Venezuela claims; Guyanese and U.S. officials condemned the act as a violation of international law. How will the results of the May 25 elections affect Maduro’s control of Venezuela’s political institutions? To what extent could the elections change the opposition’s ability to mobilize support? How will Maduro’s appointment of a loyalist governor of ‘Guayana Esequiba’ affect ongoing tensions between Guyana and Venezuela?
Jennie K. Lincoln, senior advisor for Latin America & the Caribbean at the Carter Center: “Venezuela’s electoral exercise on May 25 was far from meeting international standards. After the fraudulent presidential election of July 28, the National Electoral Council (CNE) rewrote the electoral calendar to advance the legislative and gubernatorial elections and required candidates to accept the results of that election in order to participate. The CNE never produced data from the polling stations to defend the Maduro win. Thus, the Edmundo González/María Corina Machado opposition forces called for abstention in the May elections to continue the rejection of the legitimacy of the Maduro government. The CNE alternative math of July 28 continued with a misrepresentation of the participation, as well, reporting 42.5 percent versus 25.63 percent in a true calculation of votes. Two non-government-leaning opposition parties chose to participate with the premise that any win provides an opposition voice. They won three national seats (Henrique Capriles, Stalin González and Luis Emilio Rondón) and 13 regional seats. But the government capture of 23 of 24 governorships and 256 of 285 legislative seats assures continued control of all institutions. Government repression before, during and after the vote will impede any mobilization of the opposition and should face international condemnation. Similarly, the election of officials for territory in neighboring Guyana is another example of the hubris that marks the Maduro government’s disregard for laws and rights.”
Michael Shifter, senior fellow and former president of the Inter-American Dialogue: “Venezuela’s farcical and clumsily managed regional elections are unlikely to have a significant impact on Maduro’s control of the country’s political institutions. Judging by the low turnout, the vote represented a resounding repudiation of Maduro’s brutal rule. That popular support and any trace of legitimacy for the Venezuelan strongman has vanished was evident in the fraudulent July 28 election won by opposition candidate Edmundo González. Unsurprisingly, the regional elections have been followed by a wave of repression, chiefly targeting opposition figures and human rights groups. The regime unleashed a similar crackdown in the wake of the presidential vote 10 months ago. The opposition is divided. A more moderate faction, including two-time presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, participated in the May 25 elections, while the larger bloc, reflected in the leadership of María Corina Machado, decided to boycott the sham vote. Under current conditions, it will be exceedingly difficult for the opposition to get much traction. While anything can happen at any moment in Venezuela, the most likely scenario remains a continuation of the status quo. Maduro appears to still have a tight grip on the armed forces. And while the U.S. decision to revoke Chevron’s license may hurt the Venezuelan economy, it is hard to see how it will achieve its goal and help bring the regime to an end. In Trumpian terms, Maduro still has some ‘cards’ at his disposal: Russia, China and Iran, not to mention the world’s largest oil reserves. Maduro’s endless and reckless provocations on Guyana will keep bilateral tensions high, but will probably not lead to a military conflict.”
Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, director of the department of social inclusion at the Organization of American States: “Popular sovereignty is a fundamental principle of politics that recognizes the authority and legitimacy of a government as deriving from the will and consent of the people. In Venezuela, this principle was powerfully reaffirmed in the last elections not through ballots, but through active abstentionism. On May 25, the ruling party claimed sweeping electoral victories: 22 of 23 governorships and over 82 percent of National Assembly seats. Yet the real headline was the massive abstention. Instead of signaling indifference, it was a deliberate act of civil disobedience. The low voter turnout of the last elections signaled to the ruling class that the electorate rejects the restrictive conditions under which the electoral process took place. More importantly, it conveyed dissatisfaction with the ongoing issues of hyperinflation, high unemployment rates, widespread poverty, and the exodus of nearly 8 million displaced Venezuelans. While one might argue that the results consolidate the ruling class’s legislative and territorial dominance, the outcome in practice reveals a profound discontent among the citizenries. Additionally, the appointment of a de facto governor for the Essequibo region underscores the need to assert control over the disputed territory. While this may be perceived as a strategic or performative action to demonstrate dominance, it risks precipitating a diplomatic crisis that could further undermine the country’s international standing and provoke potential retaliatory measures from Guyana. In this context, and particularly during the transition out of the crisis, the involvement of the international community, including organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS) now under new leadership, will be crucial. Now is the moment for democracies across the Americas to stand together and work collaboratively to ensure a future defined by justice, dignity and peace for all people in Venezuela.”
Riyad Insanally, fellow at the Caribbean Policy Consortium and former ambassador of Guyana to the United States: “Venezuela’s regional elections were conducted by a regime that is already regarded as having lost the national elections of 2024. These elections were accordingly boycotted by the opposition and clearly lacked legitimacy. The vote for Essequibo took place in a micro-district of some 21,000 voters in Venezuela’s Bolívar state, on the Guyanese border, which Caracas created just for the elections. There were no polling stations in Essequibo and no Guyanese voted. That the Venezuelan authorities claim that a governor, six deputies to the National Assembly and seven representatives to a regional legislative assembly have been elected for Essequibo, is not only farcical but also a blatant and illegal attempt at annexation. Essequibo was never settled by Spanish colonists or by Venezuelans and has been internationally recognized as Guyana’s sovereign territory since the 1899 Arbitral Award. Maduro and his regime are compounding their rejection of the rule of international law and the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to rule on the validity of the 1899 award by escalating a campaign of aggression and intimidation aimed at forcing Guyana to make some kind of territorial concession. Maduro is simultaneously denying the opposition its legitimate democratic rights and is trying to distract Venezuelans from their domestic political and economic woes by beating the drum of nationalistic interests. Guyana’s diplomatic efforts, buoyed by its growing stature as a petro-state, have ensured that the weight of international opinion is firmly on its side. But tensions between the two countries will remain. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan opposition needs to continue working to mobilize international support to bring pressure to bear on the regime.”
José Enrique Arrioja, managing editor of Americas Quarterly and senior director of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas: “The regional and legislative elections tightly reinforced Maduro’s grip on the nation’s political framework. His overwhelming control of the National Assembly and regional power now paves the way for a constitutional reform that will fundamentally alter the core of the country’s political principles, thus far. An overhaul of the electoral system, aiming to introduce a ‘Communal Circuit System’ that will replace the current universal and direct voting system, is planned for 2026; in tandem or subsequently, a communal state is likely to follow. Maduro and his inner circle conceived the elections with an additional goal in mind: to marginalize the opposition and complete the obliteration of their role, attempting to suppress the vestiges of social discontent. Before the staged contest, the increasingly fractured opposition lacked not only economic resources and access to dwindling free media but also the real power to convene and mobilize civil society, as María Corina Machado, the most prominent leader, continues to be in hiding. The opposition—facing an even more challenging task and scenario—will need to regroup deeply to chart the next chapter versus a paradigmatically resilient opponent.”
The Latin America Advisor features Q&A from leaders in politics, economics, and finance every business day. It is available to members of the Dialogue’s Corporate Program and others by subscription.