Can hasty referendums make good neighbors? The legitimacy of the Venezuela’s Guyana referendum

Introduction Referendums, often portrayed as direct expressions of popular will, have increasingly been employed by populist and authoritarian leaders to consolidate power and legitimize contentious political decisions. As territorial disputes escalate and global tensions grow over environmental resources, this paper examines the legitimacy of referendums in resolving these disputes through the case of Venezuela’s Guyana referendum. On December 3, 2023, Venezuelans voted in a referendum initiated by President Maduro’s government to claim sovereignty of Essequibo, with Venezuela’s Electoral Council asserting 10.5 million valid votes and over 95% voting in favor. Methods Using a case study approach and document analysis of official statements, media coverage, and institutional reports, we critically examine the referendum’s political context, campaign dynamics, and outcomes. Results The referendum served as a tool for authoritarian maneuvering, functioning simultaneously as a domestic plebiscite and a geopolitical instrument aimed at bolstering Maduro’s legitimacy while challenging international legal processes. Discussion We argue that referendums conducted under authoritarian conditions are unlikely to foster peaceful bilateral cooperation and may instead heighten tensions—hasty referendums do not make good neighbors.