Solutions to Venezuela's Crisis: Wrong Answers Only
Your proposed solution is wrong. So is Lula's. So is Petro's. So is everyone else's. Accept that to move forward.
A) Transition of power to Venezuela election winner Edmundo González
is better than
B) Some absurd and unjust compromise policy such as redoing the elections or structuring a power sharing agreement within the executive branch
is better than
C) Consolidated Maduro dictatorship for years to come.
Unfortunately, the chances of scenario A are low and the options to get to scenario A are limited. Maduro has a strong preference for scenario C and isn't going to budge easily. He has repressive tools that can shut down protests. He has the infrastructure and authoritarian allies to outlast economic sanctions and other attempts of foreign coercion.
This has left some world leaders with the challenge of proposing variations on scenario B. They need to offer some potential solutions to Venezuela's political crisis, but given that the correct answer (Scenario A) is probably not on the table, they are only allowed to offer wrong answers. Lula da Silva has proposed new elections. Gustavo Petro has suggested a vague power alternation agreement.
Online, the various compromise options have been torn apart because they are clearly wrong. Why redo an election when González won the first election and the conditions are unlikely to improve? How can the opposition share power with someone who is throwing all of his political opponents in prison? Further, Maduro has given no indication that any of the proposed scenario B compromise policies are acceptable to him and his inner circle of power. He wants scenario C and isn't moving from that position. Venezuela's opposition has also not been eager to discuss the options, though they haven't completely rejected them either.
And yet, scenario B is better than C. If somehow Maduro can be moved towards one of these compromise solutions, it holds back the full Nicaraguazation of the situation for a few more months. It keeps the potential for a political transition alive and keeps the pressure and attention on Maduro. Another election, in particular, allows Venezuelans yet another peaceful opportunity to demonstrate their rejection of the current regime, even if there is not a clear route toward making that next election any better or more likely to create a transition than the one last month.
Nobody has an obvious correct solution for Venezuela's political crisis. Sanctions have failed. Diplomacy has failed. Boycotting elections has failed. Participating in elections has failed. Protests have failed. An international intervention brings greater suffering and likely other bad outcomes. And letting the status quo of a Maduro dictatorship remain perpetuates the ongoing collapse and suffering.
We're at a "wrong answers only" moment in Venezuela. No matter what is being proposed, there will be strong arguments against it and plenty of reasons it probably won't work. However, there is one action that absolutely won't make any progress: Sitting around arguing against someone else's wrong answer. All the proposals that aren't "President-elect González" aren't just or fully democratic given the election that took place. Just accept that everyone's proposal is a bad one right now.
With that in mind, keep as many options on the table that aren't scenario C and work towards any and all of them. Sit with the logic that scenario B is better than scenario C and brings Venezuela closer to a better situation. Transitions don't happen by demanding perfection and holding people's proposed solutions to some sort of ideological purity test. Transitions happen because pressure against the status quo continues, even if the path for how that pressure might work is not clear or direct.
