Hugo Chavez

In these times when it is once again fashionable to accuse Commander Chávez of mistakes, whether real or imagined. As we mark 13 years since his untimely death on March 5, 2013, I would like to highlight the value of truth in his political actions. Truth was manifest in the responsibility he assumed for his actions; the consistency between his words and deeds; the acknowledgment of his own mistakes, when it is easier for most people to point out the mistakes of others; and his sincere efforts to correct them. To the above, I would add that when he had to make tactical and strategic shifts in the course initially set, Chávez always had the political honesty to explain in detail why he was doing so, and he courageously took responsibility for them before the people.

There are countless examples which can be found in many of his speeches. I will mention just a few. Beginning with the day of his introduction to the Venezuelan people, February 4, 1992: “Unfortunately, for now, the objectives we set for ourselves were not achieved in the capital city, that is, we here in Caracas did not manage to control power… And I, before the country and before you, take responsibility…” Then in the streets and in the 1998 election campaign: “Let’s go to the Constituent Assembly,” and on February 2, 1999, in what would be his first act of government, he signed the decree calling for the constituent process, and we went to the Constituent Assembly.

In April 2002, he surrendered to the coup leaders, without thinking about saving his own “skin”: “I am an imprisoned president; you decide what to do with me.” After his release, with a cross in his hand, he stated that “it was necessary for all sectors of the country to make a greater effort, with all the goodwill we can muster, to be able to live together in peace, accepting the rules of the game.”

In 2005, he called for the Bolivarian Revolution to take on a socialist character. In the 2006 election campaign, he said, “Let’s go for socialism!” and explained in detail why this strategic shift was necessary. He outlined the characteristics of our socialism, 21st-century Bolivarian socialism, which, as he insisted until his last public words, had to be “essentially democratic” or it would not be socialism at all.

In the elections of December 6, 2006, Commander Chávez obtained the highest number of votes and was re-elected. In December 2007, while awaiting the results of the referendum on constitutional reform and hearing reports of a close count, he called a meeting of the party leadership in Miraflores. I said to him at that meeting: “President, let’s wait for the final count, and if we lost, we lost, but if we won, we won.” He replied with a sharp look: “I don’t want a victory like that, let’s go out and acknowledge defeat now.” And that’s what he did.

In September 2010, we won a majority in the National Assembly. Without a doubt, it was a resounding political victory. But Chávez identified a warning sign: in quantitative terms, the difference in votes between Chavismo and the opposition was minimal. Once again, he assumed political responsibility. In January 2011, he published the “Strategic Lines of Political Action,” a deeply self-critical document.

Late May 2011, he told me: “Elías, I feel like something is wrong with me.” June 2011, after undergoing the necessary tests, on national television: “Cancer cells have been detected in my body.” Easter Week 2012, during a mass in Barinas, broadcast live: “We must be aware that I have an illness that limits my life… Christ, give me your cross.”

On the night of December 8, 2012, in a public address, he raised the possibility of not continuing among us and explained in detail the constitutional procedures that would have to be followed if he were to be permanently incapacitated. That day, once again, he decided to tell us the truth, no matter how hard it was:

Some colleagues told me it wasn’t necessary, or have said in recent hours that it wasn’t necessary to say this. In truth, I could have said almost everything I said tonight from Havana… But I believe that the most important thing, what my soul, my heart, and my conscience tell me, the most important thing… has been this, Nicolás. The most important thing.

“The most important thing”: telling the truth, explaining the reality to the people, the decision he had made, and the steps that needed to be taken.

But that political honesty was not just an individual value. It was the political conviction that the people formed a collective wisdom, a conscious body that knew how to understand and draw its own conclusions about situations. That is why he was so careful to keep them informed at all times.

I once heard him say: “There are those who say that you shouldn’t speak plainly to the people, because then the adversary will seize on that truth and manipulate it against you.” That, Chávez said, is to think that the people are mentally eunuchs. The people understand, more often than not, more than some leaders. For Chávez, speaking the truth was always a decisive show of trust and respect for the people.

And “most importantly,” it was also to make clear for posterity his conviction about the democratic path of the revolution he had led:

In all circumstances, we must guarantee the progress of the Bolivarian Revolution, the victorious progress of this revolution, building the new democracy that is here mandated by the people in the Constituent Assembly; building the Venezuelan path to socialism, with broad participation and ample freedom, which are being demonstrated once again in this gubernatorial election campaign, with candidates here and candidates there. Freedom, complete freedom.

With the power of truth, the truth of his project and his life, Chávez managed to accumulate immense political strength based on the moral autoritas he gained by never peddling falsehoods or shirking his responsibilities, much less in defeat or when he made mistakes. That same moral authority comes not only from consistency between words and deeds, but also from trying to act despite difficult circumstances as well as from recognizing and explaining when and why it is not possible to achieve a certain goal. I stand by that way of doing politics. With Chávez forever!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.

Source: CEDES

Feb. 18 (UPI) — Human Rights Watch urged Venezuela’s government led by Delcy Rodriguez to dismantle what it described as the country’s repressive state apparatus and implement deep judicial and electoral reform.

The group noted that recent political prisoner releases have not dismantled mechanisms used to suppress dissent.

The rights group said the releases mark progress, but warned that institutions responsible for arbitrary detentions and political persecution remain active amid what Venezuelan authorities call a process of “national pacification.”

The organization called for the removal of Attorney General Tarek William Saab, saying he “led the state action that resulted in human rights violations” after the 2024 presidential election and describing him as part of “the government’s repressive machinery.”

The statement follows the Jan. 3 capture of former President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, during a U.S. military operation and the subsequent release of hundreds of detainees held for political reasons.

The Trump administration has continued working with former Vice President Delcy Rodriguez in what it describes as a plan with phases of “stabilization, recovery and transition,” focused largely on reforms in Venezuela’s oil sector, the organization said.

“The release of political prisoners is an important relief, but the repressive apparatus used to detain them remains in place,” said Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

“Venezuelan authorities must carry out real reforms of their laws and judicial and electoral institutions,” she said. “Anything else would amount to a simulated transition that may serve the interests of the governments of Venezuela and the United States, but will not vindicate the rights of the Venezuelan people.”

Human Rights Watch said some 600 people remain imprisoned for political reasons, and that an amnesty bill under debate in Venezuela’s National Assembly, the country’s legislature, does not guarantee unconditional release for all those arbitrarily detained for political events dating to 1999.

“Its discussion should not be used as an excuse to delay the unconditional release of political prisoners or the structural reforms needed to restore democracy in Venezuela,” Goebertus said.

The organization said many people released from prison remain under criminal investigation and face restrictions on free expression and political participation. Some have been placed under house arrest, including opposition leader Juan Pablo Guanipa, who was freed Feb. 9 and detained again hours later after calling for protests.

Human Rights Watch also called for measures to restore judicial independence, which it said was weakened after a 2004 reform under then-President Hugo Chavez, and reiterated its demand for Saab’s removal, saying his continued tenure is incompatible with meaningful reform.

The group further urged steps to ensure free and fair elections, including a review of the National Electoral Council, the body responsible for organizing elections, whose members backed Maduro’s reelection and blocked opposition candidacies such as Maria Corina Machado.

Human Rights Watch said only sustained structural reforms will allow a credible political transition and full restoration of human rights in Venezuela.