The Venezuelan government touted the popular consultation as a success, reporting an overwhelming positive response from citizens to the five questions about the Essequibo dispute. Caracas maintains that roughly 160,000 square kilometers along the coast contain oil, wood, and mineral resources and is asserting this area as part of Venezuela in conflict with Guyana. Elvis Amoroso, president of Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE), called the YES vote in the referendum historic. He estimated voter turnout around 10 million people, representing about half the eligible population. Opposition outlets and critics of Maduro described the government’s turnout and call for a referendum as a political setback rather than a victory.
“This was a reaffirmation of the unity of the Venezuelan people,” Amoroso stated. According to the electoral authority, the question on dismissing Guyana’s claim that Venezuela was unilaterally disposing of a sea whose delimitation is still ongoing, illegal, and contrary to international law received 95.94% approval. A similar majority backed the proposal to establish the Essequibo province of Guayana and to implement an accelerated plan for the care of current and future residents of the area. The plan also included incorporating the area into Venezuela’s map and granting citizenship and identity cards to inhabitants there. Analysts note that this expansion would intensify regional tensions, given Guyana’s international support from the United States and the United Kingdom, while Brazil appeared cautious about Maduro’s move. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva suggested that Latin America does not need renewed confusion and indicated that the outcome might align with Venezuela’s current leadership goals prior to the consultation results.
We vote in unity, with one color, one flag, and one emotion: a declaration of love for all of Venezuela. The vote is framed as a defense of national sovereignty and a rejection of dispossession. A social media post from Nicolás Maduro echoed this sentiment on December 3, 2023, calling for national unity and perseverance in asserting what belongs to the country. This message was widely circulated in government circles and by allied supporters. [Citation: regional news outlets]
mixed opinions
Venezuela argues that the Essequibo River should be the natural border, pointing to historical claims dating back to the era when the current government’s leadership positions were forged in the times of the Spanish Empire. The Geneva Convention of 1966, cited by Caracas, is presented as the framework that could guide a peaceful solution, alongside discussions about the 1899 boundary award which some argue was annulled. Georgetown maintains that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should decide the matter, with the United Nations serving as a backdrop for any eventual legal settlement.
The Miraflores Palace doubled down on nationalist rhetoric to position the consultation as a clear domestic mandate in the eyes of the international community. Reports suggested that the referendum seemed to lack broad, organized turnout lines, with some observers calling it a referendum driven by coverage rather than active participation. The pace and turnout drew mixed reactions from regional and international observers, with some noting that Venezuela appeared more focused on symbolism than on concrete participation metrics.
According to former members of Maduro’s circle, the referendum was seen by some as a political move rather than a genuine bid to reposition Venezuela in future elections. A few argued that the president could be stepping back from a potential bid for next year’s office. Yet others insisted that the public messaging around defending territorial sovereignty was popular among a broad segment of Venezuelans.
Officials framed the process as peaceful advocacy for national sovereignty, and some praised the broad reception of the message of defending Guayana Essequiba. Critics, however, warned that a strong nationalist campaign could backfire by limiting room for diplomatic negotiation and injuring regional relations. A government spokesman noted that the public engagement demonstrated a degree of civic enthusiasm, even as opponents warned of possible international repercussions. [Citation: regional political analysis]
Sierra de Pacaraima and surrounding areas in the Essequibo region were cited in social media posts celebrating national pride. Supporters shared imagery of the border landscape and expressed confidence in Venezuela’s lawful claims, while opponents argued that the real path to resolution lay in international adjudication and dialogue. A social media post from a government-aligned account highlighted calls for unity and resilience amid a tense bilateral environment. [Citation: social media monitoring]
“War propaganda”
Prime defense figures released a video they claimed showed activities in territory controlled by Venezuela, depicting locals waving the national flag of Venezuela. Critics argued that the footage was misleading or misrepresented, and a rival military leadership in Guyana labeled the video propaganda. The Guyana Armed Forces’ chief of staff acknowledged the potential for misinterpretation and countered with assurances that the footage did not reflect the reality on the ground.
In Guyana, mobilizations and demonstrations occurred in several towns to reject Caracas’s policy, and a coordinated show of solidarity featuring hands joined in a chain circulated as a message of unity. The government in Georgetown insisted that Essequibo belongs to Guyana and urged calm, while others argued that the rule of law would ultimately determine the border through international mechanisms. [Citation: regional security briefings]