On July 28, incumbent Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro won reelection in a campaign plagued with allegations of fraud and corruption. “This election was free and fair,” said Nicolas Maduro, the victor of said rigged election. In a move that has surprised absolutely no one, the embattled Venezuelan president has clung to his fleeting power in the face of international condemnation, domestic protests, and party infighting. With casualties rising and democracy backsliding, Maduro certainly has the moral obligation to step down; however, he likely won’t unless a foreign power pressures him into resigning. That begs the question: should the United States be the nation to do it?
To discuss the complicated contemporary Venezuelan political landscape, we must go into the history of the country’s governmental tyranny. Broadly, the current protests can be seen as an indirect response to the policy of Chavismo. This policy, derived from the name of former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, entails the promotion of social ownership and opposition to economic measures by entities such as the International Monetary Fund. Stemming from its namesake’s time as president in 1999, Chavismo has devastated the once-prosperous Venezuelan economy. Initially, Venezuela was doing very well as a result of its plentiful natural resources; however, this soon depleted once Chavez took office.
In accordance with his demagogic ideals, Chavez declared an all-out “economic war” on the Venezuelan upper class. As a result, political turmoil and volatility have become the norm in the nation. Bitterly divided by class status, the Venezuelan people were blinded from seeing Chavez reaping the fruits of their labor and funneling billions of dollars out of their petroleum deposits. The economic troubles that currently plague Venezuela can undoubtedly be traced back to the corruption and weakness of the Chavez regime. Now, the Venezuelan people have taken it upon themselves to prevent Maduro from continuing the legacy of thievery and murder first started by Chavez.
Maduro took office at an interesting time in Venezuelan history. With the nation at a crossroads, he had the opportunity to reverse Chavez’s pink tide of socialism or become the new bannerman for it. Unfortunately, he chose the latter. The opposition to Maduro began long before this contentious election; rising inflation and crime rates, coupled with the occasional acts of public discontent characterized much of his tenure. The failures of Maduro—food shortages, human rights violations, and economic mismanagement—already led to a coup attempt during Operation Freedom. Spearheaded by opposition politician Juan Guaidó, this failed attempt to overthrow the rule of Maduro led to the harsh reprisal campaign against political dissidents and the consolidation of control by the dictator. Maduro’s persistent attempts to consolidate his fleeting control over the Venezuelan people caused him to lose the election on July 28.
According to a Washington Post review of election data, Maduro was likely defeated by opposition candidate Edmundo González in a landslide. Allegedly receiving twice as many votes, González has been the champion of the recent protests for democratic change in Venezuela. Notably, United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has recognized González as the rightful winner of the presidential election. However, mere words aren’t enough for Maduro to abide by the democratic process. With the United States having a checkered past in promoting democracy in Latin America, would American intervention be viewed as a continuation of imperialist practices that were supposed to have been abandoned in the 1980s?
Historically, the United States has made it clear that we are willing to overthrow politically inconvenient governments in Latin America in order to secure a few bananas. With a potential intervention in Venezuela being eerily reminiscent of these prior actions, I believe that we must tread carefully not to end up in a slippery situation. To peel back the layers, a recent example of failed American interventionism is none other than Afghanistan. After a 20-year-long war, completely preventable American casualties, and countless dead civilians, now Afghanistan is truly unified—unified under the very entity that the United States did all this to destroy but inadvertently emboldened as a result. We can’t risk further interfering in foreign nations’ political matters when history has shown that we have failed catastrophically before.
Isolationism isn’t the answer, but we can’t always look to interventionism every time something goes wrong. The United States isn’t a police force, and it has no obligation to exercise authority over a foreign nation. The Venezuelan political crisis can only end if Maduro puts his country before his own interests, and history has shown that the United States should play no further roles in regime change. This revolution is the result of everything Maduro has done, and in a banana republic, the fruit of such corrupt efforts is always bitter.
Photo Credit: REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria
Source:
Comments