Venezuela is not Myanmar, Yet
Venezuela heads into uncharted territory as an organized, unified opposition defies an entrenched and increasingly irrational dictatorship.
“The junta is a criminal enterprise.”
“They are stealing the natural resources of the country and using it for their criminal activities and to attack the people…”
You might think the above quotes could be about Venezuela. But they’re attributed to a United Nations official commenting about current events in Myanmar.
Though embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is not bombing civilians from the air in a bid to defeat a growing tide of rebel force, his regime is today accumulating evidence to prove it is a junta; that it is not too far afield of the cabal currently ruling and ruining Myanmar.
As Venezuela’s opposition continues to push for what is rightfully theirs – specifically a democratic mandate to run the country – it will inevitably force Maduro and his supporters farther into the realm of the unthinkable as they embrace irrational thought and decisions born of groupthink to protect power.
Nearly a fortnight after the historic elections in Venezuela, on 28 July 2024, we can clearly see that the Maduro regime is not going to let go.
Though opposition leader Maria Corina Machado and her cohort will likely not dislodge the “junta” from power, she is going to figuratively – and maybe literally – die on this hill.
And the international community, so far, is more in the mood to grab popcorn and watch, rather than tell someone to “hold my beer.” What’s more, even if an aspiring national leader did want to do something about it, the truth is sovereignty dictates that she can’t.
By now, after over a decade in power, Maduro and his inner circle of sycophants have nailed down every element of the federal system that, from the outside looking in, uphold state sovereignty. Specifically, this means that the country’s military and all areas of federal governance are controlled. Their problem today is not control; it’s creativity.
The Venezuelan government just showed the international community how not to steal an election, not because they didn’t execute the playbook correctly but because they used a playbook that is over a decade old. They’re not fooling the international community. Consequently, anyone who publicly supports the claim that Maduro won the election is either protecting vested interests or is incompetent and poorly informed.
In Latin America, the region’s left warily eyes the results. Perhaps the most influential voice in this room is Brazilian president Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva. Normally a staunch supporter of Venezuela’s government, he has been cautious. Lula has called for transparency but has — so far — not made any moves to call it like the rest of us see it.
Beyond the region, the international community has largely lined up to support the opposition, but with words, not acts. The window is now rapidly closing on an opportunity to act, apart from the one individual who represents a die hard vision for a better Venezuela.
In a recent Op-Ed published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), opposition leader Maria Corina Machado directly told the international community that “it is up to [you] to decide whether to tolerate a demonstrably illegitimate government.”
And she’s right. There is little she can do from within to dislodge Maduro’s dictatorship. If the hallmark of Democracy is the peaceful handover of power, we have more than enough proof to conclude that Venezuela is not a Democracy, nor has it been for a long time. It is a dictatorship. Maduro has for years now offered the international community little more than the likes of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or Myanmar – to name only a few.
But Machado.
Maria Corina Machado, in persona, in voice, in character and personality embodies what’s left of Venezuela’s democracy. A little under a year ago, I wrote the following:
“Maria Corina is going to push her campaign as far as she can. She’s not going to win, but she’s going to show Maduro and his administration just how far they’ve fallen from the vision Hugo Chavez had for his people when Maduro was still a bus driver.”
And she has. Yet in her pursuit of truth and what is right for her country and its people, I fear, could be the spark that explodes a powder keg of resentment and anger that has been building among the people for many years.
Some of the first protests against the Maduro regime surfaced in Caraqueño neighborhoods known historically for their strong adherence to chavismo. But these communities clearly no longer support Maduro or his government. I wonder how many former Chavez supporters have landed firmly on Machado and her message. Likely millions if the opposition’s vote tally is correct.
Collectively, potentially millions of Venezuelans who want a good life in the country they love, who want their relatives to return home, who remember when Venezuela was one of the richest, most prosperous countries in the world – and the list of these wants is long – represent a powder keg of resentment, frustration and bitterness.
The fuse is the thousands of comanditos or kitchen table opposition campaign organizers that were mobilized over the past year to move messages and coordinate opposition action around the country. That Maduro likely did not win a single state across Venezuela reveals the success of this strategy – set up and run by a master local organizer, namely Machado, who has been organizing local communities since her Sumate days.
Machado is the spark that could light this fuse. And this is where the scenario analysis of a powder keg exploding gets very interesting, objectively, and very worrying emotionally.
I don’t know Maria personally, but I have interviewed her. I sat with her, made eye contact and felt the force of her presence in the room. I’ve seen how she manages her people, and their undying loyalty to her and her message. She is a powerful personality. An extraordinarily brave woman and utterly inspirational. And she’s not going to give up. Nor will those who follow her.
The only way Maduro can get her to stop is to silence her, through arrest or disappearance, or assassination. But he knows this is a dangerous chess move. Machado is already in hiding, but has refused to leave her country. She may very well literally die on this hill, and the manner of her “death” will dictate the future of her country as much or more than Maduro himself.
“We won’t rest until we are free.”
This is how she concluded her WSJ Op-Ed.
The future of Venezuela is uncharted at this point. As the conversation moves beyond the election results to answering the “what’s next” question, our best opportunity for a handle on this analysis likely lies in the past. Colombia has come to mind several times over the past week or so as I think through this geopolitical chess match, and talk to Venezuelans I trust, about what’s going on and where it’s headed.
Colombia’s decades-long civil war began in 1948 with an uprising of civil disobedience that snowballed into bloody kinetic activity, separating one class of Colombians from another. Referred to as “La Violencia”, this social upheaval was triggered by the assassination of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, a popular Colombian politician who had captured the hearts and minds of Colombia’s vast number of rural poor during the presidential election campaign season.
At that time, in that context, they were the powder keg. Gaitán’s murder was the spark. History has documented the result.
At best, this is an apples to oranges comparison. I know. But it does give us a glimpse of where Venezuela could be headed as Machado pushes and Maduro reacts. And make no mistake. This is the flow of the brinkmanship. Machado is steps ahead of Maduro; he and his team are struggling to respond in kind and have only the use of force and repression. Classic. Not creative.
She is clearly the strategist with the better organized team. She holds the heart of the majority of Venezuelans in her hands. By comparison, the Maduro team is messy, stressed, disorganized and utterly irrational. Their street support is close to nil. One uses the force of reason, the power of testimony and of the people. The other uses bullets and fear, yet is still the de facto head of state. Right now, Venezuela is headed in a direction that sees neither team giving up. Yet neither will win. Sadly, Venezuelans lose. Again.
The tragedy of the commons is a simple economic tenant that helps explain how an individual acting in his best interest consumes resources to the detriment of society. Broadly applied to global geopolitics, we may view the tragedy of the commons as a concept of how one nation state, acting in its own self interest, consumes resources to the detriment of the global community. Putin, acting in his — and Russia’s by extension — own best interests to invade Ukraine, has consumed more than his fair share of the global, geopolitical interest and focus. Rightly so. Add Gaza, and the broader Middle East tensions. Add several, smaller simmering fires in Africa. Add Myanmar…
It’s no longer surprising why the junta in Myanmar can bomb its own civilians with planes operated with sanctioned aviation fuel. It’s not surprising why this story is buried in a major international newspaper. And so it shouldn’t be surprising that the international community will say “make more popcorn” rather than “hold my beer” precisely when Venezuela most needs the attention and a forceful response. Or at the very least someone who is willing to give Maduro a way out before he begins bombing his people.