"Growing polarization in Venezuela after Maduro's rejection of dialogue with the opposition."

The recent confrontation between Venezuela's president, Nicolás Maduro, and opposition leader María Corina Machado has highlighted the growing political polarization in the country. After appearing before the Supreme Court to seek legitimacy for his reelection, Maduro firmly refused any type of negotiation with Machado, who has been promoting a dialogue to facilitate a democratic transition in Venezuela. This refusal reflects not only the existing tension in Venezuelan politics but also the profound disagreement over the legitimacy of the recent electoral process. The context of this dispute is marked by the presidential elections in which Maduro was proclaimed reelected with 52% of the votes. However, this figure has been questioned by the opposition, which alleges massive fraud and claims to have evidence supporting the victory of Edmundo González Urrutia, who presents himself as the true winner of the elections. The controversy intensifies as the National Electoral Council (CNE) has not published the detailed results, further fueling accusations of irregularities. Machado, who is barred from holding public office, argues that the opposition seeks to establish a dialogue that includes guarantees and safe conduct for all involved parties. In a recent interview, she mentioned that this process would be complex but necessary to unite the country in a time of crisis. However, Maduro's refusal to establish any contact with her indicates that the government is unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of the opposition leadership. The president, for his part, has disqualified Machado, suggesting that she must present herself before the judiciary to face the accusations against her. This call for justice appears to be more an attempt to delegitimize the opposition than a genuine interest in resolving the political crisis. The accusations against Machado and González Urrutia are serious, but the context in which they have developed also raises doubts about the impartiality of the Venezuelan judicial system. Tensions increased following Maduro's proclamation, with protests resulting in at least 24 deaths and thousands of arrests. This climate of instability has raised concerns both within and outside the country. Human rights organizations have denounced the use of force and violations of civil liberties, while the international community, including the United States and the European Union, has called for the publication of electoral results and independent verification of the process. In response to international pressure, Maduro has remained firm in his stance that the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) is the only body that can decide on the validity of the results. His defiant rhetoric has extended to organizations like the Carter Center, which he accused of having "dismissed the lie" regarding the electoral situation in the country. This type of polarizing discourse contributes to an atmosphere of distrust and delegitimization, both nationally and internationally. Giulio Cellini, the director of the political consultancy Logconultancy, has indicated that the ongoing judicial process may be interpreted as an ambush against González Urrutia. The judicialization of a conflict that should be resolved within the administrative realm of the CNE only increases uncertainty about Venezuela's political future. The lack of transparency in legal proceedings and the opacity of the electoral system are factors that fuel popular skepticism and distrust in institutions. Meanwhile, Maduro has expressed his willingness to dialogue with the 38 political parties in the country, deliberately excluding the most critical and representative opposition. This gesture seems more like an attempt to consolidate his power than a genuine effort to achieve national consensus. The selective inclusion of parties also raises questions about the legitimacy of any dialogue process that may arise in this context. The future of Venezuelan politics remains uncertain. With a divided opposition and a government clinging to power, the possibility of a peaceful transition to democracy seems remote. The need for a true dialogue process becomes more evident, but it also faces the harsh reality of a regime that appears willing to ignore the voices of the opposition and civil society. However, internal and external pressure could force the parties to reconsider their positions, opening the door to a potential change in Venezuela's political horizon.