Venezuela Must Not Be Denied the Vote Again

592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY♦INTEGRITY IN JOURNALISM♦GUYANA

Venezuela Must Not Be Denied the Vote Again

OPINION BY : Hem Kumar October 2026

Venezuela has entered a dangerous period in which the removal of Nicolás Maduro has not yet produced democratic restoration. It has instead created a contested interim order—one in which the former ruling structure remains in place, Washington exercises unusual leverage, and Venezuelans are again being asked to wait for the right to choose their own government.

The Venezuelan people have returned to the streets with a demand that should not be negotiable in any society claiming to be in transition: set a date for free and credible elections. The removal of Nicolás Maduro has not, by itself, delivered democracy; it has instead opened a perilous interval in which power remains concentrated, institutions remain compromised, and Venezuelans are still waiting to exercise their sovereign right to choose their government.

Thousands demonstrated in Caracas and cities including Valencia, Maracay, San Cristóbal and Maracaibo in the first nationwide opposition mobilization in nearly two years. Their demands were direct: a presidential-election timetable, the return of opposition leader María Corina Machado and the release of political prisoners.

Venezuelans are demanding something more fundamental: a credible, scheduled, inclusive election administered by institutions that can be trusted and conducted without intimidation, political imprisonment, censorship, or manipulation of the vote.The uncertainty is profound

A transition without a date

Donald Trump and interim President Delcy Rodríguez have both said that elections will be held. Yet no date has been set for a vote to choose Maduro’s successor, and no clearly binding public timetable has been presented to the Venezuelan people.

That omission is not a minor administrative delay. A transition without a timetable can become an arrangement without an end, especially where the party that governed under Maduro still holds the levers of the state

.Rodríguez has led the country since January 3, but she is not politically detached from the former governing order. She is a leading figure in the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, or PSUV, the same movement that has exercised power since the Chávez era and that has faced sustained accusations of repression against critics and political opponents.

Venezuelans therefore have every reason to insist that an election date be announced publicly, promptly and with enforceable safeguards. A promise of an election is not democracy. A democratic transition begins when people can see, verify and prepare for the moment in which power must answer to the ballot.

Maduro is gone; the system remains

The danger for Venezuela is that the fall of one president may be mistaken for the dismantling of an authoritarian political structure. Nicolás Maduro’s removal changed the occupant of the presidency, but it did not automatically remake the courts, the electoral authority, the security services, the public media or the institutions through which the previous order maintained itself.

US-backed discussions are reportedly focused on reshaping the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and the National Electoral Council before an eventual vote. Those reforms are necessary, but the process has already demonstrated why Venezuelans cannot simply be told to wait patiently while political elites negotiate the terms of their future.

Institutional reform cannot be allowed to become a pretext for institutional delay.

A credible electoral process requires more than the announcement of a polling day. It requires an impartial electoral authority, a judiciary that does not act as an arm of the governing party, freedom for political parties and candidates, protections for journalists and civic groups, equal access to public space, and independent scrutiny of the vote.

It also requires the release of political prisoners, an end to political persecution and meaningful arrangements for Venezuelans abroad to participate in determining the future of their country.

The exclusion problem

The political negotiations underway between the interim government and a faction of the opposition have not included Machado’s Vente Venezuela movement. That exclusion weakens the legitimacy of any process that claims to be building a national democratic settlement.

Machado remains outside Venezuela after a period in hiding following the disputed 2024 election. Her movement organized the latest nationwide protest, and she has called for elections by July 2027, with activists pressing for July 24, the birthday of independence figure Simón Bolívar.

No democratic transition can be designed by selecting which voices are permitted into the room and which are expected to accept decisions made in their absence. Dialogue is necessary in divided societies. But dialogue cannot become an elite substitute for public consent.

If the government and its international partners are serious about national reconciliation, they must ensure that all major democratic forces can participate meaningfully in the process. That means creating conditions for Machado’s safe return, lifting arbitrary political restrictions, protecting opposition organizers and allowing Venezuelans themselves—not only negotiators—to determine who represents them.

Washington’s responsibility

The United States now occupies an unusually powerful position in Venezuela’s political landscape. US forces captured Maduro in January, and Washington has since worked closely with Rodríguez’s interim government while supporting talks about political reforms.

This gives the Trump administration influence, but it also creates a serious obligation: the United States must not replace Venezuelan authoritarianism with Venezuelan dependency.

A transition cannot credibly be called democratic if Venezuela’s political timetable, economic direction or oil resources are shaped principally by external strategic interests. Washington may support a lawful, peaceful and verifiable democratic process, but it should not determine Venezuela’s leadership, choose which opposition leaders are acceptable or treat the country’s petroleum wealth as the price of political cooperation.

The Venezuelan people are not a bargaining chip between foreign governments and local elites. Venezuela’s oil belongs to Venezuela. Its democracy belongs to Venezuelans.

What a real vote requires

A legitimate election should be based on clear and public commitments:

♦ A fixed and publicly announced presidential-election date, with no open-ended postponement.

♦ A reconstituted and genuinely independent National Electoral Council.

♦ Judicial reform that prevents the courts from excluding candidates or dissolving parties for political reasons.

♦ The release of political prisoners and guarantees against arbitrary arrest, intimidation, torture and retaliation.

♦ Full legal recognition and freedom of operation for political parties, civil-society organizations and independent media.

♦ Safe participation by exiled leaders, candidates and Venezuelan voters overseas.

♦ Robust international observation with access before, during and after polling day.

♦ Transparent publication and verification of vote tallies at every stage of the process.

These are not extravagant demands. They are the minimum conditions for a result that Venezuelans—and the world—can accept as legitimate.

The people have spoken

The protests show that fear has not extinguished the Venezuelan public’s democratic aspirations. The crowds in Caracas, Maracay, Valencia, San Cristóbal and Maracaibo are demanding neither chaos nor revenge. They are demanding the ordinary right that authoritarian systems fear most: the right to vote freely, to organize openly and to replace those in power.

Uncertainty has taken hold of Venezuela. But uncertainty need not become surrender. The will of the Venezuelan people—their right to self-determination, dignity and democratic choice—must prevail over political convenience, party preservation and foreign interference.

The protesters who gathered across Venezuela were not demanding chaos, revenge or another cycle of political vengeance. They were demanding a date, a voice and a future.

Their return to the streets is a reminder that democratic aspiration has survived repression, economic hardship, exile and years of manipulated political processes. The sight of citizens mobilizing again, despite the country’s uncertainty, carries a message for the interim government, the PSUV, opposition negotiators and Washington alike: Venezuelans will not indefinitely surrender their right to decide who governs them.

Venezuela cannot be permitted to drift from one imposed political arrangement into another. Uncertainty has taken hold, but uncertainty need not become resignation. The will of the Venezuelan people—their right to self-determination, democratic dignity and genuine political choice—must prevail.

The way forward is clear. Reform the institutions. Free political prisoners. End exclusion. Guarantee the rights of every political force. Set the election date.

The first test is simple: set the date, reform the institutions, guarantee the freedoms, and let Venezuela vote.