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 collection of strategies and changes that, according to its opponents, aim to copy an economic and political system akin to the one that has predominated in Venezuela. Notable among the actions are repeated criticisms of private businesses, dominance over the legislative body, coercion of free press, and the increase of military spending. These factors are viewed as indicators of an accumulation of authority in the executive branch, sparking worries that Honduras is heading towards an authoritarian regime.
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.
Responses from the opposition and the corporate sector
Refusal of the “Venezuela Plan” has been especially noticeable among political and economic circles critical of the administration. Maribel Espinoza, an opposition lawmaker, has highlighted that the actions of the ruling party seem less focused on electoral victories and more on creating a lasting power structure. Similarly, the Honduran Council of Private Enterprise (COHEP) has voiced worries regarding the recent “Tax Justice Law,” labeling it as the start of a campaign against private investment that might harm the nation’s competitiveness and heighten reliance on the state.
The corporate world has similarly voiced skepticism regarding the feasibility of the suggested measures, worrying that they might result in increased capital outflow and worsen the current economic downturn. In this context, global organizations have cautioned about the decline of institutions in Honduras, a concern that has taken center stage in the public discourse.
A picture of crisis and polarization
Recent polls, such as those conducted by ERIC-SJ and CID-Gallup, reflect a significant drop in approval ratings for the Castro government and in voting intentions for its official candidate, Rixi Moncada. This decline in popularity is most evident among young people, businesspeople, and the middle class, who perceive the government’s measures as a step backward toward authoritarianism and a brake on economic development. In this context, unemployment, capital flight, and social polarization have increased, raising doubts about the long-term sustainability of the reforms.
Despite criticism, the executive branch continues to defend its policies as part of an effort to achieve “social justice.” However, many sectors believe that these objectives are being overshadowed by the economic and social consequences that are already being felt. Growing polarization, meanwhile, appears to be widening the gap between different sectors of the country.
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 context, the call for dialogue and the need to restore confidence in institutions is becoming increasingly urgent. The country’s political and economic situation depends, to a large extent, on the ability of the government and the opposition to find common ground rather than deepening the divisions that currently seem to be shaping the country’s future.