On May 26, 2025, regional and municipal elections in Venezuela resulted in a major victory for the ruling bloc, according to official data.[1] However, this victory raised many questions about turnout, the state of the opposition and the legitimacy of the election. The Venezuelan United Socialist Party of Venezuela (VSP), led by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, won a majority in the National Assembly and took control of 23 of the country’s 24 states.[2]
According to preliminary data released by the National Electoral Council (NEC), the turnout rate was only 42.6%.[3] This shows that more than half of the electorate did not go to the polls and that Venezuelans do not see elections as a legitimate and effective political tool. This perception was reinforced by technical problems, allegations of irregularities and security shortcomings in various parts of the country on election day.
This low level of participation makes the representativeness of the absolute majority achieved by the VSP questionable. The fact that elections are not only technical, but also based on the active consent of the people is the basis of democratic legitimacy.
Following the 2024 presidential elections, the main opposition parties in Venezuela boycotted these elections. They cited lack of confidence in the impartiality of the electoral commission, under-representation of candidates and continued political repression.[4] However, this boycott poses a double risk for the opposition: On the one hand, it offers a chance to question the legitimacy of the elections, and on the other, it creates a political vacuum and opens space for the VSP.
The Maduro government’s victory was driven not only by popular support but also by strong institutional consolidation at all levels of the state machinery. From the judiciary to the electoral commission, from the security apparatus to media control, the influence of actors close to the government creates a framework that directly affects voter behavior. The electoral process in Venezuela, although touted as “legal” by government officials, has been subject to serious criticism that it does not conform to the norms of truly free and fair elections. International media, election observers and civil society representatives characterize this process as “controlled pluralism”.[5]
One of the most remarkable political maneuvers of these elections was Venezuela’s organization of elections in the Essequibo region, which is disputed with Guyana. The government incorporated this region into the newly created “Guayana Esequiba State” and held elections there.[6] This step is considered not only as a nationalist message to the domestic public, but also as a declaration of sovereignty to the international arena.
Venezuela’s holding of elections in the Essequibo region has the potential to create serious tensions not only with Guyana but also with the United Kingdom. As Guyana is a former British colony and still has strong diplomatic and defense ties with the United Kingdom as a member of the Commonwealth, Caracas’ move could be perceived as a direct violation of sovereignty by London. In particular, presenting the elections in Essequibo as a “de facto” annexation attempt can be read as a move that undermines the UK’s regional interests and emphasis on international law. Although a direct military or economic response from London is unlikely, it is likely to adopt a tougher stance towards Venezuela at the diplomatic level and call for stronger sanctions in the European Union.
While the holding of elections in Essequibo has been met with reaction by Guyana and the United States, this is seen as a step that could lead to an escalation of regional tensions.[7] Domestically, this move can be interpreted as the government’s strategy to consolidate popular support through nationalist rhetoric and to create a new foreign target to exit the crisis.
Although the ruling party in Venezuela has gained more and more power in each election, this increase in power does not indicate that the political system in the country is stabilizing, but rather that a kind of “authoritarian equilibrium” is being built. In a structure where the political opposition is excluded, participation rates decline, and electoral processes become less transparent, regime stability may seemingly increase, but long-term governance capacity and international legitimacy are undermined. While structural problems such as international sanctions, economic crisis and mass migration persist, it is questionable how long the domestic legitimacy provided by elections can sustain the regime.
The electronic voting systems used in Venezuela’s electoral processes have been the subject of national and international debate over security and transparency for years. In the 2025 elections, one of the grounds for the opposition’s boycott was that the electoral infrastructure was overseen by government-controlled institutions and there was no independent verification of the results. This has not only raised doubts about the protection of voters’ will, but also raised the possibility of digital manipulation and software-based interference.
As a result of the election results, the government consolidated not only its executive power but also its control over the legislature and the judiciary. The VSP’s appointments to the judiciary immediately after the elections show that the country is moving further away from the principle of separation of powers. This renders constitutional checks and balances inoperative and reduces legal guarantees in Venezuela to an almost symbolic level. In particular, the loyalty of the Supreme Court of Justice to the government shows that elections serve a unilateral order, not only politically but also institutionally.
On the surface, the Venezuelan elections appear to be an absolute victory for the government, but given the low turnout, the absence of an opposition, the distrust in the electoral system, the exclusion of diaspora voters and the post-election institutional appointments, it is clear that this victory raises serious questions about democratic legitimacy. By organizing elections in the Essequibo region, an attempt was made to create a nationalist mobilization in domestic public opinion, while at the same time opening a new front in foreign policy. These developments show that the ballot box in Venezuela has become a tool of government consolidation rather than a tool of political competition. This structure, in which democratic processes are not only formally but also substantively ineffective, is plunging the country’s domestic stability and regional relations into deep uncertainty.
[1] “Venezuela election results: Who lost, won and what next?”, Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/26/venezuela-election-results-who-lost-won-and-what-next, (Accessed Date: 05.25.2025).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] “Venezuela elects representatives for Guyana-administered Essequibo”, France 24, 26 May 2025, https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250526-venezuela-elects-representatives-for-guyana-administered-essequibo, (Accessed Date: 06.01.2025).
[7] Herrero, Ana Vanessa. “Venezuela stages elections for a disputed part of neighboring Guyana”, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/05/25/venezuela-guyana-el-esequibo-territorial-dispute-elections/, (Accessed Date: 06.01.2025).
