Ahead of the July 28 presidential election, people in Venezuela were deeply frightened and afraid. Supermarkets were overflowing as people stocked up on essentials akin to food and water for possible protests, fearing electoral fraud that could lead on the country right into a latest era of crisis marked by unrest and repression.
I even have been in Venezuela since July and have seen first-hand the implications of the controversial election result. After the election of Nicolás Maduro – a claim that the US called an “insult to democracy” – the streets were stuffed with protesters chanting: “Freedom… Freedom… Maduro will fall.”
While the consequence gave Maduro a 3rd consecutive term in office, it exacerbated political and social polarization in Venezuela, with each Maduro's government and the opposition claiming they’ve the “only truth.”
In my opinion, this deepening of the divide and the shortage of consensus could lead on to a greater centralisation of power and perpetuate the shortage of communication between political factions, at a time when increased dialogue is required to the country's worsening economic crisis.
Henry Chirinos / EPA
Although people went about their each day lives, the atmosphere was calm on the surface, but in the times leading as much as the election I sensed an underlying tension. On July 23, I spoke to my 90-year-old neighbor who shared her views on Venezuelan politics. She supported opposition candidate Edmundo González and lamented the country's economic difficulties. She predicted, “Maduro's supporters would lose.”
Maduro took over the presidency in 2013 after the sudden death of his predecessor Hugo Chávez. Since then, the country’s economy has collapsed, attributable to each a devastating US sanctions regime and mismanagement.
This has led to reduced production, hyperinflation, shortages, poverty, poor public services and rampant corruption. The situation has greater than 7.7 million Since 2014, Venezuelans have been fleeing the country – the biggest exodus in Latin America’s recent history.
On July 24, I met one other neighbor. He was a person in his 50s who expressed his joy that I used to be from Iran. He criticized the opposition supporters because he believed that they had no probability and said he would vote for Maduro.
The polarized atmosphere within the constructing reflected society at large. Over lunch within the capital, Caracas, a 25-year-old man told me he was voting for González for change and flashed me his middle finger, saying, “That's for Maduro.” A forty five-year-old man who overheard our conversation spoke in favor of Maduro because he opposed U.S. sanctions despite his desire for change.
On election night itself, the Venezuelan Electoral Council explained Maduro won with almost 52% of the vote, ahead of González with 44%. Maduro's supporters celebrated with fireworks while their opponents chanted “” (thieves) from their windows. The stage was set for a possible conflict between Maduro and his opponents.
The day after the elections, Caracas was eerily quiet. Shops, restaurants and subway stations were closed. It felt like living in a ghost town. On Avenida Libertador within the east of town, nonetheless, the situation was quite different.
The street was blocked and garbage cans were set on fire by indignant protesters supporting González. The sky was stuffed with smoke and town seemed on the point of chaos. Some protesters wore masks, carried baseball bats and tore down Maduro posters.
The protests became more violent and repression quickly followed. On August 4, Maduro told his supporters that around 2,000 people were arrested in the course of the protests.
What could occur next?
I see two possible scenarios for the long run of the country. In the primary scenario, Maduro stays in power, with more centralized control, which reduces the probabilities of paving the option to democracy in Venezuela.
The attitude of the international community towards Venezuela is split. The USA, the EU and most countries within the Americas not recognized the results of the election. But allies akin to Russia, China, Iran and Cuba praised Maduro's victory and called for closer ties.
After the election, a young Venezuelan reporter in Caracas told me that “Maduro’s support has shrunk.” And a greater centralization of his authority could weaken that support even further. But Maduro can still depend on the support certain low-income groups.
This is due largely to the federal government's so-called Great Housing Mission. Since it was launched by Chávez in 2011, the next buildings have been built under this mission: almost 5 million households for working-class families across the country. As I drove through downtown Caracas, I observed the development of 1 such project, which is able to construct 35 latest homes.
Ronald Peña / EPA
The second scenario is a coup. If successful, the military could either maintain control for a very long time or oversee a controlled transition to an inclusive government.
The military stays loyal to the federal government – in spite of everything, the “Bolivarian Revolution” that Maduro inherited from Chávez was built with military support in 1998. But González has demanded the safety forces to reconsider their loyalty within the face of the federal government's crackdown on protesters. In an open letter, he wrote: “We appeal to the conscience of military and police officers to side with the people and their own families.”
But the subsequent day, the country’s Defense Minister and Army Chief, Vladimir Padrino, said said: “We ratify our [the military’s] absolute loyalty to the citizen Nicolás Maduro.” The military controls crucial sectors akin to the import and distribution of food and is subsequently not prepared to provide up power.
Whatever happens, increasing polarization and the shortage of compromise between the opposition and the federal government could lead on to a protracted failure of the dialogue crucial to unravel the country's political, economic and social problems.
image credit : theconversation.com