The world has changed decisively in recent years. The relevance of international organizations and their ability to exert influence in defense of principles and rights has diminished in recent times.
The Venezuelan case illustrates this situation, given the difficulty faced by international organizations such as the Organization of American States, the International Criminal Court, and the United Nations system in stopping, or significantly mitigating, the severe crisis in which human rights violations, crimes against humanity, and a humanitarian emergency have converged, striking the country relentlessly. Many years of active advocacy before various international bodies by activists and human rights defenders have yielded only partial victories and minor advances, while the crisis has deepened day by day before the eyes of the world.
This evident weakness of the international institutional framework has been the context in which the United States has decided to carry out actions in Venezuela that, according to official statements from that country, seek to directly influence the conduct of a process that culminates in the holding of free and fair elections.
This process, which in principle could lead to an improvement in the country’s severe social conditions and to the restoration of citizens’ political rights through an electoral contest, nonetheless lacks the active support of Europe and other countries whose presence would help ensure that the process unfolds in a balanced and harmonious manner and takes place under a broad and diverse perspective.
The reality, however, is different. The dominant voice openly guiding, monitoring, or directing the process is that of the United States. For this reason, it is extremely important that the various sectors within that country fully understand the complexity of the Venezuelan situation, the social, economic, and political characteristics of the crisis, and closely follow developments in order to avoid getting lost in the details. This understanding requires addressing the problem with a broad perspective that goes beyond the most obvious and short-term American interests.
Thus, it is vital that U.S. institutions—particularly within the Executive and Legislative branches—grasp the magnitude and specific features of certain key aspects beyond the strictly economic. Venezuela indeed faces the possibility of beginning a transition process, and such a transition does not occur solely with the arrival of new authorities, but also with the redefinition of democratic norms and principles for coexistence, as well as the corresponding restoration of citizens’ rights. Is this vision shared by U.S. authorities?
For our part, we view certain factors that act as barriers to transition with concern. A central pillar of any transition is the holding of a free and fair electoral process, which is not possible under current conditions due to the existence of numerous clearly identifiable obstacles, such as the formation of a new National Electoral Council, the creation of a reliable Electoral Registry that includes all Venezuelans, and the selection of a technical team committed to transparency. These, however, are only some of the barriers that prevent the exercise of voting under democratic conditions. Indeed, laws that restrict civic space and freedom of expression, as well as conditions imposed on the media that have created a climate of persecution against journalists and civil society organizations, limit the participation of political actors on equal terms.
There have been some advances in certain areas, such as the amnesty law. However, to date, the number of releases has been slow, insignificant, selective, revictimizing, and used for political purposes to maintain control over the population. Within the large group of imprisoned military personnel, no releases have taken place. The structures of repression remain unchanged; no one has been investigated for the harm inflicted on victims of politically motivated persecution, and the figures on releases and amnesties lack transparency.
These are just some of the aspects that must be carefully considered as part of Venezuela’s path to democracy. Any effort by the international community to highlight the need to incorporate these and other issues—such as legal certainty, judicial reform, the presence of irregular armed groups, and the transparent management of revenues from oil and mineral sales—into the Venezuelan process will be of great help. Venezuela requires from the international community in general, and from the United States in particular, a broad-based approach and a vision committed to the rights inherent in a democratic society.