By Rodrigo Uprimny, EL ESPECTADOR, January 11, 2025
https://www.elespectador.com/opinion/columnistas/rodrigo-uprimny/sobre-la-dictadura-venezolana/
(Translated by Eunice Gibson, CSN Volunteer Translator)
I have some certainties about the current Venezuelan situation with Maduro’s inauguration to a new term as President, but I also have some doubts about what we should do from Colombia to contribute to a democratic transition in our brother country. I am sharing those certainties and doubts, to try to find some successful exits from this painful crisis.
I have no doubt that Maduro’s Venezuela is a dictatorship. I don’t make that statement lightly, but rather I’m considering three basic criteria that are used in political theory to characterize a regime of that kind.
First, the Rule of Law does not exist in Venezuela right now, because of the annihilation of the separation of powers. This process started many years ago, especially beginning in 2004, when Chávez, through a Supreme Court Reform Statute, co-opted that tribunal and went on to convert the legal system into an appendage of the administration. Previously, there had been some decorum, and some forms were respected. Now the situation is brazen, as illustrated by the submissive attitude of the Supreme Tribunal when Maduro requested, well, demanded, that they certify that there had been no fraud in the election. A few days later, the tribunal obeyed, and concluded, oh surprise, that the election had been clean.
Second, in Venezuela, human rights are being violated systematically, as demonstrated by the arbitrary arrests and convictions of opponents or human rights activists. One of the recent violations was the disappearance of Carlos Correa, a human rights defender and Director of Espacio Publico (Public Space), in an episode that recalls the military dictatorships of the Southern Cone. He was seized last Tuesday in Caracas by masked and hooded persons, and nobody knows where he is. The list of similar barbarities is a long one.
Third, because of his disrespect for the electoral process. When Chávez held office, the Rule of Law had been weakened, and arbitrary actions took place, but at least elections were respected. Chávez won all of his elections and, because of that, some analysts were talking about an authoritarian regime with elections. Even that disappeared with Maduro, because the fraud in the July election was not just clear, but clumsy, and monumental, as I have concluded in previous columns.
These are my certainties. My doubts have to do with the most pragmatic dimension: What should we be doing from Colombia? And there is no easy answer.
I think the calls to break diplomatic relations with Venezuela are mistaken, because that decision doesn’t just affect Colombia in many areas (immigration, business at the border, security, etc.) but could also contribute to a dictatorial isolation worse than Venezuela’s; think Nicaragua. Petro is right not to take that path. However, his position seems lukewarm to me, to use the language used by many Petristas when in his tweets he says there were no election guarantees and therefore the election should be repeated. The reality is that, in spite of the lack of guarantees, the opposition won the Presidential election, and that fact cannot be ignored.
Between these extremes, we have to find a strategy that’s pragmatic but based on democratic principles, that would facilitate the democratic transition and at the same time, protect our national interests. I confess that I don’t have an answer, but we have to make an effort to find one. That’s why it’s lamentable that while Maduro’s dictatorship is getting rougher, the Petro administration is reviving the PEP[1] (Special Permit of Permanence), now for representatives of or guardians of Venezuelan children, and creating a visitor’s visa, which costs the same as a student visa, it lasts barely two years, and has no possibility of renewal.
[1] PEP, the Special Permit of Permanence is a temporary work and residence permit for Venezuelan migrants in Colombia.