Sofía's decision: María Corina Machado in the face of the Venezuelan presidential election

By: Ricardo Israel - 18/03/2024

“Sofia's Choice” (1982) is a well-known film starring Meryl Streep, where a decision by the character played is what gives meaning and name to the story. Perhaps because of its drama, since then it became equivalent to a difficult, complicated decision full of consequences, similar to the “Solomonic” resolution of the biblical king.

This is what the anti-Chavista opposition in Venezuela faces today, since as many anticipated, Maduro once again did not comply, this time not only with the opposition which is not new, but he also did not do so with the assurances that Barbados gave him. to Washington about fair electoral competition.

The US is also discovering that the negotiation is not political, but that the regime does so with the codes of organized crime, like the Godfather and not like Machiavelli, a mafia more than an ideology. It was a lack of respect, equivalent to the lack of deterrence against the Houthis in the Red Sea, but the response was inappropriate for the great power, since it asked two of Maduro's friends to speak with him, Petro and Lula.

Chavismo set July 28 as election day, and Nicaraguan Ortega insisted on banning María Corina Machado (MCM), since after her 92% in the primaries, no one doubted that she would defeat him at the polls, a decision confirmed by the Electoral Council, which reported that MCM was “prohibited from holding public office.”

In Venezuela it is the National Electoral Council, that is, the regime, that determines who participates and who does not, since it decides which political organizations are validated to compete, and this is how the MCM party, Vente Venezuela, tried several times, but She never obtained approval, the importance of which is that the nominations are made by the parties rather than by the candidates individually, so the ban affects both her and her movement. That is the trap that the regime has installed to tame the opposition that resists those rules of the game, and to remove those who can beat it from the race, a strategy that has worked in the past, with those who are forced to negotiate. or also with those who, although they have won, found the cost of defending the real result too high, which is understandable, given the lack of international support.

Furthermore, after registration, between April 1 and 28, parties can request changes, modifications or substitutions, but always going through the same controls, that is, the veto as the sword of Damocles. It is also what can emerge from the ranks of those who say they still support MCM, but considering past experiences, they could be negotiating with Maduro at this very moment.

Hence the title of this column. By the way, it is not the same as the movie, but in Venezuela it is as difficult as the story about the knife, the one that if they put it in me they will kill me and if they take it out, I will die. Under normal conditions, with the legitimacy of the victory in the primaries and the proven influence in the streets, I would not hesitate to say that the opposition should challenge Maduro and move forward with the candidacy, but evidently there is no unanimity in that position, nor in Venezuela nor in exile.

I do not forget that it was people who called themselves “opponents” who made the first presentation to disqualify MCM, added to the voices that now say that there is no alternative to listening to the dictatorship, so we must find another /or candidate, some in whispers, others out loud, but which reflect a reality since Chávez appeared, politicians (and businessmen) who are a functional “opposition” to the regime, and to the (rewarded?) service of this, evident also in something that has been present in many elections, candidacies that play no other role than dividing the opposition vote.

However, I trust MCM, her qualities of not compromising with the regime and having always been a consistent opponent, which was ultimately what Venezuelans rewarded in the primaries and what people applauded in the streets. I trust her and that her decision is the correct one, that she is not going to give Maduro the pleasure of deciding for her. Opposition unity may be resented, but in truth it is not abundant today and perhaps it has been one of the opposition's main problems since Chávez.

By the way, I understand that the decision is not easy, since in front of us there is a dictatorship controlled from Havana, who does not hesitate to use repression, so even the most determined opponents are risking their lives, as is being proven in this last one. repressive wave, with special emphasis on the advisors of candidates such as the MCM itself, on human rights activists as demonstrated by the arrest of Rocío San Miguel and a long arm related to the armed forces, as proven in the murder in Chile of the lieutenant Ronald Ojeda, who had been granted political refuge there.

However, if it continues as MCM's intention seems to be, this decision will give it the freedom to get rid of the burden of counting as “opponents” those who are not really opponents, thus making its objective clearer. as well as her difference with other candidates, in the sense that hers will not only defeat the dictator at the polls, but also get rid of the dictatorship, since there are many in the history of Latin America (LA) who have wrong, in the sense that the person falls, but the regime does not end, serving as examples, Nicaragua after the victory of Mrs. Violeta Chamorro, and more recently, Bolivia, where Evo Morales left, but his party to change the narrative, and what was truly an escape was transformed by venal judges into a “coup d'état” and Jeanine Añez, who replaced it with the constitutional order, was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Unfair, violation of all due process, but this happened in the face of too much international silence.

What happens is that in Caracas there is a dictatorship of organized crime, with the military control of the Cartel of the Suns and the presence of the Cuban G-2, that regime is not going to fall by a simple election nor by a ruling from the Court. International Criminal Court (ICC), where the family of Lieutenant Ojeda went, as well as an Argentine federal judge, archived the case opened in that country to investigate the crimes of the Venezuelan dictatorship, ordering the referral of the file to The Hague.

Unlike the International Court of Justice which judges disputes between States, the ICC does so with individuals. It is a cause that has moved slowly, but well, still in the average of international justice, managing to overcome all the stages established by the so-called Rome Statute, which is why it is on its way to being the first ruling related to AL, and what has been achieved gives grounds to be optimistic that Nicolás Maduro will be convicted.

Although an Argentine was sworn in as its first prosecutor (2003), the system as a whole had a hard time understanding the nature of Castro-Chavismo, its radically undemocratic and human rights violating character, which is why it has essentially concentrated on Africa, which which is a permanent criticism but based on facts, as is also the case that, for AL, the ICC has been an obstacle course.

In a way, it has followed the fate of the Democratic Charter of the OAS (2001), which is a constitutive treaty of the American system and which provides that people have the right to democracy, but in its practical application this has not translated into actions against dictatorships, and not only because of the solidarity between them, but also because of democratically elected rulers who support Castrochavism, as was Kirchnerism in Argentina or as Lula in Brazil and López Obrador in Mexico, or because of the position often ambiguous of the United States.

What happens is that the inter-American system has an automatic response if military dictatorships like those of the second half of the last century arise, but it does not have one for dictatorships like the Venezuelan one, and this has affected the democratic opposition to Maduro, which It has been difficult for him to receive solidarity from the governments of the region. In this regard, I am a witness to the failure of the management of Venezuelan democrats so that in Chile Boric and former President Bachelet received a phone call from Machado, who wanted to warn them of what was coming against them.

MCM has no choice but to move forward. Even if he goes to court, it is not possible that in a dictatorship he can win or that his arguments to compete will be supported by the rectors of the Electoral Council, since they are clearly and distinctively Chavista bodies. Since this is an assumed reality, the worst thing would be if a participant in the primary that MCM won appeared, now appearing before that Council to block another competitive candidacy(s), thus reinforcing Maduro. Unlikely, but clearly possible, according to the system that benefits from this form of corruption present in those who call themselves “anti-Chavistas”, but who are functional to the dictatorial regime.

If it continues to move forward, challenging the regime and listening to the people more than to the political interests of those who negotiate with them, MCM will have the opportunity to get rid of the burden of this group that is neither opposition nor democrat, and continue building an emotional relationship with Venezuelans, inside and outside the country, tired of excuses.

For the path that follows, a problem is represented by a decision made by the opposition in the past, when it withdrew from an election believing that this would delegitimize the regime. It was a mistake, since the organ was filled with Chavistas. For its part, what is simply testimonial is of no use, as it does not move or worry the dictatorship.

Today, the difference is that MCM is the leader of a mass movement such as Venezuela did not know many years ago. It is an opportunity to separate the Chavista regime from part of its support base, the one that is afraid of change because of the uncertainty it brings, and that represents those who profit from the regime, which internationally includes China and Russia, and At the national level, to judicial or electoral institutions and senior police and military commanders, as well as to the bolibourgeoisie.

It appears as the moment to address the international scene, since in addition to Putin and Xi Jinping, the regime also has ideological support in Latin America and Europe that still receive Cuban influence and ideas such as "21st century socialism", beyond the Garzón or Rodríguez Zapatero on salary. On the other hand, we must not forget that there was a large group of countries that supported Juan Guaidò's failed attempt at alternative power, which the same opposition put an end to due to its irrelevance.

Above all, MCM sees the possibility of trying something new with the United States, since today the Venezuelan opposition should be aware that it is not going to solve its problem, so, although Juan González is no longer there as advisor main (or only?) of Biden, the underlying issue continues to be overcoming the fact that Washington is not reliable in an election year.

The reality is that the election is not going well for the Democrats, that the US has not had a State policy for Latin America for a long time and that a forceful exit was attempted with the presence of Duque and Piñera in Cúcuta, Colombia, Trump's envoy Elliot Abrams failing to get Padrino and the military to support this departure, perhaps due to the risk of being prosecuted for human rights violations and drug trafficking.

The fact that the US today lacks a State policy towards the region is perhaps also an opportunity for MCM to participate in what is done in the future. To begin with, I believe that with an uphill election, the internal reality of the US will not now be transferred to LA where in recent years in Brazil there was a distancing from Bolsonaro to unreservedly support Lula, whose response has not been as expected. by approaching adversaries such as Russia, China or Iran, that is, Lula being Lula.

In Venezuela, the US has already decided that it is not going to respond to the post-Barbados Chavista slap, but it can still do a lot so that at least they don't continue laughing. In this regard, the best thing MCM could do is to be an alternative to Maduro on the international scene, and talk with Russia and China. I think it would be the most effective way for Washington to react in its favor, although I think it will not prevent the Chinese and Russians from having to talk about what interests them most, the debts, since it will be inevitable that in democracy Venezuela will renegotiate. , it is unrealistic to think that it will not be paid.

It is a reality that today Washington thinks more about oil than about democracy, so this issue cannot fail to be present in the conversation with the United States, especially with American oil companies in Guyana and with a recent ruling by a judge American that goes against Venezuelan interests in Citgo, the PDVSA subsidiary.

For clarity on what the US can do, a flashback to the past is helpful. In 1989, a few poisoned Chilean grape seeds were discovered at the port of entry, so the immediate consequence was the paralysis of all agricultural exports to the United States. At the time, one of the versions indicated that it was an intervention by the CIA on instructions from the government, with the idea of sending a message, that if anyone in Chile thought to intervene in favor of Pinochet they should not do so, since a plebiscite had taken place. place and had rejected the general. The message was very clear and was heard by the regime and also by the business community, facilitating a negotiation with pro-democracy forces to give way to a very successful transition.

Nothing indicates that today Washington wants to do something similar, but in any case MCM must act from now on as a leader who walks to the presidency challenging Maduro at all levels, and if it is going to do it at the international level it must do it even more so at the national level. That is to say, that he also do it with the judges, justice and electoral, with the business community in general and also with the bolibourgeoisie to ask them to commit to democracy, to it and to the future. Also to reduce your fears about the near future.

By the way, one should not avoid the issue that worries police and armed forces officers, the elephant in the glassware, the issue of the violation of human rights, since it is enough for a democracy to adopt international legislation for it to lose all a possible amnesty is valid, as these are imprescriptible crimes. In fact, in Latin America there was no uniform attitude to this problem, the solution varying from country to country, whether in Argentina, Brazil, Chile or Uruguay.

And if we are talking about comparative experiences, it is most likely that in Venezuela the transition is not a dramatic, sudden, unique act, but rather a process, full of decisions that are not in black and white, hence the importance that the image of MCM as a future authority adds to what has already been gained by touring the country plus the victory in the primaries, which allows it to speak to families on issues such as the return of so many who had to emigrate, with the details of the policies that are proposed.

In other words, appeal to emotion as well as logic, talking with Venezuelans, wherever they are, directly and not through the intermediation of political leaders in whom there is simply no trust. In a way, the intransigence around what is right and wrong, what is true and false, those basic distinctions that led MCM to its current place, both good and bad (popular support versus dictatorial persecution ), so now is not the time for her to change her ways.

Dispassionate reality shows us that today the support of AL, the US or Europe is insufficient for the Venezuelan democrats, while China, Russia and Iran support Maduro without cracks. Internally, the reality is that the regime once again lied and that the elections are not going to be clean, so a script with an unpleasant ending must be changed.

MCM is needed to break the inertia, but in the run-up to July it must be a leadership with initiative, one that complicates the regime, one that presents itself as a future government and acts as such, one that does everything possible to establish a perspective different for the US based on its current interests, one that does everything possible to distance the regime from its internal and external supports, one that discusses from now on with the international oil companies and with Washington what interests them most today, that of Venezuela return as a major oil producer, but incorporating the point of view of its investments as part of that national effort, including possible privatizations, as well as making it clear that the funds will come from oil to pay debts with Moscow and Beijing.

And, above all, one that has a massive presence in the streets, since, without that pressure, none of the above will be credible enough.

The best language will always be that of seriousness and truth, and if not everything can be said publicly, it is important to be clear about who is going to lead a transition that is going to be anything but a bed of roses. . This involves talking now about the scenario that will come after Maduro, that is, an empowered leader with certainty about the government she will lead.

MCM already knows how to speak to Venezuelans, now the language also has to be the one that interests the different international powers, as well as nationally, the police and the military.

The paths to reach the future can be varied and MCM is synonymous with a hope that cannot be restricted to just black and white, since other colors also exist. Venezuela is not only important for its citizens, but for everyone, since Chávez caused a democratic setback in the region, and supported by Lula and his Sao Paulo Forum as well as the indifference of Washington, not only allowed the survival of the Cuban dictatorship, but also its dominance over Caracas.

We are all Venezuela because the fall of Maduro and the end of the regime would be a strong boost for optimism and redemocratization in the region. Despite the pitfalls, MCM remains the best banner, without forgetting that before dawn, everything seems to be darker.

@israelzipper

PhD in Political Science (Essex), Law Degree (Barcelona), Lawyer (U de Chile), former Chilean presidential candidate (2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».