Rejection of LIBRE’s “Venezuela Plan” in Honduras: deep divisions among key sectors of the country

The proposal known as the “Venezuela Plan,” promoted by the LIBRE Party, has sparked a series of adverse reactions among both the general public and various sectors of Honduran society. These reforms and measures, promoted by the executive branch, have raised alarms due to their similarities with policies implemented in Venezuela in recent years, which led the South American country into an economic and social crisis of historic proportions.

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 divisive language used by Xiomara Castro’s administration has also led to splits within the nation. Rather than fostering a united initiative, the current government appears to be separating society into a “people” portrayed by the popular group and an “oligarchy” connected to economic interests and elite groups. This discourse, which numerous individuals view as characteristic of governments tied to the São Paulo Forum, has found significant support among the most disadvantaged communities, while simultaneously causing disapproval among business sectors, the middle class, and segments of the young population in Honduras.

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.

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.

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.