A few weeks after the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, various documents began to emerge outlining milestones or indicators deemed necessary to consider that Venezuela had begun its transition toward the restoration of democracy. These entail actions that must be manifested through norms, policies, and practices demonstrating unequivocal signs of a democratic transition, with the aim of dispelling doubts regarding the direction Venezuela would take following the intervention by a foreign power. In the very week marking the four-month anniversary of the military intervention, a series of events have occurred that point in a direction contrary to a transition toward democracy.
On April 29, the President of the National Assembly (AN) sent a message to Venezuelans living abroad who harbor “some kind of resentment,” telling them: “Get over it, forgive us, and come home.” The AN spokesperson employed three verbs in the imperative mood—that is, issuing a command. It was not an invitation; it was an imposition born of the arrogance of someone demanding that others let go of what he characterizes as “resentment,” without acknowledging the true underlying causes of a mass migration that has been ongoing for over a decade. He demands forgiveness without acknowledging his own crimes and demands the return of migrants who, according to the prevailing narrative of the last ten years, do not even exist. The stance from which this phrase is uttered is arrogance, that of someone attempting to invert the roles of victim and perpetrator in order to cast himself as the aggrieved party, rather than the aggressor. It is not the posture of someone genuinely seeking to build bridges for a reconciliation among Venezuelans to restore democracy.
On May 1, while addressing a group of U.S. business leaders and officials—the very kind looking for signs of stabilization and legal certainty before bringing their capital to Venezuela—Delcy Rodríguez was asked by a New York Times journalist when elections would be held in the country. Her response could not have been more dismissive: “I don’t know… someday,” delivered with a smile as she turned her back on those present. There were more elegant ways to evade answering a question that proves uncomfortable for the de facto head of the executive—ways that would have maintained at least a glimmer of hope regarding the possibility of new elections. Instead, Rodríguez chose the option that leaves the fewest doubts about her agenda—an agenda in which a transition to democracy is conspicuously absent.
On May 1st itself, Rodríguez announced an increase in income, though notably not in salary, totaling US $240. Since this is not classified as a base salary, the amount is not taken into account when calculating benefits, vacation pay, profit-sharing, or pension entitlements. The official base salary remains at Bs. 130, equivalent to just $0.26 per month, thereby retaining its status as the lowest minimum wage in the world. This same amount is what will be received by pensioners who are not registered in the “Patria” system. Everything suggests that the approach taken by this self-styled “workers’ government” is one that fails to consider the long-term well-being of the worker and fails to reflect within its budget the projections of a purported economic recovery. The de facto government continues to withhold figures regarding revenue generated by the mining and oil sectors; furthermore, it remains entirely unclear how these alleged revenues are reflected in a public budget that supposedly prioritizes social welfare. A lack of transparency and the discretionary use of public resources—practices fundamentally at odds with the principles of a democratic society—continue to define the conduct of public affairs.
Another no less concerning message was conveyed by the newly appointed General Prosecutor, Larry Devoe, in response to a request for access to public information that had been submitted to his office on April 15. The communication, sent by the NGOs Espacio Público, AlertaVenezuela, and the Human Rights Center of the Andrés Bello Catholic University, requested information from the Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding figures related to the implementation of the Amnesty Law. Devoe denied the right to access public information, arguing that “the grounds justifying the requested information of public interest are not articulated, as mandated by Article 9, numeral 4, of the Law on Transparency and Access to Information of Public Interest.” In doing so, the General Prosecutor’s evasive response attempts to challenge the standing of the petitioners and their motives for making the request. It is worth recalling that the Amnesty Law establishes in its Article 1 that its objective is “to promote social peace and democratic coexistence.” Nothing could be of greater public interest than social peace and democratic coexistence—channeled through the alleged release of dissidents—and, therefore, any citizen or association is qualified to request this type of information. The Amnesty Law was not only incomplete, restricted in its application, and recently repealed by the Executive Branch without the authority to do so, but it has also fallen victim to the lack of transparency that characterizes the de facto government. It is impossible to “promote social peace and democratic coexistence” when access to information regarding the implementation of the very instrument supposedly enacted for that purpose is denied.
Recent polls indicate a decline in the level of credibility of both the Trump administration and the de facto government regarding the changes expected in Venezuela. There exists ample documentation containing clear indicators and demands from various sectors of Venezuelan society regarding the path toward a democratic transition—none of which has even been mentioned by the political elites of either country. The international community must keep these documents firmly in mind, beyond the pompous declarations from Washington and Caracas regarding alleged changes, and maintain its focus on the expectations for a transition to democracy, taking into account all these signals pointing in the opposite direction.