On May 25, Venezuela held parliamentary and regional elections in which the ruling coalition, the “Great Patriotic Pole” (Gran Polo Patriótico), led by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), secured a decisive victory, receiving approximately 82.7% of the vote. Opposition alliances achieved significantly more modest results:
Voter turnout was only 42.6%, reflecting relatively low electoral participation. The Great Patriotic Pole (which includes President Nicolás Maduro’s PSUV) garnered 82.68% of the votes, securing an overwhelming majority in the National Assembly. In comparison, the most successful opposition group allowed to participate, the Democratic Alliance, received only 6.25%, while other coalitions such as UNTC Única and Neighborhood Power garnered 5.18% and 2.57% respectively. Collectively, all opposition candidates received less than 15% of the vote, resulting in the near-monopoly of the pro-government coalition in the new parliament and at the regional governor level.
One of the key factors influencing the vote distribution and low turnout was the decision by major opposition leaders to boycott the elections. Prominent anti-government figures, such as María Corina Machado, publicly called on citizens to abstain from voting in protest against the official results of the 2024 presidential elections. In July 2024, Venezuela held presidential elections whose results the opposition did not recognize, claiming victory while electoral authorities declared Maduro the winner. The 2025 boycott was also motivated by continued pressure on opposition activists — independent observers and human rights organizations reported arrests and other repressive actions in the run-up to the vote. As a result, most citizens sympathetic to the opposition ignored the elections. According to Machado, in some areas up to 85% of voters “defied the regime” and did not turn out. This helps explain why turnout was only around 42% of Venezuela’s 21 million registered voters — a level comparable to the low participation in the 2021 local elections, which were also boycotted by the opposition.
Beyond the organized boycott, the low turnout reflects a broader crisis of confidence in Venezuela’s electoral system. In recent years, the government has significantly curtailed real competition: several opposition parties have been disqualified or split through loyalist courts, and many charismatic opposition leaders have been imprisoned, exiled, or barred from political activity. Under such conditions, many voters see no point in participating in elections whose outcome, according to regime critics, is predetermined in favor of the ruling party. The long-standing economic crisis exacerbates public apathy: years of hyperinflation, industrial decline, and international sanctions have driven millions of Venezuelans to emigrate, while those who remain are more concerned with survival than with political engagement. These factors collectively contributed to the ruling bloc’s record-high share of the vote and the minimal representation of the opposition.
Following the May 25 elections, the balance of political forces in Venezuela shifted further in favor of the incumbent leadership. Having secured virtually all seats in the National Assembly and winning 23 out of 24 governorships, Maduro’s party and its allies now control all key levels of power. In the short term, such consolidation offers the regime a certain level of political stability — the opposition has been stripped of institutional levers of influence, and the likelihood of legal or parliamentary challenges to Maduro’s agenda is virtually eliminated. Representatives of the ruling party have already proclaimed a “victory of peace and stability,” implying that the elections demonstrated the people’s support for the government’s course.
International reaction. On the international stage, the elections are likely to deepen divisions over Venezuela. Countries and organizations critical of Maduro’s regime are expected to view the May 25 vote as undemocratic. The absence of independent observers and the large-scale opposition boycott have already prompted statements declaring that the elections failed to meet the standards of free and fair democratic expression. The United States, which did not recognize the legitimacy of previous Venezuelan elections, increased its sanctions following the disputed 2024 presidential vote and is expected to maintain a hardline stance. In particular, the Trump administration in 2025 revoked oil sector sanctions relief, ordering Chevron to halt its operations in Venezuela by May 27 — effectively cutting off Caracas from one of its few legal oil export channels. This decision deprives the Maduro government of a critical source of foreign currency revenue and intensifies the country’s economic isolation.
Meanwhile, Venezuela’s allies (such as Russia, Cuba, Iran, and several left-leaning Latin American governments) supported the election results. Russian observers, for example, reported no serious violations during the vote and declared the elections transparent. Such polarization of opinion complicates efforts by international organizations (such as the Organization of American States or the United Nations) to formulate a unified approach to the Venezuelan crisis. The European Union and some Latin American mediators will likely continue to call for dialogue between the government and the opposition, but given Maduro’s strengthened position and the opposition’s weakened status, the prospects for meaningful negotiations appear dim.
In conclusion, the results of the May 25 elections in Venezuela signify a substantial consolidation of the ruling Great Patriotic Pole coalition’s power and confirm the existing political configuration in the country. However, the low turnout and limited opposition participation — much of which was due to a boycott — underscore deep challenges concerning citizens’ trust in the electoral process and political institutions.
The current situation calls for urgent attention to issues of inclusive political dialogue and the restoration of broad public legitimacy. Political stability achieved through power consolidation can be more sustainable if accompanied by openness, transparency, and the engagement of diverse political forces in discussions on pressing socio-economic issues.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
