The political scientist and expert in peace and conflict Francisco Alfaro Pareja observes that, although the Nicolás Maduro government is going to the Mexico City negotiations in a stronger position than the opposition, the country’s governance is currently under threat and differences exist between the sectors inside the ruling chavismo
Representatives of the Nicolás Maduro government and the mainstream opposition represented by its four biggest parties began a new round of negotiations, the fifth since 2014, with both sides expressing (or at least declaring so) the intention to reach mutual understanding. Even though several opinion polls show little expectation among the population about the possible achievements of the meetings to be held in Mexico City, there are some differences between this round of negotiations and those celebrated in Caracas, Santo Domingo, Oslo, and Barbados that allow us to expect some type of agreement.
Francisco Alfaro Pareja, a political scientist and doctor in Peace and Conflict Studies, believes that the contradictions and difficulties within the government, as well as the precarious situation of the opposition, can lead to understanding between the sides, although he warns that expectations must be kept low in terms of strident results, given that a political transition is nowhere near on the horizon.
“I think that on the government’s side, and especially in some groups that make up the government archipelago, differences are emerging. There are political aspirations in some people within these groups, although they have always managed to portray an image of unity. However, I think that the obstacles in recent years to governance, funding, or public investment can have an impact”, the expert says.
In his opinion, the government has so far managed to survive with mechanisms parallel to the traditional sources of State revenue, but although it indeed continues to be stronger than the opposition, there is discontent within the coalition. For example, by looking at the situation of the Armed Forces, one will find that officials in the middle and lower ranks are having a time as hard as the rest of the population.
Francisco Alfaro Pareja lists the country’s pressing problems
—What is your take on the new negotiation process and what is different this time?
“It is crucial to soften the expectations.” In this type of negotiation, there are complex, chronic, and hard to explain problems that in the case of Venezuela involve many variables, including the economic crisis, the loss of the social fabric, the humanitarian emergency, and the collapse of the institutions. So, it is important to keep the aspirations high but lower the expectations, in the understanding that these processes are complex indeed.
“The people’s expectations at this moment are lower than in previous occasions. Quantitative and qualitative studies indicate that most people expect politicians to reach an agreement to solve the country’s problems. Some of these increasingly urgent problems are the economic situation, the drop in purchasing power, or the access to health services”, Alfaro says.
In his opinion, everyone has the aspiration to recover democracy, but given the precarious situation of the Venezuelan people, the priority is to address urgent issues that cannot be delayed any longer.
“Citizens expect little from the mechanisms that have failed to transform the conflict. But several factors can contribute to achieving good results this time, ”he maintains.
We are more aware, observes Francisco Alfaro Pareja
“We have lower expectations and an improved sense of urgency. That can be useful, and I think the politicians at the negotiation table are aware of the country’s dire situation. It is a crucial moment for the government, it faces a possible investigation at the International Criminal Court and a fairly serious governance problem with the contradictions that are beginning to emerge inside the coalition, making this moment a good opportunity for a sector of that political archipelago to seek governance for the sake of its fate and its own position within the coalition,” observes Francisco Alfaro Pareja.
Alfaro adds that challenges are greater for the opposition coalition, which he calls a liberal democratic coalition. “It is a more plural archipelago, with more islets; Maduro’s archipelago has two main islets, while the opposition has around five, with two of them having more influence. It is a fundamental moment for the opposition due to the great discontent among the population regarding politics and political parties, and the opposition knows this. People are hoping for solutions and they are not finding them”.
Therefore, the expert considers that there is a pressing need to reach agreements. “There are different views within the opposition coalition on how to move towards change and democratization. They have different theories of change, which is logical because we are talking about a coalition that, in a normal situation, operates under the rules of checks and balances and alternation, but none of that exists in Venezuela at this time.
The islets within the archipelagos
In the opinion of Francisco Alfaro Pareja, the opposition leaders can currently be seen as fish that have been taken out of the water and asked to behave as if they were still in it.
“We have the islet of María Corina Machado, which has been consistently advocating for solutions such as the invocation of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance or an international coalition. Another islet is the roundtable of dialogue for peace, the so-called mesita (little table), which has sought to achieve partial coexistence agreements with the government without demanding a compromise for the democratization of the country. And then there are two main streams, Henrique Capriles and Juan Guaidó. We can say that Capriles belongs to the group of the four biggest opposition parties but has been advancing a strategic separation with the bloc. So, some people argue that coexistence can be achieved only after political change while others assert that political change can be achieved through coexistence”.
Alfaro adds Chavista dissidents to these groups, a sector that does not support the Maduro government but does not belong to the mainstream opposition either. This group has been promoting the possibility of a presidential recall referendum.
“As you can see, there are different views within the opposition, and this is an issue that must be taken into consideration,” says the analyst.
-What can we expect regarding the demands of each side? The four biggest opposition parties insist on better electoral conditions, allowing humanitarian aid into the country, the release of political prisoners, and the return of exiles. The government of Nicolás Maduro asks for recognition of both the president and the national assembly.
Each delegation in the negotiation table has a position. For the talks to start, there must be a zone of possible agreement. There has been a discussion on celebrating a memorandum of understanding to establish procedural rules and the agenda of the process. This phase is very important because it ensures that the negotiation can not only advance but also reach certain agreements under a given decision-making mechanism.
The expert further elaborates that “in previous processes, the sides worked under the premise that nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon. This time there is greater awareness of the need to aim for a comprehensive agreement with the ultimate objective of recovering a democratic system, but doing so incrementally, not towards a specific event but as a gradual process”.
A desperate situation
The political scientist adds that we all want Venezuela to go through an overnight democratic transition, but the conflict has become so complex that it is not realistic to think that the situation will change straight away. So, we shall expect a nonviolent solution through a gradual process.
“On the one hand, we are more aware this time of the need to address more than the structural issues. Of course, the origin of the conflict of the last 22 or 23 years is political in nature because an illiberal revolutionary coalition decided to divert from a constitutional and democratic framework. But other urgent issues cannot wait longer, such as the humanitarian question, hunger, the pandemic, or the economy, which are topics that need to be addressed because the situation is truly desperate,” he details.
Alfaro points out that Caracas has become a sort of a bubble where the situation is not as precarious as in other cities, but as one moves away from the capital, the situation is dire.
“I think the sides are more aware of the need to visualize or seek a mechanism that allows gradual progress towards a comprehensive agreement. This requires the political will of the sides and the establishment of a very rigorous methodology. On this occasion, counting on Norway as mediator is a guarantee of seriousness and rigor because they assume this issue as State policy”, points out the expert.
A transition is difficult in the short term
From Francisco Alfaro Pareja’s perspective, reaching a democratic transition is going to be a slow process.
“It seems that the population, the political coalitions, and the international actors are more mature this time; It is left to see how this can be transferred to the negotiation table. I perceive the government is in a precarious situation in this negotiation, albeit not in a situation as difficult as that of the opposition,” the analyst highlights.
He stressed, however, that the opposition coalition does not have an aspiration of violent action but a peaceful line of constitutional action, compared to a government that has been willing to do anything.
—This time the government looks stronger than in previous negotiation processes. What can compel it to compromise?
—It is difficult to think of a democratic transition or democratic elections in the short term. But the situation now is different, they do not have the same room for maneuver; granting better conditions for regional and local elections or releasing political prisoners may be possible because these actions do not threaten the head of state or the general command of the Armed Forces. So, this could be a factor to give in on some things.
In any case, the expert points out the stark asymmetries between the sides in the negotiation process. On the one hand, one side that believes in democracy, checks and balances, the separation between party, State, and government, and between the civil and military sectors. On the other hand, the side that sees anyone who thinks differently as the enemy to defeat; a side that believes in the use of State force and has real means to use it and another side that does not. Also, there is one side that has international allies who prioritize the defense of the rule of law and Human Rights, and another side that has international allies who dispense with them.
A commitment between international actors
Regarding the role of international actors, Francisco Alfaro Pareja emphasizes that the situation has also changed in comparison to previous processes.
“The change of government in the United States has made the U.S. Foreign Policy on Venezuela more realistic, on the one hand, and more institutional, on the other, which makes it more predictable. It is also a position based on multilateralism. With Donald Trump, there were very strong contradictions between the Department of State and the National Security Council, many officials had different opinions about Venezuela, ”says the political scientist.
In his opinion, this more institutional and coherent US policy makes the aspirations also more realistic and coherent and gives the sides a much clearer vision of what can be the role of the U.S. if the negotiation shows progress or not.
He adds that this time, there is not only a more institutional US, but the international actors are also participating in a much more committed way.
In the opinion of Francisco Alfaro Pareja, thanks to the articulation that exists between the US, the European Union, and Canada, as well as the communication channels with Russia and China, there is convergence among the actors that support each side and that now join the factors that have supported previous negotiation attempts, such as the United Nations General Secretariat and Norway.
“If all these countries support the process, it could be possible to reach agreements and progress, but we must not lose sight of the democratic path because the solution can never be a normalization of authoritarianism,” he warns.
—The four biggest opposition parties insisted for a long time on the need to call a presidential election, while the government refused to do so. Do you think it is convenient to seek an agreement on the holding of a presidential recall referendum?
—This is a complex issue because in this conflict the political matters have transcended the legal discussion. It is difficult for a sector of the opposition to support an initiative for a recall referendum, given that this implies the recognition of the Maduro government of Nicolás Maduro in the first place. Until now, there has been an important sector that insists on not recognizing it. This is an issue that must be solved internally.
“The second obstacle that I perceive is a possible refusal by Nicolás Maduro to face a recall referendum even if the topic is included in the negotiation. The handover of power is something I don’t see in the short term. The ruling coalition has many things to lose; however, I would not rule it out,” he adds.
The analyst explains that, although the electoral issue is essential, it is not enough. In this regard, he refers that there have been around 20 elections in the last 22 years, of which at least 15 have been competitive, and despite this, the political conflict was not resolved.
“The Venezuela issue is not just about an election. An election gives legitimacy to some authorities but having a system where the winner takes all will not solve the problem. We would have to think of a different possibility”, highlighted Francisco Alfaro Pareja.
He emphasizes that one of the risks of a political change in the immediate future is the idea of wanting to displace the other sector, which would generate violence and ungovernability, making the rise to power of the current opposition short-lived.
“Elections are essential, but they are not enough. You have to think about spaces for coexistence and the softening of confrontations”, he says.
“A change in power, let’s put it this way, would mean that the new president would have to assume very high costs,” the political scientist explains. He or she would have to make important macroeconomic adjustments, take unpopular measures that could imply a return of the former coalition. You have to bear that in mind. Venezuelan economist Víctor Álvarez has proposed a joint government with no aspiration to return to power so that it can bear the political costs of cleaning up the country and the economy. This way, the candidates in a later election might be in the position to allow people to express themselves without necessarily bearing that burden”.
—Do you think the proposal of forming a national coalition government should be discussed?
—It seems like a good idea to me, but I think this is not a popular proposal among the sides; I don’t think they see it as viable. In general, complex formulas like these have occurred, with some differences, in transitions that have been difficult and complex, such as in Chile, Spain, Poland, or South Africa.
“During the Nicolás Maduro administration, the State has become more fragile than before. The economy is in shambles, we have a fragmented social fabric, there is a huge demographic gap due to migration, which is impressive by itself, but there is also an element making a return in the country, an element that Venezuela overcame 100 years ago by achieving control of the territory by legitimate authorities. Now we see large swathes that are beginning to fall under the control of both regular and irregular groups for the appropriation of resources without a clear face of authority”, says the analyst.
He warns that if control over the national territory is lost at the hands of armed groups, the situation will make the conflict much more complex. “If both sides could reach an agreement on the exclusive control or monopoly of state violence by the legal authorities, and set a firm position on the subject, there could be progress. Otherwise, regaining territorial control could be difficult in the short term”.
Dangerous apathy
Francisco Alfaro Pareja clarifies that, even though he recognizes that both sides of the negotiations are more mature now, he is aware that this is not full maturity.
“Hopefully I am wrong and the process moves forward. Both coalitions should understand that they will not be able to govern the country without the other. If Maduro insists on governing in the same way he’s been doing it, the international community will continue to act and the difficulties to govern will continue to take their toll and I do not know for how long this can be endured, given that the ruling archipelago could fracture if there is no way to lubricate its engine”.
In the case of the opposition coalition, if the aspiration is to come to power and displace the other side without the support of the National Armed Forces or the National Police, the county will hardly be governable and the transition will not be sustainable.
Finally, Alfaro points out that one of the things that seem very dangerous to him is the apathy among the population regarding political life, parties, and leaders, which opens the possibility of drifting Venezuelans to messianic or charismatic options as happened in 1998.
“Sometimes desperation makes people opt for unwise decisions. I hope that both coalitions and the international community see an opportunity in these new negotiations and that civil society continues pressing for progress in the process. It is in the interest of all of us, regardless of whether everyone’s expectations are different because if progress is made and people can see the result, it will be beneficial for the country”, concluded Francisco Alfaro Pareja.
Translated by José Rafael Medina
