Venezuelan Politics and Human Rights, a blog hosted by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), is a unique resource for journalists, policymakers, scholars, activists and others interested in understanding Venezuelan politics and human rights.
The contributors call it as they see it, providing insights on Venezuela’s politics that go beyond the polarized pro-Chávez/anti-Chávez debate. The views expressed in the posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect WOLA’s institutional positions.
THE BLOGGERS:
David Smilde, curator of the blog, is a WOLA Senior Fellow and the Charles A. and Leo M. Favrot Professor of Human Relations at Tulane University. He has lived in or worked on Venezuela since 1992. He is co-editor of Venezuela's Bolivarian Democracy: Participation, Politics and Culture under Chávez (Duke 2011).
Hugo Pérez Hernáiz is Associate Professor of Sociology at the Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Rebecca Hanson is a graduate student in sociology at the University of Georgia doing doctoral research on police reform and citizen participation in Venezuela.
Timothy Gill is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Inter-American Policy and Research at Tulane University. His research focuses on US foreign policy towards Venezuela and foreign funding for non-governmental organizations.
ABOUT WOLA:
WOLA is a leading research and advocacy organization advancing human rights in the Americas.
CONTACT:
For comments related to this blog, email us at venezuelablog@wola.org.
For press inquiries only, please email us at press@wola.org.
On July 27, 2017 WOLA launched a redesigned version of the Venezuelan
Politics and Human Rights blog, which will provide better readability, while maintaining the same, high-quality content. The new blog can be found at www.venezuelablog.org.
With
the launch of the new platform, all Tumblr followers will need to subscribe to the redesigned blog. All readers who have already subscribed
to the blog via email will continue to receive notifications regarding new posts.
If you want to subscribe to the new blog click here.
This month marks the fifth anniversary of Venezuelan Politics and Human Rights.
This would normally be a cause for popping corks and cutting cakes. But, writing
this on the eve of the vote to select representatives for a Constituent
Assembly that is not only unconstitutional but could disempower the Venezuelan
people for years to come, it’s hard to be festive.
This anniversary message, then, will not be a celebration
but rather a reiteration of our commitment to the Venezuelan people. Whatever
happens in the coming weeks and months, we will be here, fighting for the
rights of Venezuelans, and against the powers that seek to restrict them—whomever
those powers may be.
Over the past year we’ve frequently heard—as both praise and
criticism—that the blog has changed, that we now have a much more critical
line on the Venezuelan government. This latter is true, but it does not
represent a change, because our perspective has never been oriented by partisan
political options. Indeed, the very first post on this blog back in July 2012, stated
the following:
“Reality-based,”
of course, does not mean that our facts or our analyses are always right.
Rather it means that our posts seek to engage facts and be influenced by them
rather than trying to select facts to support pre-established perspectives. And
of course, “independent” does not mean apolitical. The contributions to this
blog will be consistent with WOLA’s values of human rights, democracy, and
social justice, and this is in itself a political position. But it is a
non-partisan position insofar as it does not ally itself with particular
political projects, parties, or personalities. Rather, we seek to call it as we
see it, identifying the good, the bad and the ugly on all sides of the
political spectrum.
On our first anniversary, in 2013, I further clarified.
Hoy el New York Times Español publicó mi artículo de opinión sobre Venezuela y lo que debe y no debe hacer la comunidad internacional.
Cómo evitar la guerra civil en Venezuela
David Smilde
El 16 de julio, más de siete millones de venezolanos votaron en un plebiscito que rechazó de manera tajante los planes del presidente Nicolás Maduro de convocar una Asamblea Constituyente para redactar de nuevo la Constitución. Fue una notable demostración a través de un evento electoral organizado autónomamente y encarnó un sólido revés, aunque no exento de tensiones, en los distritos de la clase trabajadora que alguna vez fueron bastiones de Hugo Chávez, el predecesor de Maduro.
Desde el plebiscito, la oposición venezolana ha dado pasos hacia el establecimiento de un gobierno paralelo. Esto podría mantenerse como una iniciativa simbólica, pero si la oposición sigue avanzando en ese camino, pronto podría estar buscando el reconocimiento internacional y solicitando financiamiento, y, al menos implícitamente, estaría afirmando el derecho a hacer un uso legítimo de la fuerza como gobierno paralelo. Posteriormente, perseguiría lo que cualquier gobierno quiere: armas para defenderse. Si tiene éxito, Venezuela podría caer en una guerra civil que haría ver el conflicto actual como una pelea entre chicos de secundaria.
Today the New York Times published my op ed on what the international community should and should not do with respect to the Venezuela crisis.
How to Avoid Civil War in Venezuela
On July 16, more than seven million Venezuelans voted in a plebiscite that emphatically rejected President Nicolás Maduro’s plans to convene a Constituent Assembly to rewrite the Constitution. It was a remarkable showing for a D.I.Y. electoral event and included robust, if nervous, turnout in the working-class districts that were once strongholds for Mr. Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez.
Since the plebiscite, Venezuela’s opposition has taken steps toward establishing a parallel government. This might remain a symbolic initiative. But if the opposition continues down this road, itwill soon be looking for international recognition and funding, and will at least implicitly be asserting the parallel government’s claim to the legitimate monopoly on the use of force. After that itwill seek what every government wants: weapons to defend itself. If it succeeds, Venezuela could plunge into a civil war that will make the current conflict seem like high school fisticuffs.
The other day I received an email from Venezuela from a
person I have known for over twenty years, whom I will refer to as “Fran.” While
he has worked in the government for the last ten years, he has never been
strongly ideological. He has continued to work in the government because he has
a strong belief in public service and needs a stable income to support his wife
and two sons. The story he tells is consistent with other
denunciations and this video
circulating on social media.
Dear
David,
The
story I am going to tell you has to do with my government job. Yesterday, first
thing in the morning, the 5 directors of [unnamed government institution] were
called in for an emergency meeting to tell us that it was an order that we vote
on the 30th of July. To be perfectly sincere, I had already imagined
this would happen. Nevertheless, I never thought the order would include my
entire work team.
The
instructions that came from above were that “employee who does not vote, is
out.” The cell phones of each director were taken by our technology directors,
to install in our presence an application with which to scan our “Fatherland
Cards,” and which can then be used to monitor when we vote, and when people
under our charge vote.
Today
I was told—I still haven’t confirmed this—that null votes will not be possible
in this election. Now I understand why my boss told me: ‘Vote for whoever you
want Fran. Who you vote for doesn’t matter.’
Last
Sunday’s symbolic vote organized by the Venezuelan opposition to reject the
government’s proposed Constituent Assembly, was met with an outpouring of
support from regional and European countries, who called on the administration
of President Nicolas Maduro to reconsider its bid to rewrite the country’s
basic document.
Among
governments in the Americas, the most vocal have been members of the same group
of 20 nations that have spoken out in recent weeks against the Constituent
Assembly in forums like the Organization of American States (OAS). The
governments of Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Panama, Costa Rica, and Canada all issued statements of support
for the July 16 vote as evidence that Venezuela’s people oppose the Constituent
Assembly.
Most of these statements also
included varying endorsements of, as Mexico’s government put it, “the search for a negotiated
solution that will allow for the restoration of democratic order.”
OAS
Secretary General Luis Almagro, for his part, called the vote a “historic step in the exercise
of democracy” in Venezuela, and described it as a reference point for the
international community.
In a July 20th podcast on Background Briefing with Ian Masters, Smilde discusses the ongoing political crisis in Venezuela and the Maduro regime’s spiral toward a
“Cuban-Style Pseudo-Democracy”. Click here to listen to the podcast.
The Inter-American Dialogue’s daily Latin America Advisor has published a Q&A on the significance of the recent release of Leopoldo Lopez to house arrest, with a roundup of opinions from a number of Venezuela analysts.
Q:
Venezuela’s government on July 8 released opposition
leader Leopoldo López from prison and transferred him to
house arrest. The government said he was released due to
health reasons, and the Supreme Court said his release was
also due to “serious signs of irregularities” in the handling of his case.
Was the decision to release López indeed motivated by concern for his
well-being, or did the government have other motives for doing so? How
will López’s release affect the opposition’s strategy in confronting the
administration of President Nicolás Maduro, if at all? To what extent
will López now have more direct infl uence over the anti-government
movement in the country?
Sunday’s Consulta Popular benefitted from the work of a research team that came to accompany the effort and provide their assessment. They were invited by the Comission of Guarantors of the Referendum. Below is a translation of their press release. Overall it praises the effort but does point out two ways in which it did not qualify as an actual electoral process: it did not have an electoral registry and therefore would not be able to detect any kind of multiple voting. As well, in many instances the vote was not secret.
Their complete Spanish-language report can be found here.
——————————————————————————————-
Statement from the International
Mission of Study and Investigation of the Referendum in Venezuela
The dust has not yet settled from yesterday’s plebiscite and
the interpretive terrain is still moving. Here are some of my takeaways.
The Good
*The event was a good strategic move for the opposition, which
needed to move beyond the continuous street protests of the past three and half
months, to and activity that could aggregate discontent in a different way.
*The government deserves some credit for moving beyond
suggestions that this plebiscite was unconstitutional and illegal, to implicit
recognition that it was legal, if non-binding and partisan. Nicolás Maduro even
called for both events to be held in peace.
*For a self-made plebiscite not using state resources, this
was a herculean task that was largely successful (although see below).
*Kudos to the people. This was no normal electoral event. It
was clear that those participating were there to vote against the ANC meaning to be seen going to vote is to be seen as a government opponent. That is
a not ureasonable cause for fear, especially in many popular barrios where
colectivos are present. However, many citizens confronted this fear and went
anyway (See here
and here).
The Bad
*The opposition mismanaged expectations and did not fully
aggregate existing discontent. Some officials said they expected 14 million
people to turnout, at the same time that they only printed up 8 million ballots
and only marshalled roughly a fifth of the electoral tables normally used in a national election. Add to this highly tendentious questions that were designed to
mobilize their base but not reach out to disaffected Chavistas, and the result
was not as big as it could have been. As Luis Vicente Leon suggested, what
should be a great victory is now being cast as a disappointment by some.
