
Venezuela's election fiasco may move Maduro to shed any pretense of democracy
The vote was such a fiasco for the regime's hopes of recovering international recognition that Maduro now says he plans to change the Constitution and hold future elections under a 'communal' electoral system. Needless to say, this would secure for him — much like in Cuba — guaranteed victories.
In an exclusive Zoom interview on May 26, opposition leader María Corina Machado told me the legislative elections were a 'monumental defeat' for Maduro because an overwhelming majority of Venezuelans heeded the opposition's call to boycott the vote.
'It was the lowest voter participation in Venezuela's history,' Machado told me. 'No one went out to vote.'
While the Maduro-controlled National Electoral Council claimed a 43% turnout, Machado told me it was just 12%.
Her estimate may be closer to reality. The Meganálisis polling firm put turnout at 14%. The Economist magazine reported, 'Turnout appeared pitiful. Polling stations were deserted.'
Machado, who remains in hiding to avoid her arrest, added that the opposition collected about 10,000 photos and videos taken that day at voting places, showing that they were virtually empty. The government also banned top opposition leaders from running and barred international observers, including from the European Union and the Organization of American States, from monitoring the elections.
As expected, Maduro claimed a huge victory. 'Today, we have shown the strength of Chavismo,' he said on election night, referring to the party he inherited from former strongman Hugo Chávez.
According to the government-controlled National Electoral Council, Maduro's party won 83% of the parliamentary vote, giving it and its allies 253 seats in the 285-seat congress. The government also claimed to have won 23 of 24 governorships, an increase of three over its previous total.
In last year's July 28 presidential election, in which Machado and other leading opposition figures were barred, Maduro proclaimed himself re-elected even though opposition tallies showed that Machado's hand-picked candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, had won by a landslide with more than 67% of the vote. The government never released voting records to substantiate Maduro's alleged victory.
When I asked Machado why Maduro even held last week's legislative elections, given that hardly anyone takes Venezuela's voting process seriously, she said the government didn't expect such a low turnout.
'They thought that they could force public employees to go to the polls, like in the past, and create an illusion that 30% or 40% of the population had participated,' Machado said. 'They hoped that this would help normalize things, but it backfired.'
Until now, Maduro pretended to allow a semblance of democratic normalcy to win some international recognition, especially from Brazil and other Latin American countries. But he is now suggesting that he will change Venezuela's Constitution to overhaul the voting system.
Venezuela needs 'a new electoral system' and 'the re-engineering of everything, like where people vote and how people vote,' Maduro said on the afternoon of May 25, when it was already clear that few Venezuelans had heeded the government's call to vote.
Maduro called for creating 'an electoral system of communal circuits for permanent consultation.' He did not elaborate, but he seemed to be proposing a system of government-controlled plebiscites.
I wouldn't be surprised if Maduro goes ahead with this plan. Even the democratically elected leftist governments of Brazil, Colombia and Chile don't take his elections seriously. And the fact that he can't even get Venezuela's public employees to the polls makes him look weak at home.
In addition, public discontent is likely to rise in the coming months. The economy, which had been recovering somewhat since its worst crisis in 2019, is once again going downhill. Annual inflation already exceeds 100%, and the official minimum wage, without bonuses, is just $1.50 a month.
Economic growth is expected to contract between 1.5% and 4% this year, due to low world oil prices and the U.S. decision to suspend Chevron's license to export oil from Venezuela.
To make things worse for Maduro, Russia and China are not as willing as in the past to give Maduro an economic lifeline, after seeing their loans wasted by mismanagement and corruption. And Trump's vows to clamp down on illegal immigration and deport more than 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants may shut down an escape route for many desperate Venezuelans.
In short, Maduro's legislative elections may have been a pyrrhic victory for him. He will now have more legislators in congress and more governors, but he is even more isolated from the rest of the world and his own people.
Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog: andresoppenheimer.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump is fighting something in D.C., but it isn't crime
When the man says no, the agent continues. 'Yeah, Trump's got all federal agencies coming together, seven days, and going out trying to stop the violent crime, all kind of stuff,' the agent says. He continues: 'Smoking, drinking in public, right, it can't happen.' I'm a Detroit-born, Boston transplant at heart, but I've worked as a journalist in Washington for nearly two decades. Though I've built my career here working only for Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Understandably, I have some very strong and very personal views about the president's Advertisement Most obviously, sending armed federal agents and the National Guard to patrol the streets of the nation's capital bears all the hallmarks of a But from my local vantage point, I see even more layers to this dangerous gambit. Advertisement First, let's dispel the idea that Trump's effort is driven in any way by a true desire to make D.C. a better place to live and visit. Trump points to anecdotal evidence, like the If Trump really wanted to fight crime here, there are many things he could do that would actually help, starting with telling his fellow Republicans in Congress to release No, Trump's crime crusade is about something else. Aside from satisfying his Trump loves a shock-and-awe-style attack on perceived domestic enemies. Look at Trump's immigration crackdown, complete with images of suspected immigrants being detained and held in brutally inhumane facilities with nicknames like 'Alligator Alcatraz.' It's a show put on by the former reality show host and the latest episode is brought to you from Democratic-controlled cities he has long railed against. Crime fighting isn't the point. Cruelty is. Advertisement It's gut wrenching to see it happening in a place so filled with history, culture, and joy. It's a richness that comes not just from transplants like me or its world-renown cultural institutions (which are They, and I, want safe, well-policed, and well-resourced communities. Not a federal takeover. And I'm exhausted by the crime hot takes from people who couldn't identify Ironically, even if you thought soldiers should be sent here, they are also being sent from Ohio, the only state that Even Trump's claim that Advertisement Trump is selling a dangerous lie about the city I've made a life in. My D.C. is one of Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at


Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The convictions that count are the ones that sometimes sting
I bring up Goldberg's essay not only to recommend it but also because I was struck by the question with which he introduced it: 'What principle do you hold,' he challenged his readers, 'that is against your self-interest or political desires?' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's a cogent and revealing test. It obliges anyone who answers the question to think about whether they embrace their convictions as a matter of principle or merely because they're convenient. Anyone can defend the freedoms or prohibitions that serve their own purposes. The truer test of ideological and moral seriousness is whether you adhere to your principles even when doing so cuts against your interests, tastes, or partisan loyalties. Advertisement This isn't an ivory-tower abstraction. American history is rich with examples of people who upheld principle at real personal cost. John Adams, though a patriot who hated British rule, risked his career to defend the redcoats accused in the Boston Massacre, convinced that even despised defendants deserved counsel and a fair trial. Justice John Marshall Harlan, raised in a Kentucky family of enslavers, broke with his social milieu to insist in his lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that 'our Constitution is color-blind.' And in 1960, Richard Nixon, urged by allies to contest an election marred by serious irregularities, refused to plunge the nation into turmoil, saying the country's stability mattered more than his own ambition. I have tried to meet that test in my own writing — with what success, I leave others to judge. For instance, I defend the right even of Holocaust-deniers to spread Advertisement I have sometimes put a version of Goldberg's question to candidates in a primary election: Can you name a position you take that is clearly opposed by most of your party's base? Rarely have I gotten a substantive answer. Most politicians duck the question, unwilling to announce that they uphold an unpopular position on principle — even though doing so would be pretty strong evidence that their convictions were genuine. What makes this problem worse is the increasingly common belief that only those who agree with us are legitimate participants in American life. Too many on the right write off their opponents as anti-American, while too many on the left see theirs as irredeemably bigoted or authoritarian. If you begin from the premise that dissenters are not merely wrong but illegitimate, then there is no reason to extend to them the rights or freedoms you claim for yourself. But that mind-set drains principle of all meaning. Defending free speech only for your allies is like championing religious liberty only for your own faith: That's not upholding a principle — it's wielding a partisan cudgel, something that has become endemic in contemporary American life. So much of what bedevils our civic discourse these days, Goldberg writes, begins with 'the premise that America is defined by our politics and, therefore, the people with the wrong politics are not Americans.' Which is why Goldberg's challenge ought to be posed more often. A principle that only applies when it's easy isn't much of a principle at all. So, readers, I'll put the same question to you: What principle do you hold that runs against your own interest or desire? Please give it some thought and share your reflections. In a future column, I'll share some of the more intriguing and noteworthy responses. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Pirro to ease prosecutions for carrying registered rifles, shotguns — calls DC law ‘violation of the Supreme Court's holdings'
Registered rifle and shotgun owners may no longer face felony charges for carrying their weapons in Washington, DC due to concerns the district's restrictive gun laws run afoul of Supreme Court rulings, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro explained Tuesday. The policy shift, first reported by the Washington Post, comes after Pirro said she received guidance from the Justice Department and solicitor general determining that DC's prohibitions on registered, but non-permitted, rifle and shotgun owners violate the Second Amendment. The DC law 'is clearly a violation of the Supreme Court's holdings,' Pirro told the Washington Post, confirming the Trump administration's memo. Advertisement 3 US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference in Washington, DC, on Aug. 12, 2025. REUTERS The Supreme Court struck down DC's ban on handgun ownership in the home for self-defense in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case. The high court further expanded gun rights in the 2022 NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case, where a majority of justices determined that the Constitution protects the rights of gun owners to carry firearms in public for self-defense. In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court also found that gun laws must be 'consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' Advertisement Pirro, a notoriously tough-on-crime former judge, was adamant that the new guidance would not impact her ability to prosecute gun crimes, and get illegal firearms off the streets of the nation's capital. 'Nothing in this memo from the Department of Justice and the Office of Solicitor General precludes the United States Attorney's Office from charging a felon with the possession of a firearm, which includes a rifle, shotgun, and attendant large capacity magazine pursuant to DC Code 22-4503,' she told the outlet. 'What it does preclude is a separate charge of possession of a registered rifle or shotgun,' she added. DC's stringent gun laws prohibit open carry and, in general, require individuals to obtain a concealed-carry permit – which are not issued for shotguns or rifles – in order to leave home with a firearm. Advertisement 3 A person carries a rifle in public during a Second Amendment protest in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Sept. 12, 2023. AP 3 Pirro, a notoriously tough-on-crime former judge, was adamant that the new guidance would not impact her ability to prosecute gun crimes, and get illegal firearms off the streets of the nation's capital. AP Unlawfully carrying a registered long gun in DC can result in a fine and imprisonment for up to five years. Advertisement In response to a request for comment from The Post, Pirro said: 'Criminal culpability is not determined by the instruments people employ but by the intent and conduct of the actor.' 'Crimes are intentional acts and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent by my office regardless of what instruments of criminality are used,' her statement continued. 'My job is to keep this city, its citizens, its businesses, and its visitors safe from harm and I will do that to the fullest extent of the law.'