The 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, held on July 28, has reignited global scrutiny, drawing sharp lines between the United States and its allies on one side and the emerging multipolar world on the other. As the dust settles, it’s not just the legitimacy of President Nicolas Maduro’s victory that’s under debate but also the credibility of Washington’s narrative. With opposition candidate Edmundo González claiming an overwhelming victory and the US quick to echo those claims, the international community’s reaction-or lack thereof-speaks volumes about America’s diminishing influence in Latin America.
The Venezuelan election is not an isolated incident but rather a continuation of a long-standing struggle over the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduaro’s presidency. Since 2018, when the US and its allies first disputed Maduro’s electoral victory, Washington has consistently sought to undermine his government, most notably by recognizing former opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s “legitimate” president. This move led to a self-imposed “presidential crisis,” which, despite intense international pressure, failed to dislodge Maduro from power.
Fast forward to 2024, and the US is once again challenging Maduro’s rule, this time backing González, a former diplomat. The opposition claims that González won by a landslide, securing 80 percent of the vote, a figure that has been widely circulated by Western media. However, the official results from Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) tell a different story, showing Maduro with a narrow victory at 52 percent. The discrepancy between these two narratives has led to widespread protests from the opposition, which the Maduro government has quickly moved to suppress.
The central question in this election is not just about who won but whether anyone outside of Washington’s immediate circle of allies believes the US anymore. The Venezuelan economy is in shambles, and poverty is rampant, leading some, like Harvard University’s democracy expert Steve Levitsky, to question the plausibility of Maduro’s victory. Levitsky told The New York Times that the 2024 vote is “one of the most egregious electoral frauds in modern Latin American history.” His assessment is shared by many in the West, where skepticism of the official results is widespread.
However, not everyone agrees with this view. Denis Rogatyuk, a journalist with El Ciudadano who covered the election, offered a different perspective in an interview with RT. According to Rogatyuk, the massive turnout at Maduro’s closing rallies, compared to the relatively modest gatherings for González, indicates strong support for the incumbent. The second bulletin released by the CNE on August 2nd, which showed over 6.4 million votes for Maduro, aligns with the combined membership of the PSUV and its allied parties, estimated at just over 6 million. Rogatyuk’s observations suggest that Maduro’s victory, while narrow, may be more credible than the opposition and its Western backers are willing to admit.
The more intriguing aspect of this election is not the result itself but the way the US has struggled to rally international support for its position. In previous decades, Washington’s ability to influence outcomes in Latin America was nearly unquestionable. However, the situation in Venezuela in 2024 starkly contrasts with past interventions, such as the 2019 crisis in Bolivia, where international pressure led to the ousting of President Evo Morales. The reluctance of major Latin American countries to condemn Maduro speaks to a broader regional disillusionment with US interventionism.
Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, the three most influential countries in the region, have all refrained from condemning Maduro. The Organization of American States (OAS), once a reliable instrument of US policy in the region, has also shown signs of fracture. In a recent vote on a resolution condemning Maduro, the OAS failed to secure the necessary 18 votes, with 17 members voting in favor, 11 abstaining, and five-including Mexico-not participating at all. This failure underscores the growing resistance within Latin America to Washington’s agenda.
Even within the European Union, there is a lack of consensus. Hungary’s decision to block a joint statement by the EU criticizing the Venezuelan election forced the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, to issue a personal statement instead. This incident highlights the increasing difficulty the US and its allies face in building a unified front against countries like Venezuela.
The US finds itself in a classic “boy who cried wolf” scenario. After decades of intervening in Latin American politics, often under the pretext of defending democracy, Washington’s credibility is at an all-time low. The US has a long history of supporting coups, backing authoritarian regimes, and undermining leftist governments across the hemisphere. These actions have left a legacy of distrust and skepticism, not just in Latin America but around the world.
In the case of Venezuela, this loss of credibility means that even if Maduro did lose the election, as the opposition claims, few outside of the West are inclined to believe Washington’s version of events. The US’s reputation as a “pathological liar,” as some critics have put it, has eroded its soft power to the point where its influence is waning even in its own backyard.
The decline of US influence in Latin America is part of a broader global shift toward a multipolar world. Countries like China, Russia, and others in the Global South are increasingly asserting their independence from the US-led order. In Venezuela, this shift is evident in the support Maduro has received from countries outside the Western sphere. While the US continues to push its narrative of electoral fraud, other nations are more focused on their geopolitical interests, which often align more closely with Maduro’s government than with the opposition.
This multipolar dynamic is complicating Washington’s efforts to isolate Maduro. The US can no longer count on automatic support from international organizations like the OAS or the EU. Instead, it faces a growing challenge from countries that are either indifferent to or actively opposed to its attempts to dictate the political future of Venezuela.
The 2024 Venezuelan presidential election has laid bare the limits of US power in Latin America. While Washington continues to push its narrative of a stolen election, its ability to rally international support is diminishing. The skepticism with which the US’s claims are met reflects a broader crisis of credibility that has been decades in the making.
In this new reality, the US will need to rethink its approach to Latin America and beyond. The days of unilateral interventions and unquestioned influence are over. As the world becomes increasingly multipolar, Washington’s ability to shape events on the ground will continue to decline, especially in regions like Latin America, where the scars of past interventions run deep.
Whether Maduro’s victory was legitimate or not is almost beside the point. What matters more is the fact that Washington’s word no longer carries the weight it once did. The US is finding out the hard way that once lost, trust is not easily regained.
