A few weeks ago, AlertaVenezuela published an analysis warning of the risk of a “Gattopardian” maneuver by the de facto government—an attempt to create the illusion of change when, in reality, it amounts to nothing more than a reshuffling. The recent appointments of the Prosecutor General and the Ombudsperson point in precisely this direction.
The selection process was carried out without adhering to basic legal requirements. The nominations committee was composed solely of legislators, effectively excluding civil society; no standardized criteria were established to provide objective indicators for evaluating the candidates; the decision-making deadline was extended twice beyond the limit prescribed by law; and no time was allotted for the submission of objections to the candidacies.
The outcome came as no surprise. The selection of Larry Devoe as Prosecutor General and Eglée González as Ombudsperson sidelined the candidacies of prominent Venezuelans—individuals possessing impeccable credentials—who nonetheless lacked the requisite political backing from those clinging to power.
The Prosecutor’s first official act was to refute allegations of irregularities raised by the relatives of political prisoners detained at the El Rodeo I penitentiary. He asserted that a “supervisory visit” had confirmed that a prisoner protest was handled through the “progressive and differentiated use of force.” At no point, however, was any reference made to the underlying causes of the protest, nor to the necessity of activating such protocols. Political prisoner Josnars Baduel—son of General Raúl Baduel, who died while in custody—managed to communicate with his sister by shouting, denouncing the dire conditions to which they were being subjected. Despite the official report of “normalcy” issued by the Prosecutor’s Office, the prisoners remain cut off from visitors; consequently, their relatives have been unable to corroborate the official narrative. The Prosecutor’s next move was to bring before the courts Edwin Sambrano—a lawyer and representative for various labor unions—who had been detained at the Santo Domingo del Táchira airport upon returning to the country after two years in exile. His detention was reportedly carried out pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the 3rd Terrorism Court. Sambrano was charged with incitement and promotion of hatred and released on conditional liberty, subject to a travel ban and periodic appearances before the court.
The Ombudsperson’s first official action is still awaited. There has been no reaction regarding the unexplained incident at the El Rodeo I prison, nor regarding the continued application of the “Law Against Hatred” as a weapon of political persecution; however, a human rights defense attorney announced that the Ombudsperson would receive a group of citizens to discuss a six-point agenda, which includes the release of political prisoners.
Immediately following the appointments of the Prosecutor General and the Ombudsperson, various media outlets, analysts, and political leaders began referring to “upcoming” appointments, as if the country was undergoing a genuine process of institutional renewal that might eventually lead to a transition to democracy. By now, it should be clear that, among the appointments announced, there has not been a single name that has not previously held a position requiring the prior approval of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).
Nor is there any guarantee that this tendency—exercising power to control every official position—will not be repeated during an eventual “renewal” of the National Electoral Council (CNE). Calling for elections under these conditions would amount to cementing this political reshuffle. The Rodríguez brothers know this, and they will do everything within their power to postpone an election for as long as possible, while simultaneously seeking the opportunity and the formula to ensure a subservient CNE, all while buying time, a tactic they have mastered over nearly three decades.
It is striking that a Republican senator appears to have a clearer grasp of what is unfolding in Venezuela—specifically, the reshuffling of this tutelary government—than do many opposition figures and analysts. On April 13, the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), asserted that Devoe’s appointment as Prosecutor General represented a “missed opportunity” and urged the interim government to “take irreversible steps toward a transition that guarantees stability and economic recovery.”
Meanwhile, public perplexity grows over the Trump administration’s lifting of individual sanctions against Delcy Rodríguez, as if she had earned it.
The appointments made confirm the de facto government’s interest in consolidating state control under a guise of renewal—what it terms “the new political moment.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration maintains a stance of economic pragmatism, prioritizing it above any concerns regarding the country’s political and institutional situation. Washington is focused on controlling energy assets and securing the flow of capital, moving ever further away from the objective of a democratic transition; to this end, it utilizes the internal conflict as a stage for financial negotiation and political distraction. Under this approach, business interests and resource exploitation—such as the recent opening of mining laws to foreign capital—emerge as the true catalysts of U.S. foreign policy, relegating the humanitarian crisis and authoritarianism to the background.
It has become necessary to demand accountability from the United States government, as its pro-regime stance has contributed to whitewashing the regime’s image in exchange for meager concessions for the population and new challenges to the country’s already shattered sovereignty and independence. As long as sanctions serve merely as a tool for selective pressure, and as long as no oversight mechanisms are implemented regarding domestic policy, the Venezuelan crisis will continue to serve as a convenient pretext for delaying any proposal for a democratic resolution that would benefit the population, rather than solely the economic and political elites of both nations. This is the sole outcome of a dictatorship under the tutelage of a foreign power.
The international community cannot validate the Gattopardian reshuffling currently unfolding in Venezuela, a scenario that, moreover, is being held up as a model for a future Iran: a nation that, much like this “reshuffled” Venezuela, would be rebuilt upon the ashes of oblivion and impunity.