Venezuela Has the Right to Determine its Own Destiny
Constantly repeating that all is lost is not necessarily a revolutionary act. On the contrary, it becomes a useful tool for the enemy.
There are moments in history when politics ceases to be merely a discussion among leaders, parties or ideological currents, and becomes a defense of sovereignty. Venezuela is experiencing one of these moments, which is why we cannot analyse the situation based solely on internal divisions within Chavismo, social media, or opposing left-wing positions.
We have to consider the bigger picture. Some sectors of the left seem to forget the reality in Venezuela: the country has spent years under intense political, economic and geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. When a country with the world’s largest oil reserves, as well as gold and gas, and a strategic continental position, is subjected to sanctions, blockades, threats and political operations, it is difficult to argue that everything happening within its borders is simply the result of its leaders’ mistakes.
Of course, mistakes are made, problems arise and things must change. Leaders must be questioned. However, the left cannot reach a point where criticizing the government is seen as wrong. At the same time, we must avoid the other extreme of making political analyses that, under the guise of revolutionary purity, align with the objectives of those who have historically sought to undermine Venezuelan sovereignty.
It is one thing to criticize the Bolivarian government, but quite another to contribute to creating despair in a people who have spent years facing intense external pressure. Some leftist comrades today speak of betrayal, definitive rupture and the absolute failure of the process. Some seem to have forgotten that they were part of the very political structures they now question. This does not mean they do not have the right to criticize — of course they do. However, we must ask ourselves where that criticism leads politically, and above all, who ultimately benefits from it.
When a nation’s people are under pressure, constantly saying that everything is lost is not necessarily a revolutionary act. It can become a useful tool for the adversary, even if that is not the intention of those saying it.
This is precisely what we must understand when we talk about cognitive warfare: it’s not just about bombs, invasions and soldiers anymore. People’s perceptions, hopes and trust are also being fought over. The aim is to convince people that their organization is useless, their leaders are traitors and there is no way out; that any alternative is better than continuing to resist. Despair can also be used as a political tool, and Venezuela has plenty of experience in this area.
Despite its problems and contradictions, Chavismo has preserved an organized popular base, a political identity and a territorial structure built over decades, which its adversaries have been unable to destroy. This goes some way towards explaining the resilience of the Bolivarian process, and also helps us to understand why certain international actors are so keen to divide it.
Conversely, the Venezuelan opposition is aware that electoral competition with an organized Chavismo is not the same as receiving political support from abroad. For years, opposition groups relied on international pressure, sanctions and foreign intervention rather than developing a political alternative capable of competing in elections. The reality is that politics often returns to the electoral arena sooner or later.
This brings us to one of the most important issues of the moment. The constitutional and electoral path is not a concession from Chavismo; rather, it forms part of the political philosophy that Chávez himself championed. If there are constitutional mechanisms to resolve differences, they must be used. If elections exist, one must participate. If the opposition believes it has the support of the majority, it must prove it at the ballot box. Likewise, if Chavismo wants to continue governing, it must also prove its support among the people. This is democracy.
The will of Venezuelan men and women cannot be replaced by that of a foreign power. This is one of the central problems.
The US cannot decide who should govern Venezuela, administer its oil or control its gold. It cannot decide which institutions are legitimate and which are not. It cannot appropriate the assets of a sovereign country and then present itself as a defender of democracy. The contradiction is too obvious.
For this reason, we must also carefully consider the ongoing political negotiations. If parts of the opposition return to the constitutional arena, accept dialogue with existing institutions and participate in electoral processes again, this could provide an opportunity for Venezuela to gradually regain a sense of political normality. While some may see this as a sign of weakness, we have a different perspective.
It is also a strategy to draw the enemy onto ground where one has organizational and political strength. If the opposition wants elections, allow them to participate. If they want governorships, mayoralties, municipal councils, legislative councils or institutional spaces, let them compete for them through voting. If Chavismo holds the majority, it will have to prove it. This would be far healthier for Venezuela than continuing to depend on sanctions, threats, foreign pronouncements or parallel governments.
The same applies to Venezuelan assets held overseas. The gold deposited in London, Venezuela’s resources and assets, and all the discussion surrounding companies such as Citgo are not trivial issues. They form part of the dispute over the country’s economic sovereignty — a country that cannot dispose of its own resources cannot be considered fully sovereign.
The fundamental question arises again: who has the right to Venezuela’s wealth? For any consistent Latin Americanist, the answer should be clear: the Venezuelan people.
The same applies to international politics. Anyone who only looks at Venezuela from Caracas is not seeing the full picture. Venezuela is caught up in a large-scale geopolitical dispute. China, Russia, Iran and India all have strategic interests in Venezuela, as does Europe. Of course, the US has enormous interests too, and Venezuelan oil is part of this equation.
The relationship between the Orinoco Belt, China and Iran, and the technology required to process specific types of crude oil demonstrates that current international relations are far more intricate than some oversimplified analyses suggest. In this case, it’s not just about ideologies or political alliances — very concrete factors are also at stake, such as oil, energy, technology, markets, reserves, trade routes and, ultimately, world power.
For this reason, it is important for Venezuela to diversify its international relations. Looking towards China, India, Russia, Iran and other countries does not necessarily mean that it is seeking new guardians. It could mean the opposite, namely seeking an international scenario in which no country can impose its conditions unilaterally on others. In this sense, the recent diplomatic manoeuvres are significant.
While some people are arguing online about who is more revolutionary, the Venezuelan government is seeking agreements, opening channels, negotiating and building international relations. This is what any state trying to survive a difficult situation does. International politics is not built on slogans alone; it is built through negotiation, resistance, and having alternatives — and Venezuela needs every possible alternative.
We must also recognize that the fragmentation of the Latin American left is a significant phenomenon. For decades, the US has sought to undermine progressive and revolutionary movements on our continent. The experiences of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia and other countries demonstrate that the battle for power extends beyond elections, encompassing the legal system, media, institutions, networks and economic sectors.
The judicialization of politics has become an important tool. So too has the division of progressive forces. When the left ends up fighting amongst itself while conservative forces reorganize their structures, the result can be very negative.
This is why we must avoid the trap of ideological purity. The Latin American left must not become a collection of small groups who consider themselves morally superior and are capable of questioning their comrades. Revolutions are not built on social media and countries are not defended solely on digital platforms. Nor can a foreign power be confronted solely with slogans; organization, strategy and people are required, as well as an understanding of the main contradictions.
Defending Venezuela does not mean claiming that everything is fine, excusing all of the government’s errors, or avoiding the questioning of its leaders. Rather, it means understanding that internal differences must be resolved by Venezuelans themselves, and that the country’s destiny cannot be decided in Washington.
This should be a point of agreement for the entire Latin American left. We can debate Maduro, Delcy Rodríguez, Jorge Rodríguez, the PSUV, the economy, corruption, institutions and the direction of the process, as well as anything else we feel is necessary.
However, when foreign intervention, control of national resources or loss of sovereignty lurk behind those discussions, we must know where we stand.
Latin American history has taught us something we must never forget: the US has never needed to eliminate the entire left in order to defeat it. Often, it has sufficed to simply divide it: to have some call others traitors; to have those others respond by accusing them of abandoning their principles; to have the debate descend into insults; and to have revolutionary sectors waste their energy fighting one another. Meanwhile, economic interests continue to do their work. This is a trap, and we must avoid it.
Yes, Venezuela needs criticism, but it needs constructive criticism, not criticism that only destroys. It needs debate, but debate that empowers the people. It needs elections, institutions, and constitutional mechanisms to resolve its internal conflicts. It needs to recover its economy and improve its people’s living conditions. It needs to combat corruption and correct mistakes. However, it must do so within the confines of its own sovereignty.
Venezuela has the right to make its own mistakes, to change and to choose a different government if its people so decide. Equally, it has the right to keep the government it has if its people so decide. What makes no sense is pretending that other countries should decide for Venezuelans. Ultimately, the issue is much simpler than some would have us believe.
Do we want Venezuela to be subject to the interests of a foreign power, or do we want it to be master of its own destiny?
From the perspective of the Latin American left, anti-imperialism and those of us who still believe that our peoples have the right to forge their own path, the answer should be clear.
It is possible to criticize the government while defending Venezuela. One can demand change while supporting the Bolivarian Revolution. One can question a leader without handing the country over to external interests. It is possible to be deeply critical without becoming an instrument of those who want to regain control of Venezuela’s riches.
Now more than ever, Venezuela needs level-headedness, active citizens and sovereignty. When a foreign power increases the pressure, the left’s first responsibility should be to prevent the people from being weakened, not to destroy a comrade. In this struggle, those of us who believe in Latin American independence know where we must stand: with Venezuela, its people, its sovereignty and its inalienable right to determine its own destiny.
Source: resumenlatinoamericano.org
Translated to English by The Assembly Media team.
