Image Source: Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters.
How have different factions of the Latin American left reacted to Venezuela’s electoral crisis? How might the international left’s reaction impact the outcome?
Venezuela’s electoral crisis, more specifically the Maduro regime’s willingness to engage in blatant theft of the vote, has divided Latin America’s democratic left, which in past elections had largely stood behind the chavista government.
Alongside Maduro’s loyal autocratic backers in Cuba, China, and Russia, some nominally democratic leftists stood in line with Maduro. Honduran president Xiomara Castro congratulated Maduro on his “unobjectionable triumph” at the polls, while Bolivia’s Luis Arce celebrated “the fact that the will of the Venezuelan people at the polls has been respected.”
On the other hand, Chile’s Gabriel Boric took a hard stance against the regime, calling the electoral authorities’ purported results “hard to believe” and refusing to recognize the result unless verifiable records were made available to independent international observers.
Maduro’s most important democratic backers, however, have wavered, careful not to endorse the results for fears of hurting their own domestic legitimacy while hesitant to cut ties with Maduro entirely. Instead, they have settled for a position somewhere in the middle. Mexico’s Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador quickly declared there was no evidence of fraud in the election, apparently backing Maduro, though he later called for further evidence to be released by election officials before Mexico recognized a winner. Speaking for President Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s foreign ministry called for “the total vote count, its verification and independent audit to be carried out as soon as possible.” Even Maduro’s most important democratic backer, Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has refused to recognize the chavista as the election’s victor, remarking “[Maduro] knows he owes an explanation to Brazilian society and to the world.”
The reaction of the Latin American left matters because widespread support for Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, and his movement, chavismo, have long helped Venezuela avoid the international isolation endured by fellow left-wing autocracies, Nicaragua and Cuba. However, as the regime has become ever more flagrant in its violations of electoral standards and the rule of law, it has become increasingly difficult for nominally democratic politicians to continue giving Maduro their support. Venezuela’s crisis has also led to an explosion of migration, which has hit its closest neighbors, like Colombia, the hardest, fostering anti-immigrant and anti-Venezuela sentiment among Latin American populations.
Additionally, scarred by the failure of Juan Guaido’s internationally backed victory in 2019, critical governments in the U.S. and Europe have been content to let Latin American leaders take the lead on addressing the crisis. Traditional Maduro allies Lula and Petro are seen as the likeliest negotiators to build a good faith deal with the Maduro regime due to its reliance on their support in the international arena. Nevertheless, it remains questionable how much impact even Maduro’s traditional Latin American allies will be able to have on the outcome of the crisis if Venezuela’s regime is determined to ride out the crisis, as it still retains domestic support from its military and financial support from autocratic backers in Cuba, Russia, and China.
What are the democratic left’s motivations in negotiating an outcome to Venezuela’s crisis? What are their proposals?
On the surface, the democratic left in Latin America is motivated by a combination of regional stability, political credibility, and adherence to democratic principles in negotiating an outcome to Venezuela’s crisis. Leaders like Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Colombia’s Gustavo Petro, and Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador understand that the ongoing turmoil in Venezuela poses significant risks not only to the country itself but also to its neighbors. The potential for further mass migration, economic destabilization, and the deepening of authoritarianism under Nicolás Maduro are pressing concerns that could spill over into their own countries, exacerbating existing challenges and threatening regional security. In addition, that all of this is coming from one of Latin America’s most celebrated leftist movements, chavismo, risks the image of the broader left in the region. These leaders are aware that their responses will shape the future of leftist politics in the region, where a delicate balance between ideology and pragmatism is increasingly necessary.
The democratic left’s approach to Venezuela’s crisis is characterized by cautious diplomacy, aiming for a peaceful resolution while avoiding deepening the conflict. Instead of outright condemning Maduro or fully backing the opposition, leaders like Lula, Petro, and AMLO have advocated for transparency in the electoral process by demanding the release of voting tallies and a comprehensive audit of the election results. This approach allows them to maintain their diplomatic ties with Venezuela while avoiding the appearance of overtly siding with either faction, creating a pathway for potential power-sharing arrangements or democratic reforms.
This approach aligns with Lula’s broader “active nonalignment” policy, which seeks to navigate complex international issues without aligning too closely with any global power bloc. A significant component of their strategy is reducing U.S. influence in Latin America, reflecting a vision of a multipolar world that emphasizes the autonomy and agency of the Global South. Brazil’s active participation in the BRICS coalition, which includes advocacy for dedollarization—a concept Lula frequently promotes—illustrates this broader aim to decrease reliance on the U.S. dollar and reshape global economic systems. For these leaders, supporting a multipolar world is not just about economic independence but also about redefining global power dynamics to better reflect the interests and aspirations of Latin American countries.
The democratic left’s approach is partially shaped by a generational shift within the broader leftist movements, particularly evident in leaders like Chile’s Gabriel Boric, who represents a younger, more progressive wing. Unlike older leftist leaders such as Petro, Lula, and AMLO, who often balance pragmatism with their ideological commitments, Boric is more willing to openly criticize authoritarian practices, even within his ideological camp. This reflects a significant departure from the traditional leftist solidarity with regimes like Maduro’s and highlights a commitment to modern leftist values centered on democracy, social justice, and human rights.
Their proposals, while not always overtly stated, seem to revolve around encouraging Maduro to engage in power-sharing arrangements or other forms of compromise that could pave the way for a more democratic governance structure in Venezuela. By advocating for a transparent and verifiable recount of votes and pressing for the release of all electoral tallies, these leaders aim to create a pathway for a negotiated settlement that could lead to a more balanced political landscape in Venezuela. However, they have stopped short of demanding Maduro’s outright departure from power, reflecting their understanding that any transition must be managed carefully to avoid further destabilization.
Their hesitance reflects a delicate balance between avoiding further destabilization and preserving regional stability, yet it also leaves them open to criticism for appearing complicit in the erosion of democracy in Venezuela. If their balanced stance fails to produce results and ultimately leads them to recognize Maduro as the president-elect, AMLO, Petro, and Lula may inadvertently contribute to a worsening humanitarian crisis and a more polarized political environment, both in Venezuela and across the region, which could ultimately undermine their leadership and the democratic principles they espouse.
How might the response of the Latin American left to the Venezuelan elections shape the future of left-wing politics in the region? What might it mean for future U.S. policy toward Latin America?
The response of the Latin American left to the Venezuelan elections could be a defining moment for the future of left-wing politics in the region. The recent shift in how democratic-leftist leaders like Lula, Petro, and Boric have approached the Venezuelan crisis—focusing on transparency and democratic principles rather than unconditional support for Maduro—signals a potential realignment of leftist politics in Latin America. This shift could lead to a new political paradigm where the democratic-left distances itself from authoritarian regimes, even those that share a common ideological heritage. By advocating for democratic processes and human rights, these leaders are attempting to redefine the left’s identity, moving away from the old binary of left-right to a more nuanced division between democratic and authoritarian governance.
This evolving stance could strengthen the credibility of left-wing governments in the region by aligning them more closely with the values of the broader electorate, particularly younger voters who prioritize issues like social justice, climate change, and democracy. If these leaders successfully navigate the Venezuelan crisis by promoting a peaceful and democratic resolution, it could set a precedent for the left across Latin America, encouraging a more principled approach to governance that rejects authoritarianism regardless of ideological affinity. This could help the left regain trust among voters who may have grown disillusioned with its past associations with undemocratic regimes, thereby solidifying its political influence in the region.
For future U.S. policy toward Latin America, the Biden administration’s current approach centers on empowering regional leaders in Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico to take the lead in pressuring the Maduro government. The U.S. is supporting these efforts by advocating for transparency in the Venezuelan electoral process and encouraging negotiations that could lead to a peaceful resolution. However, the administration remains prepared to take more direct actions if these regional efforts fail, such as imposing additional sanctions or engaging in bilateral negotiations with Maduro.
Moreover, the nuanced stance of the Latin American left presents a challenge for the U.S., as it requires adapting traditional policies that often relied on clear ideological divides. The U.S. is now focusing on working together with its regional allies to ensure that any developments align with shared objectives, such as promoting regional stability and supporting democratic values. This strategy reflects a more collaborative and flexible approach to U.S. policy in Latin America, responding to the evolving political landscape in the region.
Scott Brasesco is Senior Director at Global Americans, where he leads programs on U.S. Latin America Policy and Identity and Vulnerable Communities.
Juan Diego Solis de Ovando is a Program Associate at Global Americans.
