Experts have cautioned that Venezuela’s current political turmoil, following a contested election, won’t be resolved simply by putting opposition candidates in power, although it’s a crucial first step. 

“I certainly believe that these are patriots,” Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told Digital during a virtual press conference. “Maria Corina Machado is … one of the bravest individuals I’ve ever encountered and one of the greatest political figures in the world.”

“She’s remained in the country steadfastly,” Rubio continued. “She put aside any personal aspirations she might have had and allowed herself to be the opposition candidate, without letting that hinder her.”

“So these are extraordinary people, and the only reason you do that is because you love your country,” he added. 

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro manipulated the electoral process to prevent the immensely popular Machado from running against him, forcing her to step aside and allow Edmundo Gonzalez to take the mantle of the opposition.

Pre-election polling (which is illegal in the country) showed Gonzalez with double the support that Maduro and his United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) had, yet the Maduro-controlled National Electoral Council awarded the incumbent with a reported victory margin of 51%, compared to 44% support for the opposition. 

Venezuelans took to the streets in peaceful protest after the decision, but Maduro deployed police to suppress them and clear the streets, leading to violent clashes and escalation. 

Ultimately, the Biden administration on Thursday condemned the election, arguing, “Given the overwhelming evidence, it is clear to the United States and, most importantly, to the Venezuelan people that Edmundo González … won the most votes in Venezuela’s July 28 presidential election.” 

Joseph Humire, the executive director of the Center for a Secure Free Society, emphasized that “real change for Venezuela won’t happen with one election, but it’s a starting point.” 

“After 25 years of autocratic, socialist rule, Venezuelans have lost most if not all of their freedoms,” Humire told Digital. 

“They have little to no economic freedom, political freedom, and even severely limited freedom of speech,” Humire explained. “The main reason Venezuelans voted in such high numbers for Edmundo Gonzalez in this election (and de facto for Machado as well even though she was barred from being on the ballot) is because they want their freedoms back.”

“Venezuela is run by a criminal system that is embedded with most state institutions and has an equal power network outside the government through armed non-state actors,” Humire continued. “Maduro losing and leaving is a necessary but insufficient condition for real change in Venezuela.”

“But even if Maduro and his cohorts (regime leaders) leave Venezuela, the power structure remains and will, no doubt, try to undermine and manipulate the transition process,” he added, pointing to Bolivia as a nation where a leader resigned but returned because the country couldn’t dismantle the power structure he established. 

Humire suggested that Machado and Gonzalez continue working to “delegitimize the Chavista regime,” referring to Hugo Chavez and the government structure he established in Venezuela and Maduro inherited after taking office in 2013. He cautioned that the opposition may have “adaptive agents” within it that remain sympathetic to Maduro’s party. 

“The opposition has always been filled with what the Venezuelans call “enchufados,” which is a Spanish term for those who are “plugged into” the regime,” Humire said. “These are fake opposition members that have back-door business and political deals with the Maduro regime.”

“My concern is that these “enchufados” will either a) shift the narrative to one that legitimizes Maduro’s electoral fraud; and/or b) subvert the transition process in Venezuela even if Edmundo Gonalez is accepted as the president-elect,” he warned. 

Isaias Medina III, a former diplomat and Edward Mason Fellow at Harvard University, told Digital that the “massive marches” in Venezuela this week “reflect a grassroots demand for change,” but he also acknowledged the steep challenge that comes with “challenging a cruel regime willing to use force against its population.”

“Venezuelan politics requires profound renovation,” Medina said. “Regrettably, an exit strategy for Venezuela is necessary. However, is it truly Maduro’s decision to agree to any negotiation or amnesty proposal? Numerous dubious stakeholders manipulate Venezuela’s lost sovereignty, turning the situation into a transnational crisis threatening regional peace and security.” 

“Venezuela needs a new political approach free from “politiqueros” who prioritize personal gain over national welfare and from governmental paternalistic policies: governments must serve its citizens not the other way around,” he argued. “The focus must shift towards education, job opportunities, and a real representative congress to debate issues and find effective solutions.”

“If Gonzalez and Machado cannot solve the “ousting” of the puppet usurper in “Miraflores” (the Venezuelan White House), they will struggle to rebuild the country,” he insisted. “However, I hope they prove me wrong.”

“Venezuela needs more than messianic “Presidents”; it requires a transitional government with a strong purpose to restore the rule of law, reverse distorted governance, and evict illegal pirate occupants,” Medina added.

“Real change requires integrating merit-based qualified individuals across sectors and transforming the state’s paternalistic socialist practices into self-development opportunities for a poverty-stricken nation with abundant resources,” he stressed. “Venezuela needs a “New Way” away from 21st-century socialism that effectively combines citizen-public-private policies with economic development incentives.”