Venezuela: to be or not to be

The article deals with the most crucial components of the current political and institutional crisis in Venezuela. A brief historical deflection into the events of 1989-2020 was made, which indicate, among other things, deep-seated left-wing political views and feelings amidst the majority of the population. This situation serves as a solid platform for strengthening the role of the ruling PSUV party and the present head of State, N. Maduro, in the country’s domestic politics. The political and institutional crisis in the above-mentioned oil-rich South American country has expanded sharply, after being elected Juan Guaidó, a representative of the opposition party VP («People’s Will») as a Chairman of the National Assembly on January 5, 2019. He challenged the prevailing President, declaring himself as the Acting head of State just on January 23, 2019. In this context, the key social and economic aftermaths of the crisis in present-day Venezuela are revealed, in particular, such as the GDP contraction, hyperinflation, growth of the population living in extreme economic poverty, an increase of Venezuelans forced to leave the country due to, above all, obvious signs of a humanitarian crisis. Deepening of the Venezuelan society in destructive processes, escalating of the political debates at the level of parties’ leaders, a lack of the transparent discussion in the public arena concerning the country’s future, to be a necessary condition for realizing the citizen’s rights to democratic choice, appear as consequences of the failure of Guaidó’s strategy. It was built in particular on the desired, but not achieved cessation the usurpation of power by Maduro. The postures of the main international players (USA, EU, OAS, «Lima Group», International Contact Group) are outlined with regard to the assessments of the domestic situation in Venezuela and suggestions for resolving the political crisis and restoring democracy in this country, in particular via introducing sanctions against Venezuelan officials and legal entities, as well as establishing a constructive dialogue between Maduro and the opposition. The main items of Ukraine’s official position on the «Venezuelan issue» had also been notified. In a nutshell, a conclusion is made that for a certain category of Ukrainian voters and for the majority of Venezuelans, despite the obvious differences, the issue of the public administration model remains rhetorical, authoritative, as an outcome of the improvement of democratization, or authoritarian one.