Maduro and Leopoldo López share disregard for the principles of freedom, but the first one rules
Sunday, September 13, 2015
A supporter of jailed opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez prays for him and for peace in Venezuela, outside the courthouse in Caracas, Venezuela, on Thursday.
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
In the always hectic Venezuelan political environment, there are least two certainties.
One is the undisguised lack of judicial independence, as part of an authoritarian drift that includes contaminated processes against opponents, takeovers or nationalization of media outlets and repression of protests.
Another visible face of Venezuela today is that many in the opposition do not hold better democratic credentials than the ones in Miraflores Palace and, in some cases, show even worse records. For instance, even though he’s young, the leader Leopoldo López has a long tradition of disrespecting electoral results (namely his support of the failed coup in 2002 and his attempt to force Nicolás Maduro’s exit — “la salida” — from the government 12 years later).
The death toll as a result of the political confrontation has become worse since Hugo Chávez’s death in 2013. As soon as Maduro was elected president by a narrow margin over Henrique Capriles on April 14, the opposition called to take to the streets alleging fraud, claims that weren’t backed by the international observers who had attended the vote. A hesitant Capriles and the radical wing of the Democratic Unity Table (MUD) led by López boosted a violent revolt that ended up with nine deaths. Capriles, who could have gained his momentum after a brilliant and unexpected election, finished the year taking several steps backwards.
Given the weakness of the candidate who had almost removed the Chavistas from office, the radicalized wing of MUD took new impetus in the beginning of 2014. Thus, the confrontation with mass demonstrations became an open war in the streets. On the one hand, Chavist squads and trigger-happy police forces took action as the opposition “guarimbas” — barricades also specialized in bullying and shooting people in the back — were established in neighbourhoods. The clashes caused about 40 deaths.
The situation in Venezuela is not a stalemate between two opponents with weak democratic principles. Today, Maduro rules from the Miraflores Palace, where he points out opposition leaders and censors media outlets while López remains in jail. The People’s Will party founder, an economist with a Harvard degree and permanent inflamed rhetoric has just been sentenced to almost 14 years in prison for incitement to commit crimes to force “the exit” of Maduro.
Well known for their international struggle for human rights, organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said that López had been sentenced “only for being an opposition leader.” Such a statement appears to be hasty as it comes from voices which should base their condemnations on clear evidence. However, there is no doubt that the right to defence was undermined by a flawed judicial proceeding. Maduro orders and the courts obey. A leader like López — a former mayor of Chacao —, who says he is still “proud” of the 2002 coup should not be considered a mere opposition leader, giving him a more epic profile than the one he deserves. Anyway, proving specific links between an extremist speech and serious crimes that claimed lives and damaged properties requires judicial guarantees. That is one of the essential differences between a democracy and a dictatorship.
The international condemnation of the court ruling perhaps came from the less legitimate actors. In Latin America, the quintessential López ally is the former Colombian president Álvaro Uribe. Hard to imagine a recent president in the region who raises more suspicions of human rights violations. Outside the region, European governments and Washington also expressed their concern about the state of democracy in Venezuela. Those who — at the very least — gave their approval to the institutional breakdown during the 2002 coup that ousted Chávez from power should act more cautiously.
As excesses can be seen on one side, Latin America suffers from a thunderous silence. The continent has been living its longest democratic experience ever, a collective achievement whose rulers should preserve, for example, by demanding fair trials when cases involve opposition leaders.
@sebalacunza