UPDATE
Daily monitoring
This report examines the responses of governments worldwide during the first seven days following the Venezuelan elections of 2013, 2018, and 2024. The map below provides a daily update on the positions of countries concerning Nicolás Maduro’s controversial victory in July 2024. On August 4, the European Union, consisting of 27 member countries, revised its stance to not recognize the results, citing a lack of “evidence to support it.” For a comparison of the responses to the previous three elections one week after their outcomes, continue reading.
This Sunday marks the one-week anniversary of the Chavistas in Venezuela securing their hold on power for another six years. Nicolás Maduro, who has been president since 2013 and leads the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), claims that his victory with 51.2% of the votes was democratic, despite the National Electoral Council (CNE)—an entity controlled by the ruling party—not having made the minutes that led to this result transparent. Furthermore, this result significantly deviates from the exit polls.
READ ALSO: “There is no doubt that Venezuela has become a Jurassic dictatorship” | INTERVIEW
As of now, governments from 12 countries have distanced themselves from Maduro, with some explicitly labeling his re-election as fraudulent. Another 36 countries have also requested the publication of documented evidence regarding the vote count. Even the regime’s traditional allies, including Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and 14 other states—with most lacking credible democratic credentials—have congratulated Maduro and emphasized, without providing any evidence, the supposed fairness of the elections.
According to the CNE, the candidate Edmundo Gonzalez lost with 44.2% of the votes, a claim rejected by his political group, the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD). The MUD, led by former deputy Maria Corina Machado, asserts that it has gathered information from a significant portion of official records, indicating that González Urrutia would have received 67% of the vote. This alleged difference of 37 points compared to Maduro has caused concern, especially since Maduro recently stated that both opposition politicians—currently in hiding—should be imprisoned.
The world’s response: Countries’ stance on Nicolás Maduro’s victories 7 days after the elections
The number of countries recognizing Maduro as president has increased since the last election. However, the number of countries opting for neutrality—calling for transparency in the vote count—has also grown.
Peru was among the first to highlight electoral fraud. Last Tuesday, the government severed diplomatic relations with Venezuela. From the Torre Tagle, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry’s headquarters, it was announced that Venezuelan officials had been expelled from the country after the Maduro government expelled the national representation in Caracas days earlier.
Nevertheless, the decision of a dozen Latin American nations and the United States to not recognize Maduro’s re-election lacked sufficient influence in the Organization of American States (OAS), which on Wednesday dismissed the majority request from the Venezuelan CNE to publish all electoral records. Colombia and Brazil abstained from formally supporting the request at the organization, although their presidents had publicly expressed the necessity for revealing documentation to dispel doubts.
–Tangled path–
In a conversation with The Trade, Peruvian internationalist and PUCP professor Farid Kahhat expressed disappointment that the OAS has not made a more substantial effort to strengthen its stance against the Maduro dictatorship. He explained that while it would be favorable for the majority of member states to demand transparency, the impact of such demands would likely be minimal. He warned that the OAS lacks sufficient power to effectively confront Chavismo.
“It is unfortunate that within the OAS, member states cannot even agree on basic issues. However, the truth is that a declaration would not yield any consequences either. If any sanctions take place, they will be at the individual state level. The United States, for instance, has already imposed severe sanctions on the Venezuelan economy, which have not significantly changed the regime’s behavior. I believe Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico realize their lukewarm stance [in not acknowledging the fraud]. Yet, if negotiations with Venezuela become necessary, it will be precisely those countries that have maintained relations that will be able to pursue them.” said Kahhat.
Similarly, Diana Luna, a Mexican internationalist and advisor on Latin American affairs for the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in Berlin, noted that Latin America lacks a unified bloc to present alternative solutions to the Venezuelan dictatorship and its repeated electoral frauds.
“Unfortunately, Latin America has not had a unified voice in the struggle for electoral democracy in Venezuela. Each country’s position is somewhat dependent on its relationship with the Maduro regime, as seen with Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. I believe we’ve missed the opportunity to demand that the records be presented. We have waited several days for this, which allows the regime more time to manipulate the votes directly. I think Peru’s decision has been courageous, driven by strong internal factors, such as the high number of Venezuelan migrants it has received.” Luna stated.
Few options
Both specialists consulted by The Trade concur that there are limited democratic transition solutions that the international community can promote. In 2017, a dozen states, including Peru, formed the Lima Group, which aimed to denounce Venezuelan autocracy and support sanctions against the regime. This group emerged from the belief that Venezuela should adhere to the Inter-American Democratic Charter of the OAS, which serves as a pressure instrument when a democratic breakdown is recognized in a member state.
In 2019, the Lima Group endorsed deputy Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president after Maduro’s first re-election the previous year also exhibited signs of fraud. In retaliation, Chavismo withdrew Venezuela from the OAS. In the following years, the Lima Group weakened due to practical difficulties and ideological shifts from changes in administration.
“It’s important to note that the Lima Group was formed precisely because there was not the required two-thirds majority in the OAS to apply the Inter-American Democratic Charter to Venezuela. Therefore, the Lima Group arose out of a weakness and sought an intermediate position that distanced itself from the policies of [Donald] Trump, who even hinted at using force against Venezuela, and other governments that acknowledged the fraud of 2018. This dynamic shifted when presidents like Bolsonaro, aligned with the United States, and others like López Obrador, who disagreed with the Lima Group’s existence, came to power,” Kahhat recounted.
For Kahhat, it is crucial that countries find points of coordination to establish a united front in the face of a dictatorial crisis like that of Venezuela. However, he emphasizes that this is challenging due to the hesitance of some countries to take a stand. He also highlights the understandable support that Venezuela receives from Russia, China, and Latin American countries like Nicaragua, as these nations seek to forge alliances against the United States.
“China has never held a democratic election, and Nicaragua’s elections have been even more fraudulent than those in Venezuela. This issue goes beyond Venezuela; it reflects the increasingly confrontational relationship between Western powers and countries like Russia and China. Thus, the criteria for alignment are not grounded in ideology. Contrary to popular belief, Putin is not left-wing; I would categorize him as radically right-wing. Nonetheless, what unifies them is their opposition to U.S. policies and their allies worldwide. Therefore, this alignment was expected. For them, the priority is not the democratic order, but the preservation of a regime that is an ally.” he stated.
Internationalist Diana Luna also remarked that there are limited alternatives to confront Maduro and that the most apparent ones—such as economic sanctions—risk failing to bring about significant changes.
“I believe we will witness a regime that becomes increasingly isolated from the international community, with potential new efforts by the United States or the European Union to impose sanctions on Venezuela. However, I fear that some countries aim to create an alternative multilateral system, which diminishes the impact of certain sanctions. We have seen this in the case of Russia, which has found ways to mitigate the effects of the sanctions over time. In the case of Venezuela, this is somewhat more complicated due to its size and economy,” she said.
Since Maduro’s improbable electoral victory, both Venezuela and various regions around the world have been centers of protests against the dictatorship. In Caracas, the government has responded with repression, and human rights organizations have reported deaths and illegal arrests.
More reports from ECData, El Comercio’s Data Journalism Unit:
UPDATE
Daily monitoring
While this report analyzes the reactions of the world’s governments in the first 7 days following the Venezuelan elections of 2013, 2018, and 2024, the map below shows the daily updates of the countries’ positions regarding the questioned victory of Nicolás Maduro in July 2024. On August 4, the European Union, made up of 27 countries, modified its position to not recognize the result because it did not have “evidence to support it.” To see the comparison of the last three processes one week after the results, continue reading.
This Sunday marks one week since the Chavistas in Venezuela secured their permanence in government for another six years. Nicolás Maduro, president of that country since 2013 and leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), claims that his 51.2% victory was democratic despite the fact that the National Electoral Council (CNE)—an entity controlled by the ruling party—has not yet made transparent the minutes that gave him that result. A result, moreover, that is far from the exit polls.
READ ALSO:
“There is no doubt that Venezuela has become a Jurassic dictatorship” | INTERVIEW
To date, the governments of 12 countries have turned their backs on Maduro, some of them directly calling his re-election fraudulent. Another 36 countries, on the other hand, have requested that the documented evidence of the vote count be published. The regime’s usual allies have also taken a stand: Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and 14 other states—almost all of them with dubious democratic credentials—have congratulated Hugo Chávez’s successor and have highlighted, without any evidence to support it, the fairness of the elections.
According to the CNE, the candidate Edmundo Gonzalez lost with 44.2% of the votes, a premise rejected by his political group Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD). The MUD, whose leader is the former deputy Maria Corina Machado, claims to have collected information from a large part of the official records, where González Urrutia would have obtained 67% of the vote. This supposed difference would be 37 points compared to Maduro, who a few days ago declared that both opposition politicians—who are currently living in hiding—should be imprisoned.
The World’s Response: Countries’ Stance on Nicolás Maduro’s Victories 7 Days After the Elections
The number of countries that recognized Maduro as president this year has increased since the previous election. However, the number of countries that preferred not to take an explicit position and instead called for the vote count to be transparent has also grown.
Peru has been one of the first countries to point out electoral fraud. Last Tuesday, the government cut diplomatic ties with Venezuela. From Torre Tagle, the headquarters of the Peruvian Foreign Ministry, it was reported that Venezuelan officials had been expelled from the country, after days earlier, the Maduro government had done the same with the national representation in Caracas.
But the position of not recognizing Maduro’s reelection—shared by a dozen Latin American nations and the United States—did not have enough weight in the face of the Organization of American States (OAS) which on Wednesday rejected the request from the Venezuelan CNE to publish all the electoral records. Colombia and Brazil abstained from formally supporting this request before the organization, although their presidents had spoken out publicly and on social media about the need to reveal the documentation to put an end to the questions.
–Tangled Path–
In dialogue with The Trade, the Peruvian internationalist and PUCP professor, Farid Kahhat, regretted that the OAS has not made the minimum effort to toughen its stance against the Maduro dictatorship. However, he explained that, although it was desirable for the majority of the organization’s member states to demand transparency, the effects that this could have had are few. In fact, he warned that, in general, the OAS does not have enough power to surround Chavismo.
“It is sad that in the OAS not even [the member states] may not agree on the most basic things, but the truth is that a pronouncement would not have had any consequences either. If any kind of sanction is possible, it will be at the level of individual states. But the United States, for example, has already applied severe sanctions against the Venezuelan economy that have not had any major results in terms of changing the behavior of the regime. I believe that Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico are aware of their lukewarmness. [for not considering that there was fraud] But if at some point it is necessary to negotiate with Venezuela, it will be precisely those countries that have not broken relations that will be able to do so.” said Kahhat.
Along the same lines, Diana Luna, a Mexican internationalist and advisor on Latin American affairs for the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in Berlin, commented that Latin America does not have a solid block to present alternative solutions to the Venezuelan dictatorship and its successive electoral frauds.
“Unfortunately, Latin America has not had a unanimous voice in the fight for electoral democracy in Venezuela. The position of each country depends, to a certain extent, on the relationship it has with the Maduro regime, as is the case with Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. I believe that the time has passed to demand that the minutes be shown. We have been waiting for several days for this to happen, and that is the time that the regime is allowed to manipulate the votes in a more direct way. I believe that Peru’s decision has been a brave one, which has strong internal factors that justify it, such as the large number of Venezuelan migrants it has received.” Luna said.
Few Options
Both specialists consulted by The Trade agree that there are few democratic transition solutions that can be promoted by the international community. In 2017, a dozen states, including Peru, formed the Lima Group. The bloc—later joined by some other nations—sought to condemn Venezuelan autocracy and support sanctions against the regime. The group was based on the idea that Venezuela should be subject to the same democratic regime under the Inter-American Democratic Charter of the OAS, an instrument of pressure when a democratic and constitutional breakdown is perceived in a member state.
In 2019, the Lima Group recognized then-deputy Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president, after Maduro’s first re-election the previous year also had traces of fraud. In response, Chavismo withdrew the country from the OAS. In subsequent years, the Lima Group declined due to practical issues and ideological shifts inherent to changes in administration.
“It should be said that the Lima Group emerged precisely because there was not the two-thirds majority required in the OAS to apply the Inter-American Democratic Charter to Venezuela. So, the Lima Group was the product of a weakness and sought to have an intermediate position because it distanced itself from the policies of [Donald] Trump, who even threatened to use force against Venezuela, and other governments that recognized the fraud of 2018. But this changes when presidents like Bolsonaro, who was aligned with the United States, and presidents like López Obrador, who never agreed with the existence of the Lima Group, emerge. recalled Farid Kahhat.
To Kahhat, it is essential that, in the face of a dictatorial crisis like the one in Venezuela, countries find points of coordination to align themselves towards a solid position. However, he stresses that this is difficult to achieve because some countries are more cautious in taking a position. At the same time, he emphasizes that the support that Venezuela receives from Russia, China, or Latin American countries like Nicaragua is understandable given the type of alliance that these countries intend to promote against the United States.
“China has never organized a democratic election, and the elections in Nicaragua have been even more fraudulent than those in Venezuela. There is an issue that already transcends Venezuela, which is the fact that the Western powers have an increasingly confrontational relationship with Russia and China fundamentally, and therefore the criteria for alignment are not ideological. Putin, contrary to popular belief, is not left-wing; I would say he is radically right-wing. But, apart from that, what unites them is their opposition to the policies of the United States and its allies in the world. So, that was to be expected. For them, what is at stake is not the democratic order but the perpetuation of a regime that is their ally.” he said.
The internationalist Diana Luna also stated that there are limited alternatives to confront Maduro and that the most obvious ones—such as economic sanctions—run the risk of not generating major changes.
“I think we are going to see a regime that is more isolated from the international community, and there may be new attempts by the United States or the European Union to impose sanctions on Venezuela. However, I see a great danger that countries have the aim of creating an alternative multilateral system, and this makes certain sanctions have less impact. We have seen this in the case of Russia, which over time found ways to divert the effect of the sanctions. In the case of Venezuela, this is a little more difficult due to its size and economy,” Luna commented.
Since Maduro’s unlikely victory at the polls, Venezuela and various parts of the world have been the focus of mobilizations against the dictatorship. In Caracas, the government has responded with repression, and human rights organizations have confirmed deaths and illegal arrests.
