David Smilde, a senior fellow at the Washington Office for Latin America (WOLA), believes that the sectors that oppose the Chavista government can aspire to reach gradual agreements that allow the build up of social capital within moderate sectors. He warns that, although negotiation processes can take a long time, partial agreements should be reached before the November 21 elections in order to obtain political gains
The ongoing talks in Mexico is the fifth negotiation process between the majority opposition (currently grouped under the Unitary Platform) and the government of Nicolás Maduro, which they attend with a weakened base of support and in the midst of an economic and social crisis that overwhelms them in their condition of main actors of society.
Both sectors are urged to obtain gains in this new instance of dialogue, especially taking into account that regional and local elections are scheduled for November 21 and, by then, the sides should be able to present some results if they want to get some political benefit.
Researcher David Smilde, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), warns that negotiation processes are often lengthy; He mentions the case of the 16-year-long peace process in Colombia and the negotiations over the Northern Ireland conflict, which took 11 years, for which regular setbacks are not unusual; However, he points out that the key is to keep conversations on a positive path, building on successes and learning from past failures.
In an interview with TalCual, the professor of Sociology and Latin American Studies at Tulane University highlights that, despite the skepticism that may exist about the possibility of concrete results in the process that is taking place in Mexico, dialogue and negotiation are the best paths.
In his opinion, negotiations should be used to open up democratic spaces that can finally achieve the political change that is sought for Venezuela and the restoration of full democracy.
“Successful negotiations require some degree of representativeness and some type of guarantee of compliance. This has been done this time through the participation of more diverse delegations, the proposal for a consultation mechanism with civil society, and the presence of international guarantors,” Smilde highlights when listing the advantages of the current process.
David Smilde warns of breaches by both sides
—How can you negotiate with a government that has failed to keep its word in the past and withdrawn from previous negotiation processes?
“You always have to start with a dose of skepticism.” A democratic government is, essentially, an institutional negotiation between representatives elected by the population, with binding results that are guaranteed by legal institutions. However, while the Maduro government has always advocated for dialogue and negotiation, it stripped the National Assembly of its powers, seized opposition parties, harassed opposition politicians, and disfigured electoral institutions. These are the true forms of negotiation in a democracy. The government has sought to close these representative and binding paths while advancing improvised and non-binding spaces, often with sectors chosen that fit its interests.
David Smilde points out that the government has breached and left previous negotiations, but also has the opposition. In this sense, he recalls that it was the opposition that walked out of the dialogue in 2016; the 2016 talks reached some agreements that ignited fights and recriminations within the opposition, even though it was the government that breached the agreements in the end, and in 2019, the government left the table in August, but it was the opposition that put an end to the Oslo-Barbados rounds in September.
“Both sides must look around them, see the suffering of the people and act with the seriousness that the situation deserves,” says the researcher.
-Some people consider that the recent agreements regarding the territorial claim on the Essequibo and the recovery of Venezuelan assets give the upper hand to the government. What is your take on the Mexico negotiations so far?
“I defer from that perception.” The agreement on the territorial claim was a cinch because there is already a broad consensus on the matter. They focused on that to secure an early victory and build confidence. But there was a cost since this is not an issue on which the population has strong feelings amid the crisis. The risk of that deal is that it undermines the perception of the importance of the negotiations. I would say that the outcome of the Essequibo agreement is a 0-0 tie for the sides. The government gained some internal momentum but little or nothing at all in its relation with the population. The other agreement involved social protection, including the setup of a vaccination board, an issue that the opposition has been promoting for many months and on which the government has been dragging its feet. And the agreement did not contemplate giving the assets back to the government rather than setting up a technical board to examine the use of those funds for humanitarian purposes. It seems to me that the score of the agreement on social protection is 1 point for each side. Both of them got something they wanted, even though it will depend on what happens at the technical board.
Do not overestimate Maduro
—The Maduro government seems to be in a better position than in the Barbados negotiations of 2019, and it is pressing for the lifting of sanctions and the handover of the blocked assets; Seen this way, it seems that the greatest beneficiary of the negotiation will be the administration. From your point of view, what is the greatest gain the opposition could aim for?
—There is no doubt the government wants that, but it also has a broader interest. Maduro feels, not without reason, that he defeated Donald Trump and Juan Guaidó. He feels more confident than two years ago. But he still faces big problems. There is the economic problem that he wants to mitigate, and there is the problem of the recognition by the most important democratic countries. The two problems are linked and he seeks both the lifting of sanctions and some kind of normalization with the US and the European Union. It may be that Maduro wants to run for reelection in 2024, for which he needs to improve the country’s situation. If he doesn’t run, he wants to be the person who could stabilize the revolution after the death of the leader, for which he needs significant economic improvement and international normalization.
Smilde goes on to say that “it is important to not overestimate the strength of Maduro’s coalition. Although Maduro looks stronger, the discontent within the coalition is evident, especially with the marginalization of old guard Chavismo. The coalition has always acknowledged the need for unity, but there could be rifts at any moment between those who want the status quo and those who see the need for change.
An Opposition in need
The expert believes that the opposition is weakened and faces a future in which it could be entirely obliterated.
“The opposition needs this negotiation more than the Maduro government does. The opposition will not be able to oust Maduro, it cannot force him to resign. But it can aspire to reach a series of agreements over time that allows the build up of social and political capital among moderates on both sides, in such a way that the extremes will be left at the margins.”
Smilde assures that there is evidence for this theory of change and recalls that the so-called “interim government” headed by Juan Guaidó used to hold that those who sought a negotiation were playing the government’s game, but after an agreement on the appointment of a National Electoral Council was reached, Leopoldo López and Juan Guaidó began promoting negotiations with fervor, even in the understanding that they risked becoming irrelevant to the political process.
“Diosdado Cabello lashed out at the agreement and is now, in fact, losing relevance. If things continue this way, with low or mid level agreements, the geometry of the conflict could slowly change from a zero sum situation to one where everyone could have a future. The democratic deterioration in Venezuela did not happen overnight and the democratic opening up will not be quick either. It will be step by step, through the recovery of spaces and the empowerment of the moderates that best represent the population.
You mentioned that if the two sides want to convince their followers that this negotiation is worthwhile they need to work quickly and reach agreements that yield results. Taking into account that the regional and local elections are scheduled for November 21, when would these concrete results be politically profitable?
“Until November 21.” People are exhausted and living day by day, but they will respond positively to any sign of improvement. All politicians are at very low approval ratings of around 20%. But the decision of going to elections and negotiations earned them a few points. They are still unpopular, but everyone who supported the negotiations in recent months has increased their ratings. And if the negotiations improve people’s lives, they are expected to go higher. People are harsh with their politicians, but they tend to forgive quickly if there are improvements.
The opposition cannot play alone
—The economist Ronald Balza expressed his concern about the reduction of the discussion on the economy to the international sanctions and the external assets of the State because, once those issues are tackled, nothing may have been agreed upon regarding the administration of public resources inside and outside Venezuelan territory. What is your take on this?
—Any agreement on sanctions and external assets has to come alongside agreements on the use of public funds, management transparency, the publication of the national budget, and other basic practices of a modern state. But the important thing is that it is being discussed and agreements are being sought. The government cannot ignore fundamental issues on the economic problem. And the opposition cannot expect to play alone, as it did with the problem of the electricity supply in Zulia, where it refused to negotiate in the understanding that the government was not willing to give up control over resources and improve management transparency.
-You have also warned that the parties must be aware that most of the people do not identify with either side because they do not see politicians doing anything to improve the living conditions of the population. Is it possible for the Unitary Platform to capitalize on people’s discontent with the government? If not, where is this sector population moving toward?
—The segment that does not feel represented by any of the political options is moving toward abstention. And the opposition is more greatly affected by this, given that the government has a machinery of mobilization and it can blackmail the people into voting. The opposition does not have that. However, if the opposition manages to reach agreements that have an impact on people’s lives, or if it connects with the people and they recognize its work, it will receive some votes.
“Recent studies show that the longing for change is almost universal among the people. But also the feeling that no political actor, either the government or the opposition, has the intention or capacity to change the current situation. But if the people perceive some hope, they could give massive support to the opposition. That happened in 2015 when the opposition convinced the voters that it was unified and could win the National Assembly, and then again in 2019 when a little-known politician like Juan Guaidó convinced them that he could bring about change. His approval rating was over 60%. As I said before, Venezuelans are harsh with their leaders, but they forgive quickly if they see a possibility for change.
—Pollster Luis Vicente León has said that negotiations are slow processes whose results are often seen at the end. How long could the negotiations take to reach practical results? What are the possible scenarios based on the agreements that could be reached?
—What my friend Luis Vicente meant is that the greatest achievements come at the end of a negotiation, not at the beginning. But this does not mean that minor or partial agreements cannot be reached earlier. If the two sides agree, we could see an advance as early as tomorrow. And it would be good if they did since they share the common drawback of the lack of support among the majority of the Venezuelan population.
The serious stage of negotiation is coming
-The meeting scheduled for September 24 to 27 was expected to address the need of observing the rule of law. What can we expect besides a declaration and how to guarantee the commitments?
—They are going to address two issues, the judicial system and the role of civil society. If the first round saw the “easy” agreements, we will see the seriousness of the negotiation in this round, given that the topics are more complex. The subject of justice is one of the most difficult. There are a large number of cases of state violence that have not been addressed by the system. Serious human rights violations have no statute of limitations and cannot be negotiated. The best that can be done is to guarantee domestic justice, but there are no conditions for that right now. Also, the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela has just released a report on the national justice system, which documents serious violations that further compromise the government. It also makes 45 recommendations for reform. So, the delegations will not have to start from scratch, they already have an analysis and proposals for reform. However, it remains one of the most difficult subjects.
David Smilde adds that the parties are more likely to reach some agreement on a civil society consultation mechanism, as there are several tangible ideas.
“The purpose will not be for civil society to sit at the table but to contribute proposals and review potential agreements. The involvement of civil society will always make reaching an agreement a little bit more complicated, but the resolution could be more sustainable. Also, the involvement of civil society is fundamental since it can force the sides to take into account the need for justice and the rights of the victims. Again, recent research suggests that a transition without justice is an unsustainable transition ”, says the teacher.
– What is your opinion of the request by the government of Nicolás Maduro to incorporate businessman Alex Saab into its delegation at the negotiation table?
“The request involving Alex Saab is shameful on the part of the government.” It reveals that they feel strong and want to use the negotiation as a lever for other issues. But I think the opposition answered correctly by saying that it was not their problem. They must go further and turn the tide by accepting Saab’s participation. This board of social assistance is essential to send a message to the public about who is who; each side will choose the people who best represent it.
“If the government thinks that a businessman accused of corruption, who has earned millions at the expense of the hunger of Venezuelans, provides a fair representation, the opposition should consent to it and then name better delegates. Afterward, it can take a group picture and let the people see who is on each side, ”concludes the researcher.
Translated by José Rafael Medina
