Electoral processes in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela are regularly subject to extensive international media coverage—except in instances pertaining to elections involving Indigenous peoples and communities. These processes often unfold with limited visibility, even in cases where procedural shortcomings could merit critical evaluation or public scrutiny.
On 1 June 2025, elections were held to designate Indigenous representation in Venezuela’s legislative framework, specifically for the appointment of three national deputies and seven regional deputies, who will serve during the 2026–2031 legislative term. With the election of these three national deputies, the 285 seats of the National Assembly—of which 282 were filled through the general election on 25 May 2025—are now complete.
This Indigenous electoral process was conducted across nine states with significant Indigenous populations: Amazonas, Anzoátegui, Apure, Bolívar, Delta Amacuro, Monagas, Sucre, Zulia, and the newly established Guayana Esequiba (created under the Organic Law for the Defense of Guayana Esequiba, promulgated in April 2024).
A total of 6,451 community delegates participated in this electoral event. These individuals were previously selected through communal assemblies held in April 2025 and collectively represent 169,451 Indigenous persons from 3,952 recognized communities. The selection and electoral procedures are governed by each community’s own customary norms and governance structures.
For example, in Anzoátegui, 256 Indigenous delegates were elected through 179 assemblies of the Cumanagoto, Kariña, Inga, Píritu, and Warao peoples. In Delta Amacuro, the process involved the election of the “aidamo,” the principal leader in Indigenous communal assemblies.
The legal basis for this electoral process derives from multiple normative instruments within the Venezuelan legal system. Article 125 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela provides that:
“Indigenous peoples have the right to political participation. The State shall guarantee Indigenous representation in the National Assembly and in the deliberative bodies of federal and local entities with Indigenous populations, in accordance with the law.”
This constitutional mandate is further operationalized through the Organic Law on Indigenous Peoples and Communities (2005), which specifies in Article 67 that the exercise of political participation by Indigenous peoples must adhere to their customs and traditions.
Article 66 of the same law extends the right of representation to subnational levels—states, municipalities, and parishes—mandating the inclusion of Indigenous representatives in legislative, municipal, and parochial bodies, where applicable.
The Organic Law on Electoral Processes (2009) complements this framework. Article 183 stipulates that:
“In each state designated as an Indigenous constituency, where the Indigenous population equals or exceeds 500 individuals and is organized into recognized communities with collective decision-making practices, one legislator and their alternate shall be elected to the legislative councils.”
Article 184 contains analogous provisions for municipal councils.
In addition, Article 186 outlines eligibility requirements for Indigenous candidates, which include Venezuelan nationality, proficiency in an Indigenous language, and either prior service as a traditional authority or demonstrable leadership in the defense of Indigenous rights.
This institutional architecture places Venezuela among a group of Latin American states that have implemented affirmative measures to ensure the political inclusion of Indigenous peoples, in line with international standards on Indigenous rights and participatory democracy.
Comparative Framework in Latin America
Several other Latin American states have adopted similar mechanisms. For instance, Colombia’s 1991 Constitution includes provisions for Indigenous political participation. Article 171 establishes a special national constituency that guarantees two Senate seats for Indigenous communities, and requires that candidates have held positions as traditional leaders or Indigenous organization representatives.
Article 176 further ensures representation for the Raizal community of the department of San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina.
Bolivia’s 2009 Constitution and Electoral Regime Law No. 026 (2010) exemplify a more structurally integrated approach to Indigenous representation, consistent with the state’s self-definition as a “Plurinational Communitarian State.”
Article 26(II) affirms that electoral processes must be aligned with Indigenous peoples’ own norms and procedures, and guarantees them directly elected representation both at the departmental and regional autonomous levels.
In Mexico, electoral reforms have institutionalized specific constituencies in Indigenous-majority areas to ensure legislative representation by members of those communities.
Nicaragua, in compliance with rulings from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, has facilitated the participation of Indigenous political parties in both national and regional elections.
In Chile, although constitutional reform efforts were unsuccessful, the 2021–2022 Constitutional Convention included a dedicated Indigenous electoral roll to elect delegates in proportion to their share of the national population.
Other jurisdictions, such as Panama and Peru, enforce regulations requiring political parties to include Indigenous candidates on their electoral lists.
International Precedents Beyond Latin America
Outside Latin America, Indigenous political representation has also been institutionalized in various forms. In Northern Europe, the Sámi people, residing across Norway, Sweden, and Finland, possess representative Sámi parliaments that interface with national political institutions.
In the Russian Federation, Indigenous representatives from the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug are integrated into the regional Duma.
In New Zealand, the Māori people have had guaranteed parliamentary representation since 1867. As of 1996, the number of Māori seats varies based on the number of voters on the Māori electoral roll, currently totaling seven.
In South Africa, the National House of Traditional Leaders, established by legislation in 2003, provides consultative input on legislation affecting traditional communities. Likewise, in Burundi, the Barwa people are guaranteed seats in the National Assembly and representation in the National Land Commission.
Conclusion
Despite these precedents—both regional and global—the topic of Indigenous political representation remains largely underexplored in mainstream political discourse, academic analysis, and media coverage.
This omission persists even as broader debates on democratic legitimacy and inclusivity continue to intensify. Institutional mechanisms like those outlined above represent substantive efforts to construct more participatory, inclusive, and culturally responsive democratic systems in societies marked by ethnic and cultural diversity.