presidential

President Trump has recently developed a renewed appreciation for the importance of elections. Unfortunately for Venezuelans, he seems to have discovered it in Ukraine. Last week, he called for Volodymyr Zelensky to face voters, apparently unconvinced that an ongoing Russian invasion and martial law constitute sufficient reasons to postpone an election. In Venezuela, where his administration removed Nicolás Maduro nine months ago, elections would apparently be premature.

There are legitimate reasons to prepare carefully for elections, particularly given the condition of Venezuela’s electoral institutions. But nine months into the transition, the more interesting question is no longer simply why Delcy Rodríguez and Washington might prefer to postpone them. It is whether other actors, including some of those who have spent years demanding political change, are developing reasons to prefer the current arrangement as well.

Results amid uncertainty

Every additional month gives the ruling elite more time to influence the terms under which its own future will be decided. Cooperation in the oil industry is advancing, economic relations are being restored, and American companies have opportunities that were largely unavailable before Maduro’s removal. An election would introduce uncertainty into a relationship that has become increasingly useful to the Trump administration. That does not mean Washington has abandoned the idea of elections, but it does mean that postponing them carries fewer immediate costs than it otherwise might.

The calculation is not limited to governments and foreign investors. Venezuelan businesses are also beginning to see opportunities in the new environment. The prospect of renewed oil production, investment in electricity infrastructure, fewer financial restrictions, and improved international connections offers reasons to invest in a country that many had spent years trying to leave.

What happens if Venezuelans begin to associate the present arrangement with the prospect of economic recovery?

For a sector of Venezuelan society, the appeal may be even simpler. After years of economic collapse, shortages, political confrontation, and mass emigration, the possibility of a more normal life matters enormously. People want reliable electricity, decent wages, functioning businesses, and the ability to travel, save, and plan for the future. 

What happens if Venezuelans begin to associate the present arrangement with the prospect of economic recovery? A Venezuelan can continue supporting María Corina Machado while becoming increasingly reluctant to jeopardize the economic opportunities that Washington’s accommodation with Delcy appears to offer. And those opportunities do not even have to materialize fully for the calculation to change. Businesses make investments based on expectations, families make plans around the possibility of better incomes, and people who have spent years waiting for conditions to improve may be understandably hesitant to embrace another period of uncertainty. Their political preferences may remain exactly where they were, even as their willingness to bear the costs of political change begins to diminish.

The model of a tolerable status quo

This creates a peculiar possibility for Venezuela’s transition. The government could become more difficult to dislodge without becoming more popular. Economic normalization could make the existing arrangement increasingly tolerable to people who would still vote to replace it if given the opportunity. And the longer elections are postponed, the more time those expectations have to develop into economic interests that depend, or appear to depend, on the continuation of the status quo. Supporting political change and accepting the practical benefits of the present arrangement are not mutually exclusive.

This distinction matters because Delcy does not need to become popular for her government to become easier to live with. Nor does chavismo need to recover the support it enjoyed under Hugo Chávez. It may be enough that Venezuelans who would prefer a different government become increasingly reluctant to risk the improvements they are beginning to anticipate.

For traditional opposition parties, parliamentary, regional, and municipal elections offer opportunities that a presidential contest does not.

That creates a problem for the opposition. Machado may retain considerable popular support, but popular support does not automatically translate into pressure for an election. People can agree about who they want to govern them while disagreeing about how urgently the question needs to be settled, particularly when the alternative appears to involve another period of uncertainty.

The negotiating opposition may have reasons of its own to be comfortable with a slower timetable. For traditional opposition parties, parliamentary, regional, and municipal elections offer opportunities that a presidential contest does not. These are elections in which established party organizations, local networks, and political machinery matter considerably more than the popularity of any single national leader. Holding them before a presidential election could allow those parties to rebuild their institutional presence and strengthen their negotiating position within the opposition, including in relation to Machado. That does not mean they necessarily oppose her becoming president, or that they are deliberately working to postpone an election. But the order in which elections are held could have significant consequences for the balance of power within the opposition itself.

A frozen trip to democracy

There is, of course, another possibility. Economic recovery could strengthen civil society, give independent businesses more room to operate, and make a democratic transition easier. The return of investment and international connections need not come at the expense of political freedom.

The trouble is that nothing about economic normalization guarantees democratization, particularly when the institutions that determine whether elections take place remain under the control of the existing government.

Today’s Venezuelan authorities have taken a different approach. Elections are something to be held after the necessary reforms, agreements, and guarantees have been secured. Some of those conditions are reasonable, but without a deadline there is little to prevent the process from continuing indefinitely. The government can always identify another problem to resolve, Washington can always find another reason to prioritize stability, and some businesses and private sector leaders can always argue that the country needs more time to consolidate its recovery.

The danger is not necessarily that Delcy Rodríguez herself intends to remain interim president forever. It is that an arrangement nobody originally expected to last may become sufficiently useful, or simply tolerable, that ending it stops being an urgent priority.

Venezuelans do not have to choose between economic recovery and democracy. But unless elections become a concrete part of the political process, they may find themselves enjoying some of the benefits of a transition without ever reaching its intended destination.

Nearly 40 years have passed since a Californian was president.

Several have pursued the White House in the decades since Ronald Reagan ambled into retirement, in January 1989. But not a one succeeded. Kamala Harris, who was saved from political purgatory when Joe Biden chose her as his running mate, came closest — though not close — in 2024.

The 2028 race could bring at least three more California contestants, none of whom seem likely to end the state’s presidential dry spell.

Some of that speaks to the individual flaws and political frailties of those who are, at the least, eyeing a 2028 bid: Harris, outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom and five-term Silicon Valley Rep. Ro Khanna.

The problem they all face is their return address.

“There was a cliche that dates to the ‘60s or ‘70s, or maybe before that,” said Matthew Dallek, who was born and raised in Los Angeles and now teaches political management at George Washington University. “‘As California goes, so goes the nation.’ I don’t think that world exists anymore.”

Or as Jim Newton, a former L.A. Times reporter and editor and now a biographer and California historian, bluntly put it, the state has migrated in the minds of many beyond its golden confines “from a kind of serious west of the West place to a kind of hippy-dippy silly place.”

Not necessarily an accurate assessment on the part of those naysayers, but a damning perception nonetheless.

Political bookends

In many ways, Reagan and Harris serve as ideal exemplars of their home state and how it’s changed — along with attitudes toward California — in the decades between Reagan’s 1980 election as president and what would be, in 2028, Harris’ third try.

(The former vice president hasn’t ruled in or out another White House bid. Newsom has said he won’t run if Harris does. Khanna is in limbo until after November’s midterm election.)

Reagan was a product of the nation’s heartland and a California transplant. The state that launched him to the White House was predominantly white and Republican, an arsenal of the Cold War and the birthplace of a grass-roots anti-tax movement that swept the nation. His conservatism was seen by many as an antidote to the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s.

“California was in some ways on the cutting edge of American politics because it was signaling the direction in which our national politics were trending,” said Dallek, who wrote a book about Reagan’s first electoral victory, in the 1966 gubernatorial race. “Reagan was kind of the tip of the spear.”

Although leaning to the right, especially in presidential races, California was a robust two-party state until the mid-1990s, with several Democrats holding statewide office and long periods when Democrats controlled one or both houses of the Legislature. That competitiveness, along with California’s sizable cache of electoral votes, helped boost Reagan’s political standing nationally.

Harris was born in Oakland, the daughter of a father from Jamaica and a mother from India. By the time the Democrat left for Washington in 2017, to serve as a U.S. senator, then vice president, California had turned as blue as a cloudless desert sky.

California had more brown than white residents. The military was no longer the all-mighty economic engine it had been. And with Democrats in hegemonic control of Sacramento, the state had become the country’s preeminent bastion of liberal values and policies.

Many see that progressivism as overly obsessed with identity politics, personal pronouns and the like, ignoring practicalities and the day-to-day concerns of most voters.

California “has sort of gone off the deep end,” said Ken Khachigian, a longtime conservative strategist in Orange County, who worked for both Reagan and Richard M. Nixon.

(Between the two, California had a seat in the White House for more than half a roughly 40-year stretch. Nixon served two terms as vice president before winning the presidency in 1968. His second term was cut short when the Watergate scandal drove him from office.)

Khachigian noted that Republicans rule over states that are just as politically lopsided as California: Indiana, Mississippi, Idaho and Utah, for instance. “But they don’t seem crazed like California,” he said.

That’s obviously one partisan’s perspective.

‘Far left … ungovernable’

But Dallek agreed it’s no longer a political asset to come from California, which much of the country sees as “pretty far to the left.”

“And somewhat ungovernable at this point,” he added. “You have incredible, insane amounts of wealth concentrated in places like Silicon Valley and parts of Los Angeles and then you have incredible amounts of poverty and homelessness…. There’s not a sense that what’s happening in California really resonates across the country.”

There is a case to be made that California is great and good in so many ways, beyond just its incredible natural splendor.

It has the world’s fourth-largest economy, as Newsom and others never tire of pointing out. It remains on the cutting edge of culture, research and technology. It’s still a place that offers fertile ground for the imagination, for reinvention and for second chances.

Newcomers, from other states and abroad, are welcomed like in few other places. The unofficial California credo — live and let live — makes it possible to be one’s authentic self without fear of shame, ostracism or constraint.

Harris, Newsom, Khanna or any Democrat hailing from California will doubtless argue those virtues are what makes the state truly shine, convinced it’s a model they can sell the rest of America.

Good luck with that.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Is there a doctor in the House? Backlash to Trump, RFK Jr. may boost their political ranks
The deep dive: Republican Steve Hilton leans on cheeky ads, voter discontent in long-shot campaign for governor
The L.A. Times Special:Take a breath. Educate yourself. Then vote.

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Former Tottenham Hotspur defender Ramon Vega says he intends to stand as a candidate in next year’s Fifa presidential election.

The 55-year-old is the first person to confirm they want to challenge Gianni Infantino, who has defied calls to step down in the wake of his failed plan to sell off stakes in the World Cup to private investors, which has sparked a major backlash across football.

A former Switzerland centre-back, Vega also played for Celtic and Watford and has worked in finance since retiring from football in 2004.

“I am standing to reunite the global football family, deliver genuine and lasting reform, modernise Fifa for the 21st Century, restore stability and credibility, and rebuild the trust that our game urgently needs,” he said.

Meanwhile, Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa – president of the Asian Football Confederation – has written to Infantino, distancing himself from an external review of Fifa’s governance system.

In his letter – seen by BBC Sport – Sheikh Salman proposes that Fifa’s council sets up a working group to examine potential reforms, “rather than being outsourced to an external party”.

Last month, Infantino said he was “fully committed to leading Fifa” despite Uefa, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation calling for him to quit.

Vega considered running for Fifa’s top job in 2015 following the suspension of former president Sepp Blatter.

Four years later he said he would stand against Infantino, but failed to garner enough support to be included in the ballot, having required the backing of five of Fifa’s 211 member federations.

Candidates must also be proposed by a member association and have played an active role in the game for two of the past five years, as well as passing an eligibility check by a review committee.

“I am standing because my life has prepared me to serve the game,” Vega said in a statement announcing his candidacy.

“Football does not belong to presidents, confederations or administrators. Football is greater than any position, any individual or any institution.

“It is the people’s game and belongs to everyone: the players, coaches, referees, supporters, volunteers, clubs, leagues, associations and communities that give football its life.

“It belongs to every child discovering the game, every professional carrying the hopes of a nation, and the billions of supporters whose passion makes football the world’s game.

“Football must always come first. Yet for too long, division has fractured our football family.

“The current leadership has demoralised the game. Weak governance has damaged Fifa’s credibility and eroded trust across the global football family. We must stop this conflict from escalating.

“Ego-driven battles within football administration must never be allowed to damage those who matter most: the players, coaches, referees and supporters around the world. They are not responsible for these conflicts. They deserve better.”

Vega concluded: “Football is in the emergency room, on life support. We cannot wait any longer. Fifa needs a new direction and fundamental reform.

“We must reunite the football family, restore trust, bring stability and modernise Fifa’s governance. This requires decisive change – not cosmetic adjustments.”

Brazil’s closely watched presidential election is heading to a second round between leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, prolonging a deeply polarised race with major implications for the country and the wider region.

Brazil’s electoral court confirmed on Sunday that the two candidates will advance to a run-off on October 25 after neither won the majority needed to secure the presidency outright, with Bolsonaro leading at 55.8 million votes to Lula’s almost 53.2 million.

Lula, 80, is seeking a fourth, non-consecutive term after a political career spanning nearly five decades.

Bolsonaro, 45, is the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro and is trying to return his father’s right-wing movement to power, even as the former president serves a 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election.

The election comes at a pivotal time for Latin America’s largest economy. Brazilians are grappling with concerns over crime and the cost of living, while the country faces an increasingly tense relationship with the United States. The vote is also being closely watched across a region that has shifted sharply to the right in a series of recent elections.

While a second round was widely expected, the first-round result did not play out quite as pollsters had predicted.

Here are some of the key takeaways from the election so far.

Brazil is heading for another Lula-Bolsonaro run-off

With nearly 99 percent of votes reported, Bolsonaro had about 47 percent of valid votes, compared with 44.9 percent for Lula. Neither reached the 50 percent threshold needed to win in the first round.

That sets up another Lula-Bolsonaro showdown, four years after Lula narrowly defeated former President Jair Bolsonaro. This time, he will face the former president’s eldest son.

The race could be extremely close, as polling ahead of Sunday’s vote suggested Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro were roughly tied in a potential run-off.

That puts voters who backed one of the other 10 candidates in the first round at the centre of the fight for the presidency over the next three weeks.

Ronaldo Caiado and Renan Santos, who together received about 5.3 million votes, have previously said they will not endorse either candidate in the run-off.

Flavio Bolsonaro did better than polls suggested

Most polls leading up to election day predicted the race would be pushed into the second round, but had Lula finishing the first round ahead of Bolsonaro.

Instead, Bolsonaro emerged with a lead of two percentage points, raising questions about why the final polls underestimated his support.

On Sunday, Bolsonaro said the results showed that Brazilians want change.

Analysts told the Reuters news agency that Bolsonaro may have benefitted from “protest votes” from people who may have preferred another candidate but saw defeating Lula as the priority. Many had been expected to shift their support to Bolsonaro only in a second round, meaning this could have consequences for his support in three weeks.

“The protest vote foreshadows what is to come in the run-off,” political analyst Rafael Favetti told Reuters. “While this should benefit Flavio Bolsonaro now, his growth potential in the second round drops precisely because that support has already been front-loaded.”

After the results came in, Lula said the votes were “unexpected” but that he would come back stronger in the run-off.

“I admit, I was convinced I would win in the first round. The game is about to start. We are in extra time. In extra time, we will win over the Brazilian people,” the 80-year-old said.

The right had a strong night in Congress, too

Bolsonaro’s surprising performance in the first round was part of a broader show of strength for Brazil’s right.

Right-wing parties, led by Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party (PL), were performing strongly in both houses of Congress, with the PL on track to emerge as the largest force in the Chamber of Deputies and making gains in the Senate.

This included victories for other members of the Bolsonaro family, including former First Lady Michelle Bolsonaro, Flavio’s stepmother, who won a Senate seat in the Federal District, her first elected office.

His brother, Carlos Bolsonaro, was elected to the Senate in Santa Catarina.

The results show that the political movement built around former President Jair Bolsonaro – known as “bolsonarista” – remains a powerful electoral force, even with the former president barred from running himself.

“The fact that far-right candidates for the legislature have exceeded all expectations suggests a deeper popular grounding for the bolsonarista project than many expected,” Andre Pagliarini, an assistant professor of history and international studies at Louisiana State University and author of a book on Lula, told Al Jazeera.

“Millions of Brazilians right now evidently feel the right best reflects their values and vision for the future,” he added.

The congressional results matter beyond election night, too. Both houses were already dominated by conservative lawmakers, and a stronger right-wing presence could make it even harder for Lula to push through his agenda if he wins another term.

A Bolsonaro victory, meanwhile, could give him more room to pursue his own priorities, including his pledge to seek an amnesty for his father.

For the second election in a row, Brazilian voters face a choice between left-wing candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and a right-wing candidate from the Bolsonaro family.

The country’s fractious election is set to take place during a wave of successful far-right candidates across Latin America and a sensitive time in Brazil’s modern political history.

Former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence over his role in a coup plot following his loss to Lula in 2022. The conviction of Jair Bolsonaro and several military officers raised questions about the resilience of Brazilian democracy, revived several decades ago following a period of rule by a United States-backed military dictatorship.

An explosive corruption scandal has implicated prominent figures and institutions across the political spectrum, and observers have expressed concern about possible US intervention.

Polls suggest Lula, the current president seeking a fourth non-consecutive term, and Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, are in a virtual tie in a simulated run-off.

Who are the candidates, what issues have been front and centre, and what could the election mean for Brazil? Here’s what you need to know about Brazil’s 2026 presidential elections.

When is the election?

The first round of voting in the Brazilian presidential election will take place on October 4 from 8am to 5pm Brasilia time (11:00 to 20:00 GMT).

If no candidate wins the first round outright, the top two candidates will proceed to a run-off vote on October 25.

Who is Lula?

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, better known simply as Lula, is the country’s current president and the candidate for the Workers’ Party, or the PT.

The 80-year-old has been a central figure in Brazilian politics for decades, serving two four-year presidential terms between 2003 and 2011, and his current term, which began in 2023.

His time in office has been defined by an effort to pair political democracy, restored after a US-backed military dictatorship that ruled the country for several decades until the 1980s, with material improvement for the country’s poor through a series of social programmes meant to address inequality.

Lula has also sought to forge ties between developing, non-Western countries on the global stage.

“He has come to embody the institutionalisation and consolidation of Brazilian democracy since the end of the dictatorship,” Andre Pagliarini, an assistant professor of history and international studies at Louisiana State University and the author of a book on Lula, told Al Jazeera in a phone call.

Who is Flavio Bolsonaro?

Flavio Bolsonaro has emerged as the heir to his father’s status as leader of Brazil’s political right and Lula’s main challenger in the 2026 election. Bolsonaro is running as the candidate of the right-wing Liberal Party.

The 45-year-old is the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Flavio has pledged a hard stance on crime and insecurity and close collaboration with the administration of US President Donald Trump, which has designated several criminal groups in Brazil as “terrorist organisations”.

He has also promised to rein in inflation and government spending, with an adviser stating that he would implement a debt ceiling if elected.

Flavio Bolsonaro has also sought to turn his father’s conviction into a story of political persecution, denouncing his trial as illegitimate and seeking his release from prison.

“I ask God for the opportunity to walk up the ramp of Planalto Palace next year alongside President Jair Messias Bolsonaro, so that he may place the presidential sash across my chest,” he said at a campaign event in September.

“The Bolsonaro family’s pitch is that the institutions that Brazilian democracy has erected since the end of dictatorship are either rotten and unresponsive, and that we need a sharp turn away from this status quo,” said Pagliarini.

“The stakes of this election are incredibly stark because the candidates stand for such opposing visions about what Brazil’s recent history means,” he added.

What issues have defined the race?

As with many recent elections across the region, crime, insecurity and cost of living issues have dominated the Brazilian election. Corruption and concerns about US intervention in the country’s domestic affairs have also loomed over the campaign.

A Quaest survey from September 7 found that 31 percent of respondents cited violence as their biggest concern, followed by 20 percent who said corruption, 19 percent who said the economy, and 12 percent who said health.

While Brazil has seen decent economic growth and low unemployment and inflation during Lula’s third term, those mild gains have been paired with explosive levels of household debt and concerns about the rising cost of living.

A report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning US-based think tank focused on economic issues, found that extreme poverty in Brazil fell by about 40 percent between 2022 and 2024, unemployment dropped to historic lows, and the country’s economic growth significantly outpaced that of most of its neighbours. But the analysis also found that households were strained by a sharp uptick in the cost of servicing debt. All in all, analysts say they amount to a view of the economy that is neither catastrophic nor particularly satisfying.

Pagliarini says that both candidates have tried to steer the election onto more favourable terrain for their issues of choice, with Lula portraying Flavio Bolsonaro as a willing accomplice in US efforts to undermine Brazilian sovereignty, and Flavio Bolsonaro accusing Lula of being corrupt and weak on crime.

What do the polls say?

Analysts say that polls reflect the state of Brazilian politics: deeply polarised but unenthusiastic.

“The general vibe is that this is a very downbeat campaign,” said Pagliarini. “There’s not a lot of enthusiasm either way, and it’s hard to tell at this stage who that favours.”

Most surveys show a close race, with Lula holding a marginal advantage over Flavio Bolsonaro that tightens further in a hypothetical run-off.

A Quaest survey from September shows Lula with 37 percent of voter intention against Flavio Bolsonaro’s 33 percent, while an AtlasIntel survey from the same period showed Lula winning 46 percent to Flavio Bolsonaro’s 43 percent.

A Datafolha poll found Lula with 40 percent and Flavio Bolsonaro with 36 percent.

Polls also show Flavio Bolsonaro favoured over Lula on issues of inflation, combating corruption, and crime and drug trafficking, while Lula is seen more favourably on issues of poverty and inequality, foreign affairs and health.

What challenges has each campaign faced?

An explosive corruption scandal, focused on disgraced banker Daniel Vorcaro, has raised questions for both campaigns and implicated members of the country’s political and economic elite across the political spectrum.

Reports found that Flavio Bolsonaro had solicited substantial funds from Vorcaro, ostensibly to finance a documentary – The Dark Horse (or O Azarao) – about his father.

Lula’s former finance minister, Guido Mantega, has also said he helped arrange a meeting with Vorcaro, Lula and the head of Brazil’s central bank to discuss banking policy. Lula has said he told Vorcaro there would be no political interference in his bank’s case, only a “technical investigation conducted by the central bank”. The Reuters news agency confirmed the meeting.

The scandal has also embroiled the country’s Supreme Court, with Alexandre de Moraes, whose central role in Bolsonaro’s coup trial turned him into a subject of ire for the political right, facing questions about his own links to the banker.

De Moraes has in turn accused a justice appointed by Bolsonaro of wrongdoing, with the court considering probes into the conduct of both justices.

What are the concerns about US intervention?

Concerns that the Trump administration could intervene or seek to influence the outcome on behalf of Bolsonaro have also loomed over the election.

The US president has frequently threatened to cut off economic assistance to Latin American countries if his preferred candidate fails to win. Trump had also used sanctions to target members of the Brazilian judiciary involved in the case against the elder Bolsonaro, which he portrayed as a “witch-hunt”. Trump also placed heavy tariffs on Brazil in a bid to have the case thrown out.

The country’s government denied visas to two US officials who sought to travel to Brazil, saying they planned to cast doubt on the integrity of Brazilian elections. Lula’s government has warned the US against meddling in the country’s domestic affairs.

Trump has himself used false claims of rampant fraud to justify efforts to remain in office despite his election loss in 2020.

A group of 31 Democratic US Congress members recently sent a letter to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticising “an apparent effort to interfere with, and potentially undermine” Brazilian elections.

The Reuters reported that Brazilian intelligence officials also briefed a French and German delegation in September about possible interference in the election by outside powers such as the US and Russia. The officials said that US interference ranged “from lawfare to interference that is openly acknowledged”.

A historic collapse

One factor in the widespread disillusionment has been the Banco Master scandal. The financial imbroglio has delivered a black eye to both ends of Brazil’s political spectrum.

A range of business leaders, political figures, regulators and judges have been swept up in the scandal.

A mid-sized lender, Banco Master grew aggressively over the last decade by selling high-yield deposit certificates. Some of those certificates offered returns of up to 140 percent relative to Brazil’s benchmark interbank rate.

But Banco Master did not have the assets needed to sustain that output.

It lacked the money to pay back its risky loans, and what assets it did have were diverted to shell accounts, according to prosecutors.

Brazil’s Central Bank ultimately liquidated Banco Master in 2025, as the lender faced a major funding squeeze.

Its owner, Daniel Vorcaro, was subsequently arrested, accused of an array of financial crimes, including money laundering and fraud.

The collapse of Banco Master triggered a nearly $7.7bn payout from Brazil’s Credit Guarantee Fund, the largest disbursement in the nonprofit insurance’s history.

Investigators have suggested that Vorcaro protected his fraud scheme by cultivating influence among power brokers among Brazil’s elite.

Among those implicated in the scandal is Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the presidential candidate.

Last month, the Supreme Court unsealed documents showing he is under investigation for alleged corruption and money laundering in connection with Vorcaro.

Audio recordings have also surfaced, appearing to show Bolsonaro soliciting the disgraced bank leader for millions in funding. The money was slated as financing for Dark Horse, a film about his imprisoned father, Jair Bolsonaro.

Flavio Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing. He described the interaction as a private sponsorship opportunity, unrelated to the Banco Master scandal.

Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado has been living in exile, with plans to return to Venezuela spoiled multiple times.

Hundreds of supporters of Venezuela’s opposition leader Maria Corina Machado have taken to the streets to demand her safe return and presidential elections that could lead to a democratic transition in the country.

In Caracas, hundreds of activists in sky blue shirts – the colour of Machado’s Vente Venezuela party – rode motorcycles through the capital’s main avenues on Sunday, honking their horns and waving Venezuelan flags. Similar demonstrations were held in state capitals, including Valencia, Maracaibo and Merida.

“This is not a matter of parties or politics,” said Flavio Valentini, a Vente Venezuela activist in Caracas who grabbed a megaphone and addressed the crowd. “This is a movement for the people and by the people.”

Machado has been living in exile for the past nine months and has had plans to return to Venezuela spoiled multiple times. Opposition activists have accused Venezuela’s government of blocking her return, a claim the authorities deny. Machado’s party said that on Monday night, the opposition leader made three unsuccessful attempts to return.

“We hope this transition process leads us to presidential elections and consolidates a free, democratic country that will be the main ally of the United States,” said Anthony Romero, a leader for Vente Venezuela, in the nation’s capital.

The government has been widely accused of stealing elections, jailing dissidents and stifling freedom of speech. But late last week, Venezuela released more than three dozen political prisoners following a second round of talks backed by the US between the interim government and the opposition.

Machado, one of Venezuela’s most popular political leaders, was barred from running in Venezuela’s last presidential election by courts under the control of former President Nicolas Maduro. But her stand-in candidate is widely believed to have won the election with almost two-thirds of the vote.

Maduro claimed victory nevertheless and unleashed a violent crackdown against dissidents who protested the official results, forcing Machado and dozens of opposition leaders to go into hiding. Machado smuggled herself out of Venezuela last year after she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to restore democracy in the country.

US special forces abducted Maduro from his Caracas home in January, but Machado has been unable to return to Venezuela since then.

The government is now led by Delcy Rodriguez, a Maduro ally who has opened Venezuela’s oil industry to foreign investment and is working closely with the administration of US President Donald Trump.

Rodriguez told the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Wednesday that Venezuela would hold elections as part of a transition to “full democracy”, but did not give a date for the vote.