Contrary to what we posited in our editorial last Friday, that authoritarian regimes generally view making concessions, including being brought to the dialogue table, as a sign of weakness, the President of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, affirmed that same day that the Peace Conference launched by President Nicolás Maduro was not “a sign of weakness.”
Opinion is, however, divided on the sincerity of the commitment of the Venezuelan government to the dialogue process and how effective it will be. And even with the massive distraction of the commemoration of the first anniversary of President Hugo Chávez’s death on Wednesday, the street protests continue and Venezuela still simmers. Nonetheless, President Maduro can claim some moral high ground in leading a national dialogue, especially as the opposition itself is divided on the strategy to pursue.
The man who initiated the protests, Leopoldo López, has been imprisoned but remains defiant and wedded to the idea of a “peaceful struggle” to bring down the elected government of President Maduro. This is a path fraught with risk, as more protest action can only lead to more violence and bloodshed and effectively plays into the hands of Mr Maduro, who can mobilise the not inconsiderable chavista popular base simply by accusing the opposition of launching a “fascist coup” with US support.
On the other hand, the leader of the opposition Table for Democratic Unity, Henrique Capriles, though still refusing to participate in the Peace Conference, appears more inclined to building political opposition to the Bolivarian government with a view to winning future elections. This path obviously requires patience, commitment and statesmanship. It is, moreover, the more democratic option – indeed, the only democratic option – even if the playing field for the full exercise of democracy in Venezuela is not necessarily level.
Public discontent with intolerable levels of insecurity and chavista economics is now palpable across class lines. But this does not yet mean that there is a majority in Venezuela seeking regime change. Nor should socio-economic problems be used to justify antidemocratic behaviour. For whilst there is ample evidence that democratic institutions and principles have been undermined and manipulated in Venezuela ever since Mr Chávez first came to power in 1999, the fact remains that numerous national and local elections in 1999 have given the governments of both Mr Chávez and Mr Maduro democratic legitimacy, albeit with signs of increasing authoritarianism and diminishing popular appeal.
The challenge for the Venezuelan opposition is to overcome class barriers and the distrust of the supporters of chavismo, that is the poor and those traditionally marginalised by the political elites of the past; the challenge, indeed, is to give some sort of reassurance to those they seek to defeat that they can do so with a sense of inclusion and a belief in a united Venezuela.
It is, of course, a huge challenge in any country where democratic institutions and the rule of law are weak and where there is profound political polarisation. But a political solution has to be found if the Venezuelan crisis is not to worsen. Both sides will therefore have to demonstrate political maturity and a willingness to engage in genuine dialogue to lower tensions. Dialogue is still the best option but there have to be confidence-building measures undertaken by the government, such as removing media restrictions, a lowering of inflammatory rhetoric and a mutually agreed framework beyond President Maduro’s Peace Conference.
It is now up to both the government and the opposition in Venezuela to show strength by making concessions aimed at restoring order to the streets and being open to continuous engagement in a structured political dialogue.
Ultimately, elections in a democracy – even if imperfectly functioning – are the best expression of the democratic will of the people and the most effective way of showing unhappiness with a government and bringing about social and political change. Civil movements should ideally seek to influence public opinion and bring pressure to bear on governments, within the rule of law, rather than appear to sow anarchy and serve as either the breeding ground or the excuse for violence.
