Venezuela’s future is being decided in a new negotiation under Washington’s watch

Last week, Dinorah Figuera returned to Venezuela for the second time after more than seven years in exile. She is leading, on behalf of the opposition, the opening phase of a new round of negotiations with Chavismo, the ruling movement founded by the late president Hugo Chávez.

The talks are aimed at paving the way for elections that could deliver the political transition long sought by many Venezuelans. Figuera — who is the leader of the Justice First political party — has not granted any further media interviews, but on the same day she was due to meet face-to-face with National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, she appeared with Venezuelan influencer Kilómetro. “Friends, we’ve just had breakfast with [U.S. Secretary of State] Marco Rubio’s representatives who are leading this transition,” the young content creator said.

The delegation from the 2015 National Assembly — the last legislature won by the opposition before the regime reasserted control — shares the elevator each day at Caracas’s Marriott Hotel with U.S. officials, while simultaneously sitting across the negotiating table from Chavismo representatives, who must also report to them every day. All of the opposition’s hopes for achieving a transition are pinned on this close and direct U.S. oversight, which began after the United States captured former president Nicolás Maduro and his wife in January and detained them in New York, subsequently installing Delcy Rodríguez in his place. The new talks begin under the shadow of 17 previous dialogue initiatives over more than two decades, none of which succeeded in persuading the government to make meaningful concessions or, above all, comply with its commitments.

What sets this process apart is the omnipresent role of the United States, which began designing it in Washington earlier this year and started making it publicly visible in April. Donald Trump’s administration holds the cards and is effectively supporting the negotiating table itself. Figuera has already outlined a timetable for the tasks ahead: under the plan, the reinstatement of opposition parties placed under judicial control is to be completed by October, together with advances in political rights; a new Supreme Court of Justice will be formed in November, and a new National Electoral Council will be appointed in December.

Measures that appear to reflect the ongoing discussions have already begun to emerge. Last Friday, after 16 years of proceedings marked by irregularities and abuses, Judge María Lourdes Afiuni — one of the most prominent political prisoners of the Chávez and Maduro era, who had recently warned about her deteriorating health — was granted full freedom and had her case formally closed. While the release of all political prisoners does not explicitly appear on the agenda, it is part of the broader conversation.

Delegations from the Venezuelan government and the opposition have been in continuous session since Thursday, when talks were formally launched at the La Carlota Convention Center, located within a military base. The following day, discussions moved to the Meliá Hotel. The plenary session is expected to continue working through next Wednesday, after which opposition lawmakers will once again leave the country until the next round of meetings.

The initiative has been overshadowed by the exclusion of María Corina Machado, the opposition’s most prominent leader, a U.S. decision that rewards the Venezuelan regime. For some, her exclusion represents a fundamental flaw in the process and highlights the difficulties inherent in the undertaking.

“We’re betting on this succeeding because its success belongs to everyone,” says Jesús Armas, a leader of Machado’s party, Vente Venezuela. “We all want political prisoners to be released, a balanced Supreme Court of Justice and National Electoral Council, and an electoral timetable. But sitting at that table are representatives of opposition parties and the regime, and the people are not there.”

Machado’s absence from the process comes despite her efforts to get ahead of what many already saw coming. In May, after Figuera held her first meeting at the U.S. State Department, Machado rallied the main parties backing her to sign an agreement in Panama designating her as the opposition’s lead negotiator. The move challenged not only Chavismo but also Washington, and some observers considered it doomed from the start. Armas argues that Machado’s exclusion has more to do with a demand from the ruling PSUV party than with any falling-out with Washington. “It’s a softer threat to sit down to negotiate with the 2015 National Assembly,” he says.

The so-called Panama Manifesto was signed with the support of almost the entire opposition spectrum, but Washington prevailed. The episode revealed the growing distance between Machado and the Trump administration. Since then, she has not returned to the United States and has said from Panama that she is waiting for the right moment to return to Venezuela.

But no one is now calling for the implementation of that opposition agreement, and there is a tacit understanding that differing strategies should not once again fracture the opposition. Even the Unitary Platform (PUD), which brings together much of the opposition, made no reference to the Panama agreement in its statement following the launch of the talks.

“There was support within the PUD for the Panama agreement,” Armas says. “But we have to move forward with what we have. Beyond the leverage the United States can exert, we also have moral figures such as María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, who can help shine a spotlight on issues and apply pressure.”

Machado herself has ultimately accepted the reality of the situation. While insisting she was not consulted, she says she and her allies will not stand in the way of the negotiations if they achieve what appears to be the agreed objective: the roadmap designed by Rubio, which envisions stabilization, recovery, transition and, more recently, political reconciliation. In her first reactions after the talks were launched, Delsa Solórzano of the Citizens’ Encounter party, one of Machado’s closest allies, also endorsed the Washington-backed approach. “Venezuelans will not be judges of words. We will be witnesses of results,” she wrote on her social media, echoing Machado.

“This negotiating table is the third phase of Marco Rubio’s plan,” says Paola Bautista de Alemán, vice-president for training at Justice First and a researcher on political transitions at the University of Notre Dame. Bautista argues that Washington has pursued a transition rooted more in institutions than in personalities, which explains why the long-dormant 2015 National Assembly was revived.

Figuera has chaired the assembly’s delegated commission since 2023 and has served as the State Department’s direct counterpart in managing and safeguarding Venezuelan assets and accounts abroad, over which Trump granted legal authority during his first term after refusing to recognize Nicolás Maduro’s government. “A political reality we must metabolize is the tutelage in Venezuela, to which all political forces are subjected and which extends to all areas of political and social life,” says Figuera. “But this is not a condition that conflicts with Venezuelans’ interest in reaching free and fair elections.”

In the view of Antonio Ecarri, head of the Venezuela-United States Parliamentary Friendship Group, the crises Venezuela has endured have also produced profound political aftershocks. “There are two different Venezuelas: the one after January 3 [Maduro’s detention] and the one after June 24 [the earthquakes]. A transition without reconstruction is doomed to fail,” he says.

Although discussion has already begun about a timetable that would include regional and legislative elections in addition to a presidential vote, Ecarri, a member of the Pencil Alliance party and the Liberty parliamentary bloc, notes that all agreements reached at the negotiating table will ultimately have to be ratified by the current National Assembly. Lawmakers had already been working on the process of nominating magistrates and officials for various institutions: more than 500 applications were received, and before the earthquakes, 50 candidates had been interviewed. That process, he says, should continue.

Across the opposition spectrum, there is a clear understanding that the country has reached a critical juncture, a point of no return. Public statements are carefully measured. “It’s a delicate time to speak,” many caution. All acknowledge the fragility of the process set in motion this week, which ultimately depends on decisions made in Washington.

“Although there will surely be those who want to sabotage the process, those at the forefront cannot abandon the transition. That’s something Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores didn’t understand, and they ended up in a New York court,” Ecarri says. “For the first time in 27 years we are taking giant steps toward reinstitutionalization and toward free elections. Today discontent is the majority, and that must lead us to win elections and govern. It’s the only path left to us.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition