SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
This is not to say the Venezuelan government is perfect nor to endorse the fairness of last month's election. But let's be clear: Venezuelan political disputes should be settled by Venezuelans, not by the United States.
There is now widespread controversy surrounding the Venezuelan presidential election on July 28th. The National Electoral Council says that current President Nicolás Maduro was reelected with a 51% majority. The opposition, led by Maria Corina Machado, claims that its candidate, Edmundo González, won with an overwhelming majority of the votes cast. The primary questions being asked in the media are “who really won?” and even “how can Maduro be made to step aside?”
Instead the question US observers should be asking is, “what business is this of ours?”
The United States government constantly criticizes elections around the world that it deems to be undemocratic. It claims to support an “international rules based order” and maintain a foreign policy with human rights at its center. But the United States of America isn’t exactly a fair arbiter. It is without question the most hyper-interventionist country in the history of the world. It has repeatedly intervened in the internal affairs of governments it doesn’t like, often invading and overthrowing them, ostensibly, for the cause of democracy. It does not, however, criticize the antidemocratic behavior of its allies, like apartheid Israel or the absolute monarchy that rules Saudi Arabia. As in Orwell’s famous novel, America may claim that all animals are equal. But it’s clear that it believes some animals are more equal than others.
On July 27th, a day before the Venezuelan election, the People’s Forum, a New York City movement incubator, released a letter warning that, “a Western media narrative is already being spun to present the election as inevitably fraudulent – and pave the way for a new regime change operation if the right-wing opposition does not prevail at the ballot box.”
That letter has come under criticism for asserting that, “the campaign has seen energetic participation all across the country and vigorous, democratic debate,” and that since 2002, “Venezuela has held over 30 elections that have been conducted professionally and impartially.” In the days after the most recent election international organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and a fact-finding mission from the United Nations have disagreed, citing reports of politically motivated arrests, assaults, intimidation, and even deaths. The governments of Colombia, Mexico, and Brazil are calling for more transparency.
But the credibility of Venezuela’s elections should not be the main issue in question. The main issue is that criticism is used as an excuse to promote US intervention and regime change or to justify more deadly sanctions that kill Venezuelan people. True to form, on Thursday August 1st the U.S. State Department announced that it recognized González as the winner.
In one egregious example of media promoting intervention, a July 31st editorial in the Boston Globe called on the Biden Administration to intervene, saying, “It’s in U.S. interests for the Biden Administration to help deliver the regime change Venezuelans have voted for.” It endorsed the policy of former President Donald Trump, suggesting that President Biden should revive the office of special representative to Venezuela and later quoted the man who held that office under Trump, Elliott Abrams.
But it failed to provide extremely important context about Mr. Abrams. In 1991 Elliott Abrams, who still serves in government, pled guilty to two counts of lying to the US Congress about his knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair, a secret deal to illegally sell arms to Iran and use the proceeds to fund right-wing militias trying to overthrow the left wing government of Nicaragua. Congress had explicitly forbidden military assistance for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government. A man who was deeply involved in the attempted overthrow of a Central American government is not a credible voice on Venezuelan democracy.
The United States has a terrible record when it comes to supporting self determination, globally, in Latin America, and in Venezuela specifically. The U.S. has interfered with the affairs of Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Bolivia, Venezuela, and more. Focusing on Venezuela alone there are multiple instances of interference just in the 21st century.
In 2002 the Bush Administration sanctioned a coup attempt against Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez. In March of 2015 the Obama Administration unilaterally levied harsh economic sanctions on Venezuela. President Obama declared that Venezuela posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” The effects of such sanctions, and even more punitive ones imposed by the Trump Administration, were studied by the Government Accountability Office in 2021. They found that the sanctions have already killed tens of thousands of people in Venezuela, due to restricted access to food and medicine.
In 2019 the Trump Administration recognized 35 year old opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela, despite the fact that he never ran for the office. They then handed over control on Venezuela’s assets in the United States to Guaidó, a move that the New York Times called, “one of Washington’s most overt attempts in decades to carry out regime change in Latin America.”
Given the exhaustive record of U.S. interference and intervention in the politics of Latin American countries, it’s just common sense to be skeptical about pronouncements from Washington regarding Venezuela’s election. That’s asking the fox's opinion on the management of the henhouse. To be clear, this is not to say that the Venezuelan government is perfect or to endorse the fairness of the July 28th election. It is to say that Venezuelan political disputes should be settled by Venezuelans, not by the United States.
With its own presidential election less than three months away, the U.S. has enough on its plate. The recent history of presidential elections in the United States is less than stellar. Two of the last six presidential elections were won by the candidate who received less votes (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald J. Trump in 2016). In 2000 Bush had a co-chair of his campaign purge 173,000 voters from voting rolls as Florida Secretary of State, in a key election decided by 500 votes. Trump tried to stay in power after losing the 2020 election to President Joe Biden. His followers famously stormed the Capitol Building in an effort to stop the certification of that election on January 6th 2021.
The bottom line? We have authoritarianism at home. When it comes to taking action abroad to “defend democracy” America would do well to adhere to the motto recommended by Founding Grandfather Benjamin Franklin: “Mind your business.”
Venezuela's foreign ministry hit back at the U.S. State Department, accusing it of spearheading a "coup attempt."
The U.S. State Department has formally recognized opposition candidate Edmundo González as the winner of Venezuela's election as the nation's highest legal body began an investigation of the vote at the request of President Nicolás Maduro, who says he prevailed in the contest that is now under intense global scrutiny.
In a statement released days after Venezuela's election authority, Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE), declared Maduro the winner with just over 51% of the vote, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed late Thursday that "it is clear to the United States and, most importantly, to the Venezuelan people that Edmundo González Urrutia won the most votes in Venezuela's July 28 presidential election."
"Now is the time for the Venezuelan parties to begin discussions on a respectful, peaceful transition in accordance with Venezuelan electoral law and the wishes of the Venezuelan people," said Blinken, the top diplomat of a country that has repeatedly attempted to overthrow the Maduro government and hammered the country's economy with sanctions. "We fully support the process of reestablishing democratic norms in Venezuela and stand ready to consider ways to bolster it jointly with our international partners."
Venezuela's Foreign Affairs Ministry quickly hit back, saying Friday that it "rejects the serious and ridiculous statements attributed to United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in which he pretends to assume the role of the Venezuelan electoral authorities, demonstrating that the U.S. government is leading the coup attempt against Venezuela, promoting a violent agenda against the Venezuelan people and their institutions."
Blinken's statement accepting the right-wing opposition's claim of a decisive victory came a day after Maduro asked Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal of Justice on Wednesday to audit the presidential contest in the face of vocal concerns from regional leaders, election observers, and leading human rights organizations.
In a joint statement issued Thursday, the presidents of Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico said they are "closely following" the vote-counting process and called on the CNE to "move forward expeditiously and publicly release the data broken down by voting station"—something the Maduro government indicated it will do but has yet to provide.
Meanwhile, the Carter Center—an organization whose founder, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, once praised Venezuela's election system as "the best in the world"—argued that the 2024 contest "did not meet international standards of electoral integrity and cannot be considered democratic."
"In the limited number of polling centers they visited, Carter Center observer teams noted the desire of the Venezuelan people to participate in a democratic election process, as demonstrated through their active participation as polling staff, party witnesses, and citizen observers," the group said in a statement earlier this week. "However, their efforts were undermined by the CNE's complete lack of transparency in announcing the results."
The Carter Center also preemptively raised doubts about the legitimacy of the Venezuelan high court's assessment of the election.
"You have another government institution, which is appointed by the government, to verify the government numbers for the election results, which are in question," Jennie Lincoln, who led the Carter Center's election delegation to Venezuela, toldThe Associated Press. "This is not an independent assessment."
The tense and high-stakes dispute over the rightful winner of Venezuela's election has set off violence in the streets of the nation's capital and sparked fierce debate over the path forward for the Latin American nation's government.
Some on the progressive left, both in Venezuela and internationally, view the right-wing opposition's claims to victory as yet another in a long line of attacks on Venezuelan democracy by pro-corporate and fascist forces, while others—including left-wing regional leaders such as Chilean President Gabriel Boric—have expressed deep suspicions about the legitimacy of the contest, particularly given the CNE's lack of transparency surrounding the vote count. CNE has attributed the delayed rollout of full results to a cyberattack.
"The international community, and especially the Venezuelan people, including the millions of Venezuelans in exile, demand total transparency of the election records and the process, and that international observers not affiliated with the government report on the accuracy of the results," Boric wrote on social media. "From Chile, we will not recognize any result that is not verifiable."
Others in Latin America have stood by Maduro, including Bolivia's government, which is led by a left-wing president who recently faced an attempted coup.
Venezuela's opposition, led by María Corina Machado, continues to insist it won Sunday's election, producing its own website purporting to demonstrate that González defeated Maduro with 67% of the vote.
On Thursday, Machado—who was barred from participating in the presidential contest—took to the pages of the U.S. business press to proclaim that she can "prove Maduro got trounced."
"Maduro didn't win the Venezuelan presidential election on Sunday. He lost in a landslide to Edmundo González, 67% to 30%," Machado wrote in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal. "I know this to be true because I can prove it. I have receipts obtained directly from more than 80% of the nation's polling stations."
Maduro has pledged to release the full election results in the coming days and blamed Machado and the U.S. for stoking unrest and violence.
"If the U.S. government is willing to respect sovereignty and stop threatening Venezuela, we can return to dialogue," Maduro wrote in a social media post on Thursday.
"Venezuela is not your colony," Maduro said.
The faith of the president's supporters in the Bolivarian project is a testament to the real achievements of the socialist government in weathering the 936 sanctions placed on the country by western governments and turning adversity into opportunity.
Shortly before midnight on 28 July, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that — with 80 percent of the over 20 million votes counted — the trend was irreversible: Nicolás Maduro had been re-elected president of Venezuela.
According to the CNE, Maduro received 51.2 percent of the vote, while his primary opponent, the little-known Edmundo Gonzales, received 44.02 percent. With that result, it was clear that the Venezuelan majority chose to continue the project of Bolivarian socialism introduced by Hugo Chavez at the end of the nineties. Recognizing the economic turn-around of the last two years and proud of their achievements in building 5.1 million housing units, securing food sovereignty, and deepening communal democracy, Venezuelans re-elected Maduro for a third six-year term.
A former ambassador to Argentina, the opposition candidate Gonzales replaced far-right leader Maria Corina Machado as the candidate of the Unity Platform after Machado was disqualified from running. Machado has long been an outspoken critic of Chavismo, supporting US sanctions and advocating foreign intervention in the country. In 2018, she asked Benjamin Netanyahu for military assistance in dismantling the Maduro government. Machado has close ties in the United States. In 2009, she was a Yale World Fellow. On June 23, 2024 she spoke at a National Endowment for Democracy awards ceremony in Washington, DC. She has been nicknamed the new “iron lady” after her idol Margaret Thatcher. In contrast, Maduro supports the Palestinian liberation struggle, linking it to the struggle of the indigenous peoples of Venezuela against colonial genocide.
The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) organized over 200,000 neighborhood units across the country as part of its electoral strategy. Most of the units were led by women, who woke up their communities early on election day to encourage them to get to the polls. A key message was “1 + 10” – each voter should bring along ten friends. Maduro was also the presidential candidate for twelve additional parties. One of his campaign symbols was the rooster, popular in a working-class culture of cock-fighting as a fierce and fearless fighter. Throughout the campaign, Maduro sought to build a popular humanist and Christian socialism with a legacy stretching from indigenous, slave, peasant, and anti-colonial struggles into Venezuela’s present struggles against oligarchy and imperialism.
Maduro’s victory was hailed by leaders across Latin America and the Caribbean, with calls and tweets of congratulation from Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, and Honduras, and scores of others across Africa and Asia. Less than an hour before the official results were announced, far-right Argentinian President Javier Milei tweeted that the opposition had won an overwhelming victory, defeating the communist dictatorship in Venezuela. Argentina was one of a group of countries issuing a statement of concern about the election earlier in the evening – part of an expected attempt to discredit the results in advance. Other signatories included Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Panama, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic.
In a familiar pattern of undermining democracy in Venezuela and the wider region, the United States cast doubt on the results of the election. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the “US has serious concerns” about the announced results — a predictable sentiment given the Biden administration’s long-running opposition to the Maduro government, and its recent reinstatement of sanctions against it.
From here in Caracas, I can attest that U.S. doubts are unwarranted. In previous elections in Venezuela, election observers have sided with the Venezuelan electoral authorities' ability to run clean elections over US-organized skepticism — and opposition candidates have frequently won in those elections. Venezuela has one of the most advanced voting systems in the world. It includes multiple steps to verify the identity of voters, the accuracy of tabulations, and the reliability of results. While some international observers, such as Brazil and Mexico, have requested a full account of the “actas” tabulated by the CNE, the Venezuelan system has generally inspired confidence for its accessibility and security in previous elections.
Indeed, US doubts about Venezuela’s elections appear less as concerns that the people’s voice will not be heard, than that it will. The Bolivarian revolution rejects US imperialism. It demonstrates that even cruel sanctions and armies of social media bots engaging in ceaseless psychological warfare cannot defeat a people determined to be free. In his speech to the Chavistas gathered at the presidential palace in Miraflores following the announcement of his victory, Maduro described a massive early morning hacking attack that was foiled in its attempt to disrupt the electoral transmission system.
The last decade of sanctions and hyper-inflation has been tremendously hard for Venezuela. GDP plummeted 80 percent in under a decade. Over 7 million people left the country. The burning alive of Orlando Jose Figuera by far-right oppositionists in 2017, attempted assassination of Maduro in 2018, US-supported coup from Juan Guaido in 2019, and keystone cop-style invasion featuring mercenary former US Green Berets in 2020 demonstrated the violence of the revolution’s opponents and their imperialist backers.
Nevertheless, the Venezuelan people remain undaunted in their commitment to peace, dignity, dialogue, and the rule of law, as Maduro emphasized in multiple speeches in the last week of the campaign. Their faith in the Bolivarian project is a testament to the real achievements of the socialist government in weathering the 936 sanctions placed on the country by western governments and turning adversity into opportunity. For example, in response to crippling US sanctions on the CLAP program responsible for distributing food to millions of Venezuelan households, the Maduro government financed national production, empowering over 45,000 local supply committees, the majority women-led.
The Chavistas’ victory adds to the momentum following left victories in Mexico and France. The triumph against imperialism inspires popular movements across the globe, contributing to the sense that we are in the period of a new internationalism. Neoliberalism is crumbling and a battle is underway for what will replace it: war and oppression or peace and solidarity? The refusal of the opposition to accept the results of the election, and, indeed, their willingness to double down by claiming to have won over 70 percent of the vote and incite violence across the country demonstrates that the battle won’t be an easy one. But the courage of the Venezuelans in continuing to build a democratic Bolivarian socialism proves that a future of thriving communities is possible – when people have the will to defend them.