What do Venezuela's regional election results say about the opposition's future?

Immediately before Venezuela's regional elections, Chávez announced his cancer was back, possibly dampening the opposition's showing as his charisma carried over to other PSUV candidates.

 David Smilde is the moderator of WOLA's blog: Venezuelan Politics and Human Rights. The views expressed are the author's own.

Here is a summary of [yesterday's regional election] results in Venezuela.


  • Hold: Miranda, Lara, Amazonas
  • Gain: None


  • Hold: Anzoategui, Apure, Aragua, Barinas, Bolívar, Cojedes, Delta Amacuro, Falcón, Guárico, Mérida, Portuguesa, Sucre, Trujillo, Vargas, Yaracuy
  • Gain: Carabobo, Monagas, Nueva Esparta, Táchira, Zulia.

Taken as a referendum on Chávez’s legacy and the carryover of his charisma to other candidates, this result provides clear reason for celebration for the Chávez coalition. It is, of course, a brutal result for the opposition which lost opposition strongholds such as Zulia, Carabobo, and Táchira – the last two by large margins – and gained none. However, it was not a fatal result insofar as Henrique Capriles squeaked out a win in Miranda.

Taken as a primary, the vote provided some clarity for the opposition. Capriles won on a night that most other opposition candidates lost, including his most viable rival, Pablo Pérez. The only other opposition candidates to win are “dissidents” who were pro-Chávez only a couple of years ago. Thus there is little chance that they could be viable national leaders within the opposition coalition.

The elections show that Chávez’s charisma can indeed carry-over to other politicians in his coalition, at least in the short term. It is important to remember how compressed this time frame has been. In the week immediately preceding the elections, Chávez announced the recurrence of his cancer, designated a successor, and underwent surgery. This wave of attention and emotion clearly had a significant impact on the elections.

It is likely that if, in the coming month or two, Chávez were incapacitated and had to step aside this same transfer of charisma could deliver the presidency to Nicolás Maduro. However, if Chávez’s health crisis were to extend and he did not step aside for another three or four or six months, the situation could be quite different. The government has a number of issues it needs to confront in 2013, most importantly the economy, and doing so will surely spend some of its political capital. So while their performance in [yesterday]’s elections certainly makes the PSUV the odds on favorite if new presidential elections were to be called, there are a lot of intervening variables that keep the future less than certain.

One last note. Chávez’s designation of Nicolás Maduro as successor has been rightly seen as a big plus for the civilian over the military wing of the Chávez coalition. However, it should be pointed out that tonight four of the five states that flipped to the PSUV had former military officers as candidates: Arias Cardenas in Zulia, Francisco Ameliach in Carabobo, Jose Vielma Mora in Táchira, and Carlos Mata Figueroa in Nueva Esparta. And five of the states the PSUV held were won by former or current military officers as candidates: Ramón Carrizalez in Apure, Henry Rangel Silva in Trujillo, Jorge García Carneiro in Vargas, Wilmar Castro in Portuguesa, and Francisco Rangel Gómez in Bolívar.

–  David Smilde is the moderator of WOLA's blog: Venezuelan Politics and Human Rights.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to What do Venezuela's regional election results say about the opposition's future?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today