Venezuela has had a rough start to the year. Prominent human rights defender Rocío San Miguel and members of her family were forcibly disappeared and detained by government authorities. Three members of the party of opposition candidate, María Corina Machado, were also disappeared for almost a month and then presented before a judge without their lawyers. Machado and others are still banned from running for office. And the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was given 72 hours to leave the country after tweeting about San Miguel’s case.
This is a crucial time for Venezuela and the response from both the international community and Venezuelans will be key as civil society rallies to promote democracy and protect those at risk of persecution. It is precisely in challenging moments like these that we must call for reason: It is not the time to burn bridges.
No one is under the illusion that Venezuela is a democracy—not even an imperfect one—.Venezuela is the only country in the hemisphere with an open investigation for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court. Yet after multiple failed negotiation processes, and a long period of diplomatic and economic isolation, last October’s signing of the Barbados Agreement between the Maduro government and the opposition’s Unitary Platform is no small feat. Not only did all actors involved manage to craft a deal that Maduro actually accepted, but they were also able to overcome international fatigue surrounding Venezuela. More importantly, ahead of presidential elections in 2024, the agreement outlines such specific, achievable goals that even the most skeptical actors are backing it.
The dire humanitarian emergency, exodus of almost 8 million people, and long-standing political crisis have led to a shift in Venezuelans’ priorities. I have been to Venezuela twice since December and one thing that strikes me after each visit is the growing tendency to foster spaces of dialogue among actors that would not have spoken to each other 10 years ago. While some key political elites see things through a “we vs. them” lens, ordinary Venezuelans have to interact daily to solve the challenges of living under an authoritarian government, dealing with censorship, lack of access to food, water, electricity, healthcare, and jobs. This reality does not fit into simplistic labels of chavismo, madurismo and the opposition. That is why resolving the political crisis must include everyone.
When speaking about negotiations and reconciliation, accusations of supporting impunity often emerge. Yet other countries that have experienced widespread conflict or human rights abuses such as Colombia, South Africa or Ireland have shown that negotiations and transitions require facing ethical dilemmas in order to ensure that the process is sustainable in the long-term. The pillars of truth, reconciliation, justice and guarantees of non-repetition are not mutually exclusive. Despite the lack of guarantee of a change in power in the upcoming elections, it is not too early to start thinking about what a transition would look like in Venezuela. It is precisely in this dark hour that we must take a step back and look for cracks of light.
The meeting between the government and the opposition Unitary Platform facilitated by Norway in February shows that Maduro still wants a seat at the table, and that the opposition is still betting on dialogue. It was clear from the start that this electoral year would be difficult. We know that every time an authoritarian government feels threatened, it doubles down on repression. Has Maduro given up on seeking international recognition and sanctions relief? If so, why hasn’t he abandoned the negotiation table altogether?
Last year’s primary elections and Machado’s overwhelming win with 92 per cent of the vote stemmed in large part from the favorable climate created by dialogue efforts. That is why, despite the illegal and arbitrary disqualification weighing on her and the persecution against her team, it is in the opposition’s interest to protect—not burn—bridges. With strong support from the Venezuelan people, Machado should continue to insist on her political right to participate in elections, while at the same time understanding that her purpose is bigger than one person or party. Building consensus with other political actors so the opposition can be united in its commitment to elections is key. The game is neither fair nor respectful of the law, but playing strategically can lead to change in the long run.
Without negotiations and elections, what is the alternative? Increased political violence will only lead to additional repression and human rights violations. Venezuela needs to find a way to transform political conflict in order to start rebuilding its institutions. As such, other countries in the Americas and Europe should strengthen the formal negotiation process, look for incentives and creative solutions, and accompany Venezuelans in their push for democracy. For its part, the United States must empower, not undermine, the opposition’s role in the negotiation process. It is up to Venezuelans to decide their fate with the international community’s support. In this crucial moment, negotiations might be the only hope.
