Elections in Venezuela: a crucial turning point for the future of the country

The imminent presidential election in Venezuela, scheduled for this Sunday, is seen by many as a crucial milestone in the country's history. Miguel Ángel Santos, an economist and academic, points out that the significance of this vote is comparable to that which brought Hugo Chávez to power, although at that time the population was not aware of the magnitude of its outcome. Unlike previous years, this election presents a tangible opportunity for the opposition to access the administration of the country, which could trigger a process of debt restructuring and eventual economic recovery. Santos emphasizes that, although there has been a slight economic recovery since 2021, the figures are discouraging. The Venezuelan economy suffered a contraction of 75% between 2014 and 2021, and the recent recovery of 3% to 5% occurs from a much smaller base. This economic collapse is the most severe documented globally in peacetime. The situation has led to a massive diaspora, with between seven and eight million Venezuelans leaving the country in search of better opportunities. In the conversation, Santos mentions the phenomenon referred to by Serbian activist Srdja Popovic as "the Maduro model," which involves an autocratic leader accepting economic collapse to maintain control. Although some measures have been implemented that could indicate a change, Santos is clear in stating that these attempts are not enough to transform the reality of the country. Hyperinflation has decreased, but living conditions remain desperate, with a minimum wage of only $3.50 per month. Regarding the real possibility of an opposition victory, Santos highlights the importance of unity within its ranks. The opposition has achieved unprecedented cohesion, similar to that of 2012, thanks to primaries in which María Corina Machado emerged as the undisputed leader. This leadership and the critical economic situation have created an environment where the opposition option is perceived as a viable and desirable alternative for the population. To rebuild the economy, Santos identifies three fundamental steps that an opposition government should follow. First, it is essential to restore the market mechanisms that were dismantled during the Chavista era. This would include eliminating price controls and interest rates, allowing the economy to function effectively once again. Second, restructuring the overwhelming external debt, estimated at $160 billion, is imperative for any economic recovery effort. Without reliable data, it is difficult to assess the situation, but the need for international support, such as from the International Monetary Fund, is clear. The third crucial step would be to attract private investment, especially in the oil sector, which, although not the only solution, could provide immediate relief to the economy. Santos emphasizes that while one cannot rely solely on oil, efficient exploitation could generate resources to diversify and strengthen the economy in the future. However, if Maduro maintains control after the elections, the outlook is grim. Santos warns that Venezuela has no prospects for significant recovery without a political transition. Whether Maduro is internationally recognized as the legitimate president or a fraudulent victory is claimed, economic conditions would remain stagnant. The attraction of necessary investments for real recovery would fade, leaving the country trapped in a cycle of poverty and migration. The magnitude of what is at stake in this election is undeniable, according to Santos. The difference between an opposition victory and a new term for Maduro represents two radically distinct futures for Venezuela. Amid an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, the population watches with attention and hope, aware that this election could be the turning point they so eagerly desire. The history of Venezuela, marked by its ups and downs, hangs in the balance, and next Sunday could rewrite its destiny.