By David Jessop

 

The recent demonstrations are the biggest political challenge Venezuela’s ruling PSUV has had to face since President Maduro took office in April 2013.  

 

However, support for what is happening has largely not crossed over from the middle class to the working class and the poor, and appears unlikely to do so.

 

Confrontations with the security forces are mainly taking place in wealthier districts and most commonly involve students.

 

That said, some of the views expressed by the protestors reflect common concerns among the majority of Venezuelans about the chaotic state of the domestic economy and the collapsing standard of living in a country that is sitting on vast reserves of oil.

 

 

 

Beyond this, there are continuing internal divisions within the governing party and indications of dissent about how to respond to demonstrations that have spread to up to 30 other cities.

 

President Maduro has repeatedly called his opponents fascists and right-wing extremists, alleging that far right groups want to “turn the people against each other”. 

 

He has also blamed international news networks such as CNN in Spanish for inflaming divisions.

 

In an attempt to bring a halt to the street protests and deaths, President Maduro has called for a national peace conference to try to bring together all sectors of society, including political opponents, businessmen, trade unionists but this has so far found limited support.

 

 

The opposition is split between those who want direct action and those who are seeking change through dialogue. 

 

One controversial and polarising opposition figure, Leopoldo Lopez, is in jail and Henrique Capriles Radonski, the opposition leader, has called for President Maduro to rein in government-backed paramilitary groups.

 

As a consequence, the challenge for government, it seems, as with civil conflicts everywhere, is how best

 

This is not to take sides, to downplay the social achievements of Venezuela’s government with the country’s poor, or to set aside the strong and increasingly irreconcilable political antagonism that exists between all parties.

 

 

Rather, it is to provide background to the inevitable change that the Caribbean is going to see in the PetroCaribe arrangement.

 

For the last few years, Venezuela’s oil exports to the USA, it major market,  have been in a steep decline

 

This means whatever happens on the streets, Venezuela is faced with a domestic economic scenario that will be hard to resolve unless mechanisms are put in place to increase revenues from its oil, and decisions are taken to move the industry onto an efficient, sound and more orthodox long-term footing.

 

 

The probability is that if actions by all parties in Venezuela moderate and the state does not over react, the present unrest may abate.

 

If this is the case then President Maduro will need to demonstrate statesmanship, pragmatism and focus on making his nation’s oil of greater benefit to all of the Venezuelan people.

 

This will almost certainly mean changing the terms of the PetroCaribe arrangement.

 

Unsurprisingly, the programme has become the subject of domestic criticism.

 

Support for it has been less than enthusiastic among members of the governing PSUV, the National Assembly, the state-owned oil company PDVSA, and crucially the armed forces, with some pressing for change.

 

So much so that last October senior figures within PDVSA, were reported by the London-based specialist energy publisher Argus Media, as saying that it was likely that the interest rate payable by all PetroCaribe members will have to double by the end of 2014.

 

 

This is the most likely short term scenario that will face much of the Caribbean.

 

Although there may be some exceptions such as Cuba, where there is a long-term oil and investment for services agreement, and Jamaica which has an assurance at least until the country’s four-year loan deal with the IMF expires in 2017, most Caribbean nations will need to prepare for what this will mean.

 

In the US and in Europe thought is now being given to the ways in which energy in the form of natural gas together with longer term programmes related to renewable energy might form a part of a new economic initiative in the region.

 

Their approach is as much development driven as political and may represent a long term alternative.

 

What it will not do is remove the likelihood of an increase in Caribbean indebtedness or the need, as my friend and fellow columnist Sir Ronald Sanders noted last week, for those Caribbean nations most at risk to seek technical advice on how to avoid calamity.

 

Some of what has been written and said in the Caribbean about PetroCaribe has been thoughtful, but other comment, particularly in the US, appears to be politically driven by those who wish to see political change in Caracas and a setback for Cuba.  

 

As this column has noted before, those beyond the Caribbean should be careful what they wish for.