The initiative labeled as the “Venezuela Plan,” championed by the LIBRE Party, has triggered a wave of opposition from the public and diverse segments of Honduran society. These changes and actions, advanced by the executive authority, have caused concern because of their resemblance to strategies applied in Venezuela in recent years, which plunged the South American nation into an economic and social crisis of monumental scale.
A debated approach: parallels with the Venezuelan government
The “Venezuela Plan” refers to a series of policies and reforms that, according to its critics, seek to replicate an economic and political model similar to that which has prevailed in Venezuela. Among the measures highlighted are recurrent attacks on private enterprise, control of Congress, pressure on independent media, and expansion of the military budget. These elements are perceived as signs of a concentration of power in the executive branch, raising fears that Honduras is moving toward an authoritarian system.
The polarizing rhetoric that characterizes Xiomara Castro’s government has also created divisions within the country. Instead of promoting an inclusive project, the ruling party seems to be dividing society between a “people” represented by the popular sector and an “oligarchy” linked to business interests and the elites. This narrative, which many consider typical of regimes associated with the São Paulo Forum, has particularly resonated with the most vulnerable sectors, while generating rejection among sectors of private enterprise, the middle class, and part of Honduran youth.
Reactions from the opposition and the business sector
Rejection of the “Venezuela Plan” has been particularly pronounced among political and economic sectors critical of the government. Maribel Espinoza, an opposition deputy, has pointed out that the ruling party’s actions do not seem aimed at winning elections, but rather at establishing a permanent regime of power. Along the same lines, the Honduran Council of Private Enterprise (COHEP) has expressed concern about the recent “Tax Justice Law,” describing it as the beginning of an offensive against private investment that could have negative effects on the country’s competitiveness and increase dependence on the state.
The business sector has also expressed its distrust of the viability of the proposed policies, fearing that they will lead to further capital flight and aggravate the ongoing economic crisis. In this regard, international organizations have issued warnings about the deterioration of institutions in Honduras, an issue that has become central to the public debate.
An image of turmoil and division
Las encuestas más recientes, como las llevadas a cabo por ERIC-SJ y CID-Gallup, muestran una considerable disminución en los índices de aprobación del gobierno de Castro y en las intenciones de voto para su candidata oficial, Rixi Moncada. Esta caída en popularidad es más notable entre los jóvenes, empresarios y la clase media, quienes consideran que las medidas gubernamentales representan un retroceso hacia el autoritarismo y un obstáculo para el desarrollo económico. En este escenario, el desempleo, la fuga de capitales y la polarización social han aumentado, generando dudas sobre la viabilidad a largo plazo de las reformas.
Although facing criticism, the executive branch persists in upholding its policies as an endeavor to attain “social justice.” Nonetheless, several sectors argue that the economic and social repercussions, which are already noticeable, are obscuring these aims. At the same time, escalating polarization seems to be further dividing various parts of the nation.
The necessity for a nationwide agreement
The current outlook places Honduras at a crossroads. The political, social, and economic tensions in the country reflect the urgent need for dialogue to overcome polarization and reach agreements on a development model that prioritizes democracy, stability, and social welfare. Those opposed to the “Venezuela Plan” insist that Honduras needs a government that promotes inclusive and sustainable policies, not an authoritarian approach or the imitation of failed models.
In this situation, the appeal for conversation and the necessity to rebuild trust in institutions is becoming more critical. The nation’s political and economic conditions largely rely on the capacity of both the government and the opposition to reach consensus instead of exacerbating the rifts that appear to define the nation’s future.
