The deep political crisis in Venezuela, as a consequence of the questioned result of the elections of last July 28, obliges the political actors within the neighboring nation, as well as the international community, to be very careful to resolve, without violence and preferably promptly, the impasse resulting from an electoral outcome in which virtually no one in the continent believes.
---
Lee este artículo en español.
---
We hope, therefore, that all parties with influence in this matter will work tirelessly in search of a peaceful solution to the impasse.
To elucidate this matter, we must start from the premise that the will of the Venezuelan people, overwhelmingly expressed at the ballot box, must be respected without reservations or conditions. That, and only that, is the only acceptable way out.
There are two fundamental issues that must be internalized as we begin to think about how to resolve this crisis.
The first is that the elections did not meet international standards of transparency nor can they be considered democratic, as determined by the Carter Center, a non-governmental democracy advocacy organization of impeccable reputation founded by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, which observed the elections at the invitation of the Venezuelan government.
The second is that representatives of the Venezuelan opposition have released convincing evidence that opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia defeated President Nicolás Maduro by a wide margin. The National Electoral Council (CNE), the Venezuelan electoral body, which answers to the government, has not publicly presented any evidence to support the triumph it attributed to Maduro on election night.
There is, therefore, practically a continental consensus in the sense that the way out would be for Maduro to simply acknowledge his defeat and give way to the transition and transfer of power, which, according to the Venezuelan Constitution, must take place next January.
Except for a few governments not known for their adherence to democratic norms, there are no heads of state in the Americas who believe that Maduro won the elections; those who have not yet recognized the victory of González Urrutia, demand that the government present the evidence supporting the alleged triumph of the Chavista leader, which is unthinkable that by now has not occurred.
This scenario assumes, then, that what remains to be done is to convince Maduro and, above all, his entourage, that he lost the elections and to make way for the transfer of power. But with a movement that has demonstrated many times before its contempt for democratic norms, and that has, for the moment, the support of the Army and other state security forces, convincing Maduro that he lost and that he must leave power is much easier said than done.
We commend, therefore, the efforts being made in this direction by the governments of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Chile, whose intervention is very significant especially because they are ideologically aligned with Chavismo, which prevents this conflict from being labeled between left and right and makes it be seen for what it really is: a choice between totalitarianism and democracy.
Throughout its post-colonial history, and until the late 1980s, Latin America suffered through a string of military and dictatorial governments that turned life in the region into a hell of persecution and oppression. Ironically, Venezuela, which overthrew its last dictator in 1958, had during Latin America’s darkest period a stable democracy that even welcomed refugees from all over the continent.
We urge Maduro and his entourage to read the writing on the wall, respect the will of their people and, without further violence, tension or persecution, give way to the new democratic horizons that Venezuelans demanded and continue to demand with such force.
---
This content was translated from Spanish to English using artificial intelligence and was reviewed by an editor before being published.
