The results of the consultative referendum called by Nicolás Maduro on the controversy with Guyana over the Essequibo Territory are not verifiable. According to the National Electoral Council, there were more than 10 million votes, although the voters were not named. Despite doubts about the transparency of this process, its consequences at home and abroad will shape Venezuela’s electoral political agenda in the immediate future and in 2024.
There is one reading that this consultation was conducted to curb enthusiasm for the October 22 opposition primaries, which Maria Corina Machado won with more than 90% of the vote.
In its experiment leading up to the day of December 3, the Chavista government tested its electoral technology, its power to call spontaneous elections, its coercive capacity and also measured the dynamics and reactions of the different sectors that oppose it. , comments Stefania Vitale, political scientist and researcher on authoritarianism and opposition parties.
Chavismo resorted to various tactics: regular propaganda, threats to label those who expressed their dissent as traitors to the country, pressure on public employees to take part in the vote. The opposition’s unity platform left voters disoriented. Among the opposition leaders who decided to vote, there were some who followed the government’s line and said “yes” to the five questions submitted for consultation, while others announced they would vote “no” to the two most contentious questions .
There were no long lines of voters on election day. This was justified by the fact that the vote took no longer than a minute and by the number of voting centers possible. Since there are no counterwitnesses, any figure offered by the CNE is disputed. On Sunday evening, Rector Elvis Amoroso, president of the Electoral Body, made several mistakes when publishing the first bulletin: he did not mention the number of minutes examined, he did not report the percentage of participation or abstention and, to top it off, he did not speak of Voices. A detail that may seem trivial, but is crucial in a five-question election.
It appears that the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) was unable to call the spontaneous vote at the time. However, chavismo scored points by appealing to the external enemy and nationalist sentiment – a maneuver that some have compared to that of Galtieri when he declared war on the Malvinas Islands in 1982 -; adopted a narrative that ignored the impact of the opposition primaries and showed the inability of the opposition sectors to formulate a strategy at that moment.
For as long as I can remember, we Venezuelans have repeated the refrain “El Essequibo is ours,” but perhaps on this occasion more information was available about the status of the controversy. On the Venezuelan map, this strip of 160,000 square kilometers appears under the designation “Territory under Claim,” while Guyana adopts it as its own. The dispute dates back to 1899. The case must be decided by the International Court of Justice. Public debate has been reinvigorated by Guyana’s recent grant of oil exploration concessions in undemarcated maritime areas.
The referendum asked five questions. There are three points that relate directly to the rejection of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve the controversy, to the administration of Guyana across the sea to the point of delimitation and to the creation of a new administrative unit in the region and its incorporation into the Venezuelan map. Guyana asked the court to suspend the election event.
On Friday, December 1, the judges ordered Venezuela to refrain from any action that “alters the situation currently prevailing.” It also called on both countries to “refrain from any action that could aggravate or prolong the controversy before the Court or complicate its resolution.”
Although the results of the referendum are not binding and it is difficult to predict what benefit Chavismo will derive from it, it is obvious that it will be a new card for the Maduro government. This can range from a new negotiation to an escalation of a conflict that leads to internal unrest. In any case, it opens up scenarios that have not been considered before.
While there are suspicions that the ruling Chavismo wants to sit out next year’s presidential election, the opposition appears to have no plan that would allow the participation of Maria Corina Machado, who was rigged to be disqualified.
On November 30, the procedure agreed by the Unity Platform and the government of Nicolas Maduro was announced to allow disqualified people to appeal to the Supreme Court. This comes under the Barbados Agreement signed on October 17th. Machado has not yet reported whether he will go to TSJ. It is to be expected that other opponents affected by similar measures will appeal to this body, which in practice is not independent of the executive branch.
For Vitale, with the referendum, the government “imposed several dilemmas that were difficult to resolve. It could have been addressed better in a coordinated way.” For this reason, he considers it necessary that the opposition not only seek an agreement between political- partisan actors, but also that there are agreements with other sectors, such as the trade unions.
According to the CNE, the yes answer to all questions received more than 95% agreement. Even when the government inflates the results, as was the case in the 2017 constitutional election, it is forced to act in accordance with the popular mandate. This is not an easy path. When they do, tensions rise. Otherwise their weaknesses would be exposed. The route opened is a very risky bet for Venezuela. For the Maduro government, it could be what is popularly called bread for today and hunger for tomorrow.