Venezuela's opposition hesitates between betting everything on María Corina Machado or looking for an alternative

In the coming weeks, Venezuela's opposition faces a crucial debate that may even decide its very existence.

The favorite candidate to face Nicolás Maduro in the presidential elections on July 28 is María Corina Machado, a conservative politician who scores higher in the polls than the president of Venezuela and who was overwhelmingly elected in opposition primaries that were a success. , a demonstration that there is latent discontent in broad sectors of society.

Chavismo, however, has vetoed her participation through the Supreme Court, which it controls, alleging the alleged commission of several crimes that disqualify her until 2036. The anti-Chavistas now face an adverse situation, in which they do not have the upper hand.

What to do then?

There are voices within the opposition that demand that Machado step aside and allow a new candidacy, one around which the rest of the opponents orbit.

She has already said that she is not willing, that she received a mandate from the people born from the primaries, in which she obtained more than 90% of the votes, and that she wants to take her political fight to the end.

María Corina's only option is María Corina herself.

The registration of candidates will take place on the 25th of this month and, barring a miracle, she will not be able to be on the lists.

In the following months, substitutions, changes of stickers, and accessions from one candidacy to the other may be made, but it is clear that in no case will Machado's name appear on the ballots.

Chavismo has been inflexible in its veto, even at the risk of jeopardizing the oil and gold licenses that the United States granted to Venezuela to avoid international sanctions.

That is the size of the emotions that her name provokes among the ruling party.

If it continues along this only path, the opposition would jeopardize its participation in the elections and Maduro would have a clear path, as happened in 2018. Then, the Venezuelan Supreme Court prevented the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) and Henrique from participating. Capriles, who in his day was on the verge of defeating Hugo Chávez himself.

Maduro won practically alone, against Henry Falcón and Javier Bertucci.

A very important part of the opposition considered that the mere fact of participating gave international validity to “the dictatorship” that they denounced.

It was whitewashing it, it was said then.

It was better, they believed, to isolate Chavismo internationally and cause its fall in the long term.

An attempt was made with the interim government of Juan Guaidó, supported by the White House and Europe, but the project failed.

When that adventure that has no parallel in the history of diplomacy—the creation of a parallel State that would suffocate the original—extinct in 2020, Maduro continued in power.

Capriles believes that the time has come to arm oneself electorally and confront Chavismo in any way possible.

“Of course we can present an option,” he answers to this newspaper.

“It is not a substitution, I would not speak of a substitute.

The one who won the primary was Maria Corina, the issue is that the Government unconstitutionally disqualified her, as do I.

The issue is what to do, and we have to participate, appeal to the strength of the vote that can mobilize millions of Venezuelans who want a change in the Maduro Government.

That is the great challenge: we have to present and bet on a candidate who can collect the vote on July 28.”

Capriles' speech is clear, without ambiguity: better someone more different from Machado than to get involved in a war against Chavismo in which the opposition has absolutely nothing to gain: "The country under no circumstances can be left without an option, because also luck of no country can be tied to a person.

I am not in favor of personalisms, nor the leaders, that has done a lot of damage to Venezuela.

"We must always think that we must have unity, detachment, think about Venezuela and the Venezuelans and the great opportunity for change despite the fact that Maduro is doing everything to stay in power."

Tomás Guanipa thinks radically differently.

The leader of Primero Justicia, a respected opponent, maintains that the only way is Machado's.

“What all opponents, all civil society, have to do is give a vote of confidence to María Corina Machado.

Because she has the legitimacy of having been elected, we have to amalgamate around her,” he states without hesitation.

He believes that looking for an alternative entails confrontation: “Why give him an ultimatum?

Without it, it is meaningless.

The destiny of this effort is consubstantiated with it.

We must accompany her and give her that warm support that she needs to move towards the process that we have to carry out.”

The tensions between Capriles and those who think like him and Guanipa and the same opponents in that line of thought cannot be ignored; they are two very different ways of facing the same political conflict.

Meanwhile, in other domains of the opposition cosmos, Luis Emilio Rondón, national leader of Un Nuevo Tiempo, says that his organization is obliged this time to “prevent them from taking us off the electoral route,” and, aware that there are still less than two weeks to make a unitary decision, he affirms: “In our ranks is Manuel Rosales, one of the best candidates available to be president.”

Rosales is governor of the state of Zulia, the most important in the country, and is not badly placed in the polls.

Although he and his party are within the Unitary Platform, he has spent years developing a moderate line that has allowed him to cohabitate with Maduro since the Governorship, with whom he cultivates unusually fluid institutional relations.

Rosales, who was the opposition's presidential candidate in 2006, is qualified, but has never publicly stated his intention to be a candidate.

Antonio Ecarri, leader of the Alianza del Lápiz party, is in this thesis of looking for third options.

He rules out that the best possibility is a consensus around a single candidate.

“Having only one candidate is a tactical and strategic error.

Democracy is weakened by abstention and polarization.

That will make any change much more complex,” he defends in messages.

He admits to feeling affection and respect for Machado, he calls her a friend, but he downplays the relevance of the primaries in which 10% of the population voted.

He doesn't doubt his leadership, however, he doesn't believe he's the only one.

“There is a country that has been abstaining for a long time.

The disappointment of Chavismo and opponents has been growing.

“It's very big,” she insists, so he believes there is a third way.

Some opponents criticize speeches like Ecarri's, because according to them they help to disunite the opposition and favor Chavismo.

Thus, anti-Chavismo faces a crucial moment in its history.

One wrong step could turn it into ashes.

It is not easy at all in a totally adverse scenario, with very little room for maneuver.

Their control of the institutions is zero, everything falls on Chavismo, which sets the rules.

In any case, although they have different opinions, the common denominator is that they do not give up and harbor a minimal hope, whatever the electoral bet, of defeating Maduro, although many believe that it is a mirage.

Follow all the information from El PAÍS América on

Facebook

and

X

, or in our

weekly newsletter

.