Maduro wins elections in Venezuela
The destabilizing strategy of the Latin American Right, the USA, and the media
Nicolás Maduro were re-elected President of Venezuela on July 28, 2024, receiving 51.2% of the vote, defeating the far-right candidate Edmundo González, who received 44.2%. Maduro was the candidate of a coalition of thirteen political organizations known as the Simón Bolívar Great Patriotic Pole as well as the leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. The results were announced shortly after 12:00 a.m. on July 29 by the National Electoral Council when 80% of the votes were counted, which noted that the trend favoring Maduro was irreversible. Eight other candidates—including candidates of the right, center-right, and center-left—received 4.6% of the votes cast. A total of 21,620,705 citizens voted—a voter participation rate of 59%—in more than fifteen thousand voting districts distributed throughout the country. In total, ten presidential candidates, thirty political parties, and 1300 international and national observers participated in the 2024 presidential elections, according to the president of the National Electoral Council.
Maduro is now constitutionally authorized to serve during the presidential term of 2025-2031. He previously won presidential elections in 2013, with 50.61% of the vote; and in 2018, with 78.84%.
Nicolás Maduro was born on November 23, 1962, in Caracas, Venezuela, and he was politically active in the 1980s in the Socialist League. From 1991 to 1998, he worked as a bus driver, and he founded the Caracas Metro Union. During that period, he met and became a fervent supporter of Hugo Chávez, and he became active in the Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement. He was among the new deputies elected in the electoral triumph of the Bolivarian Revolution in 1998. He held various positions in the National Assembly between 2000 and 2006. In 2006, he was named Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in that capacity, he became known in the international arena for his excellent discourses in defense of the Bolivarian Revolution. He was named Vice-President in 2012, and he was publicly named by Chávez to be his successor shortly prior to his death in 2013.
The Bolivarian Revolution under the leadership of Chávez and Maduro has played a leadership role in the process of Latin American union and integration and in the emerging anti-imperialist construction of a multipolar world. See “ALBA-TCP holds summit in Venezuela: The political and spiritual legacy of Hugo Chávez,” April 30, 2024.
§
The soundness of the Venezuelan electoral system
The 2024 presidential elections in Venezuela were observed by international observers, accompanied by thousands of parliamentarians, journalists, and intellectuals from all regions of the world.
The National Lawyers Guild issued a press release that praised the fairness and transparency of the Venezuelan electoral process. The five-member delegation of the National Lawyers Guild visited several polling sites, where they found that the voting machines and the electoral process were functioning properly. They spoke freely with voters, including supporters of both the government and the opposition. They found that voters expressed strong confidence in the electoral system, and they did not observe any problems or obstacles in the casting of ballots. The delegation also shared notes and information with 910 electoral observers from ninety-five countries.
Suzanne Adely, President of the National Lawyers Guild, stated that “the Venezuelan elections today were not only fair and transparent but also represented an example of popular civic participation. Their successful outcome is a triumph for the Venezuelan people, especially considering the level of US interference and attempted sabotage of the democratic process, particularly through sanctions and coercive economic measures aimed at producing ‘regime change’ in Venezuela.”
The fifteen-member delegation of South African election observers issued on July 29 a statement asserting that the voting in Venezuela has been free, fair, and transparent. It stated that the elections went smoothly and were incident-free, which was ensured by the provision of the necessary infrastructure. The South African delegation included the General Secretary of the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Deputy Chairperson of the International Relations Sub Committee of the African National Congress, the General Secretary of the South African Communist Party, the Secretary General of the Traditional Leaders of South Africa, and the Deputy Chairperson of the Abahlali Basemjondolo Women’s League.
Elections in Venezuela are managed by the National Electoral Council, an independent branch of government established by the Bolivarian Revolution. The electoral system is characterized by a high-level of citizen access to voting booths and clear identification of voters, in which voters cast both an electronic vote and a printed paper ballot, enabling cross-checking of the vote count. Such verification of the electoral total is conducted automatically in 54% of the voting locations, which are chosen at random. The voting system in Venezuela previously has been described by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter as “the best in the world.”
However, even though (or because) it is a democratic nation, Venezuela has been targeted by the U.S. power elite, because “the Bolivarian Revolution, first headed by Chávez and then by the current president, broke with the so-called ‘democracy’ that had mortgaged national sovereignty for 40 years,” according to the Cuban journalist Laura Mercedes Giráldez, in a Granma editorial posted from Caracas. She maintains that when the Venezuelan far right and the U.S. empire could not generate unrest in the population, they turned to an attack on the pockets of the people. Venezuela, she informs us, has been the target of more than 900 unilateral coercive measures, such that oil revenues in 2020 were 99% less than they had been in 2012. But Maduro had already presented an Economic Recovery Plan in 2018, resting on four pillars: stimulating national production, increasing tax collection, promoting non-traditional exports, and supporting entrepreneurs. The result has been twelve months of sustained economic growth, making the nation a leader in development in the region, surpassing countries that have not been economically blockaded by the USA.
§
The destabilizing strategy of the Latin American Right, the USA, and the US media
The U.S. plan for the destabilization of the Venezuelan political system came to light two days before the election, when suggestions were put forth of alleged fraud, preparing the terrain for the non-recognition of the results and for violence by fascist gangs, financed by “the Venezuelan-American terrorist mafia from Miami and Spain,” according to Granma journalist Francisco Arias Fernández. The plan included the non-recognition of the electoral results following the announcement of Maduro’s victory, with the complicity of the U.S.-controlled Organization of American States and subservient allies in the region. The far-right leader, María Corina Machado, who benefits from foreign media coverage and foreign financial support, planned to relocate to Argentina, where she was to set up a command post as the coup d’état was unfolding, seeking political-diplomatic support with telephone calls to different countries. The plan anticipated the support of the major media, and Arias Fernández specifically mentions New York Times, CNN, AP, Voice of America (VOA), Euronews, BBC, the German DW and the Spanish newspapers El País and El Mundo
True to the plan, the opposition claimed electoral fraud on July 29. Marina Corina Machado announced that she had in her possession electoral records that showed that González had received 70% of the vote, but she did not release the information she claimed to have. Corina Machado herself was not an opposition candidate, inasmuch as she was barred from candidacy when it was found that her campaign was receiving funds from the U.S. State Department.
In this unsubstantiated claim of electoral fraud, the opposition in Venezuela had the backing of the Western media, as the plan anticipated. The Washington Post, for example, published on July 30 a one-sided article giving credence to the opposition claims of fraud, citing protestors on the streets on July 29. It made no mention of the reports of international observers. Similarly, a New York Times article, “Venezuela’s Election Was Deeply Flawed,” is written with the prevailing Western ethnocentric narrative which assumes that nations seeking true independence are authoritarian, ignoring the historical struggles of said nations against U.S. imperialism and against U.S. control of the natural resources and the economies of their countries.
In contrast, the National Lawyers Guild delegation expressed its total rejection of claims of fraud being put forth by the U.S.-backed opposition, U.S. officials, and the Western media. Similarly, the Venezuelan Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Humanity rejected the claims of fraud, which it views as an effort to undermine the popular will in Venezuela. It issued a statement asserting that “yesterday in Venezuela the presidential elections were held in total normality and with an electoral system shielded against possible fraud. However, the political cadres of the oligarchy, who on several occasions have harassed the people with violence and ignored the results when they lost the elections, are today trying to deploy, once again, violence in a Venezuela that wants peace. Once again they are trying to achieve through a coup d’état what they cannot win through the ballot box.” It further declared, “We call on the peoples and democratic leaders of the world to fully respect the Venezuelan electoral process and the will of its people expressed therein, and to stop the attempts to shed blood by calling for an oligarchic coup d’état that will only bring suffering and loss of sovereignty to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”
The statement issued by the South African delegation of election observers also criticized the allegations of electoral fraud by the Reuters media group, made without being present in Venezuela. It stated that the people of Venezuela have the sovereign right to elect whomever they so wish, without outside interference.
On Monday, July 29, protests expressing dissatisfaction with the results were held. The opposition claimed that they were spontaneous demonstrations by the people in protest of supposed electoral fraud. However, the Venezuelan news outlet Telesur reported that some demonstrators, many with criminal antecedents, had been paid $150. There were reports of violence, including setting fire to hospitals, pharmacies and radio stations, blocking off roads, and derailing buses carrying international election observers.
Telesur reported, with videos provided by on-the-scene reporters, that the streets where the demonstrations were occurring were calm and normal by midnight. Beginning on Tuesday, July 30, crowds began to appear in support of Maduro and the electoral process.
Maduro characterized it as an attempted coup d’état, like the ones that previously had occurred in 2014 and 2017. It is being attempted, Maduro charged, by the same counterrevolutionary, fascist, ultra-right groups as before, led by the United States. But Maduro assured the people that the Constitution and the law will be respected, and fascism, lies, and manipulation will not be allowed to prevail.
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil announced that the Venezuelan government has decided to withdraw its personnel from its diplomatic missions in Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru, Uruguay, Panama, and the Dominican Republic, because of their non-recognition of the election results in Venezuela. These governments—less than a quarter of the states in the region—are “subordinated to Washington and openly committed to the most sordid ideological postulates of international fascism,” the Foreign Minister declared.
On July 30, Tarek William Saab, Attorney General of Venezuela, declared in a press conference that the plan of the Venezuelan opposition—led by Edmundo González and María Corina Machado—was to attain their goals not through the electoral process but through violence. This was made evident, he maintained, by the events of July 29, when one official of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces was killed, and forty-eight were wounded. He declared, “a peaceful and democratic demonstration has nothing to do with the wave of violence unleashed by those who have resorted to burning objects, obstructing public roads, brutally attacking public buildings such as town halls and hospitals, and desecrating statues and monuments sacred to the history of this people.” He noted that such acts are classified as terrorist, and they will not go unpunished.
Vladimir Padrino, General-in-Chief of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, declared that a coup d’état is underway, financed from abroad. An official statement issued by the Ministry of People’s Power for Defense stated that the civilian-military-police sectors will act decisively and in unity to maintain internal order throughout the national territory, within the framework of the Constitution and the laws and with respect for human rights.
The United States and its subservient allies attempted to use the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States for the passing of a resolution urging the Venezuelan electoral authority to recount the votes, but the maneuver did not have sufficient support from the member nations for adoption.
Taking into account the fact that the streets in Venezuelan cities are returning to normal; that the U.S.-driven OAS maneuver failed; and that the issue has fallen from the headlines of the major Western media, it is perhaps the case that the coup—still unfolding—is failing.
§
Further considerations
Maduro has declared, “We have seen this film before.” Indeed so. Claims of electoral fraud to destabilize democratically elected governments have been previously used recently in Venezuela and Bolivia, targeting governments that seek control of their natural resources, petroleum in Venezuela and lithium in Bolivia. In fact, the strategy is an open secret, developed in the unconventional war against nations that seek to promote and defend their true sovereignty.
Interference by the United States in the affairs of Latin America has been the norm for the last 125 years. However, it has unfolded in two stages. In the first stage, developed during the course of the twentieth century, U.S. imperialism was oriented toward maintaining a façade of democracy, using its economic power and ideological distortions. However, the imposition of neoliberal economic policies in the last two decades of the twentieth century had such profoundly negative consequences that it exposed the façade of democracy, and the neoliberal policies also had negative effects on the development of the U.S. national economy. With its economy and prestige in relative decline, the USA in the twenty-first century pursues policies in which the imperialist intention is only thinly disguised, with ideological justifications lacking in credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the peoples of the world as well as the people of the United States. Thus, the United States now pursues a new form of decadent imperialism, characterized by conduct that blatantly violates the international norms and laws that the United States and the Western powers themselves established and imposed, covered up by lies that the political establishment hopes will not be noticed by the people, distracted as they are by attention to domestic superficialities. With the false democratic pretensions of the USA now made visible and its true imperialist intentions revealed, the peoples of the Global South and East are increasingly turning to the building, step-by-step, of an alternative world order characterized by respect for the true sovereignty of all nations and by the attainment of peace and prosperity through mutually beneficial commerce. In this alternative world under construction, China, Russia, and Cuba (led respectively by Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China, Vladimir Putin, and Miguel Díaz-Canel and the Communist Party of Cuba) are playing leadership roles.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.