The Demonization of the Maduro Government versus Constructive Criticism

The Demonization of Nicolás Maduro: Fallacies and Consequences

Some say it's not worth polemicizing with those on the left who brush the issue of imperialism under the rug. Unfortunately, it's too widespread to ignore. Here's my recent article on the topic, as it relates to Venezuela. In it, I argue that the demonization of the government of Nicolas Maduro undermines solidarity work in opposition to the devastating sanctions imposed on Venezuela by Washington. Criticism of the Maduro government from a leftist perspective is much needed, but articles which satanize Maduro, are counterproductive.

By Steve Ellner

Criticism of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro from a leftist perspective is absolutely necessary and some of it comes from those who, to varying degrees, support his government. Emiliano Teran Mantovani and Gabriel Hetland - who recently critiqued my writing on Maduro - and I are in agreement on the importance of such critical analysis. In spite of this common denominator, there are fundamental differences between us with regard to my insistence on the need to contextualize the errors committed by Maduro and to go beyond a simplistic binary of uncritical support for Maduro versus demonization.

These issues have far-reaching implications. The failure to objectively contextualize the errors, transcend binaries, and recognize shades of differences translates into the underestimation of the gravity of the U.S. sanctions and the denial of positive aspects of the Maduro government. These positions and shortcomings, in my opinion, seriously undermine international solidarity work and anti-imperialism in general.

The War on Venezuela Debated

In his article, Teran begins a lengthy paragraph stating, "I want to make my position clear… these sanctions are entirely condemnable," a position that, as he acknowledges, is shared by leading members of Venezuela’s right-wing opposition. His pronouncement, however, glosses over one of the main points I make in my article. It's misleading to say ‘I'm opposed to the sanctions’ and then proceed to attack government policy as if they are two separate topics. In fact, my article goes into detail explaining why the war on Venezuela needs to be placed at the center of any serious analysis of the Maduro presidencies.

In the article, I argue that the Washington-orchestrated “war on Venezuela” extends well beyond sanctions since it encompasses a broad array of regime-change and destabilization actions. Yet Teran, like Hetland, limits his references regarding Washington machinations to the sanctions.

To make matters worse, Teran, in effect, downplays the severity of the sanctions which he claims “do not explain the root causes” of the nation’s crisis. The sanctions only had a “subsequent negative impact” – subsequent, that is, to the allegedly grievous errors committed by Maduro, and Chávez before him.

One example of Teran’s underestimation of the effects of the sanctions is his following statement: “Ellner refers to the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in 2015, but those were limited to freezing assets and bank accounts in the US…” Teran, like the Venezuelan opposition, portrays Obama’s executive order as an innocuous, symbolic measure. It hardly was. In my article, I note that Obama’s order, which declared Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security “signaled an escalation of hostility from Washington.”

Along these lines, I quote an article by Hetland published a few years later which pointed out “the United States has pressured American and European banks to avoid business with Venezuela, starving Venezuela of needed funds.” It isn’t difficult to grasp why U.S. companies operating factories in Venezuela disinvested in response to the president of their country calling Venezuela a threat to U.S. national security. As I wrote in a previous article, “Obama’s executive order sent a signal to the private sector. After the order was implemented, various large U.S. firms including Ford and Kimberly Clark closed factories and pulled out of Venezuela.” They were soon followed by General Motors, Goodyear, and Kellogg’s, as well as the Japanese firm Bridgestone.

Indeed, even before Trump assumed the presidency in 2017, a de facto financial embargo was imposed on Venezuela, as was noted by the opposition spokesman and economist Francisco Rodríguez, who said at the time “the financial markets are closed to Venezuela.”

Teran’s minimization of the effects of the war on Venezuela reinforces and legitimizes the opposition’s narrative which ridicules Maduro’s assertion that Washington’s actions are responsible for Venezuela’s dire economic situation. Moisés Naím, one of the architects of Venezuela’s neoliberal policies of the 1990s, wrote “Blaming the CIA… or dark international forces, as Maduro and his allies customarily do, has become fodder for parodies flooding YouTube.” Similarly, Teran writes “Followers and supporters of Maduro’s government seem to always prefer to look for external scapegoats.” In my article, I cite specific examples of the abundant, well-documented literature that fully substantiates Maduro’s allegations regarding generously financed “dark international forces.”

In his effort to discard the relevance of the war on Venezuela, Teran suggests that explanations of Maduro's implementation of neoliberal policies on the basis of U.S. imperialist aggression are akin to those put forward by those who seek to justify Netanyahu's genocide against Palestinians on the basis of Hamas’ October 7 attack. But it should seem pretty obvious to anyone on the left that drawing an equivalence between U.S. imperialism and the October 7 attack is somewhat far fetched, and that placing Maduro’s economic policies in the same category as Netanyahu’s genocide would be even more outrageous.

The Issue of Critical Support

Turning to the second area of contention between Teran and myself, serious analysis of Maduro needs to avoid absolutes with regard to either praise or condemnation of his government. Failing to grasp the complexity of how a progressive government is forced to navigate a situation imposed by the world’s most powerful nation, located in the same hemisphere, leads to simplistic conclusions that often align with those of the political right. Yet Teran accuses me of being one-sided. He claims my “arguments lack nuance” and that I fail to “avoid simplistic binaries.” In doing so, he overlooks the criticisms of Maduro that I presented and that I have analyzed in greater detail in other publications, as noted in the article.

Accusing me of one-sidedness mirrors what others who vilify Maduro do when they brand supporters of progressive Latin American governments as “campist,” or upholding “a Manichaean outlook” – a phrase used by Teran against me. Both terms are reminiscent of McCarthyism with its attack on the entire left for being crypto-Communists or fellow travelers.

By failing to recognize the validity of the position of critical support for Maduro, Teran shows that he is on board with the polarization of Venezuelan politics, which leaves gradations out of the picture. For example, Teran (like Hetland) unfairly accuses me of justifying repression by omission and adds that the “international left,” following the July 28, 2024 presidential elections, ended up “legitimizing… brutal repression.” He neglects to mention that in my article I suggest that the evidence of significant right-wing and foreign involvement in the post July 28 violent protests does not rule out the possible use of excessive force by the Venezuelan state, as the two are not “mutually exclusive.”

Which Left?

Teran ends his article by asking: “Instead of providing Maduro critical support, why doesn’t the “international left…dedicate their energy, resources, support and advocacy to strengthening a left-wing opposition [in Venezuela] that might someday challenge for political power?” The question, however, is somewhat ambiguous. If Teran is referring to what political scientists call “a loyal opposition” – one that recognizes the challenges facing Maduro and does not hesitate to support him in his denunciation of imperialist aggression, and avoids equating him with the far right represented by María Corina Machado – then such a proposition sounds reasonable.

But the bulk of the Venezuelan left located in the opposition camp hardly fits this description. It demonizes Maduro, just as Teran and Hetland do. The actions of many of these leftists play into the hands of the political right. If Maduro is brought down, the far right headed by Machado – who says she wants to see Maduro and his family behind bars – will undoubtedly dominate the new regime, with Washington’s blessing. If this were to happen, the most likely scenario would be the kind of brutal repression that has historically followed the downfall of progressive governments, from Indonesia in 1967 to Chile in 1973. The anti-Maduro left is simply too weak to shape the course of such events.  

It is troubling, for instance, that the Communist Party (PCV), in spite of its glorious history dating back to its founding in 1931, endorsed the presidential candidacy of Enrique Márquez in last year’s election. Márquez was a prominent leader of one of the main parties that actively promoted destabilization and regime change in the protracted street protests against Maduro in 2014 and 2017, and whole heartedly supported the right-wing parallel government of Juan Guaidó after 2019.

International Solidarity

Two key implications of the debate over the demonization of Maduro hold particular significance for the solidarity movement. First, vilifying Maduro discourages solidarity work. I have reached this conclusion based on my experience giving numerous talks sponsored by solidarity groups in cities throughout the U.S. and Canada since 2018. Solidarity activists have made clear to me that a fairly favorable view of the Maduro government – specific criticisms notwithstanding – is a motivating force for them. By contrast, those who despise a government are unlikely to work with the same degree of enthusiasm in opposition to U.S. interventionism.   In this respect, the solidarity movement differs from the anti-war movement, which tends to be less focused on the domestic politics of the nations of the South and more concerned with military spending and the death of U.S. soldiers, in addition to the devastation caused by U.S. armed intervention.

Secondly, an analysis that contextualizes government errors and the erosion of democratic norms leads to a fundamental conclusion. The extent to which the war on Venezuela is relaxed directly correlates with the potential to deepen democracy, invigorate social movements and expand the government’s room for maneuver, thereby increasing the likelihood of overcoming errors. History, after all, teaches us that war and democracy are inherently incompatible. In their vilification of the Maduro government, Hetland and Teran overlook this simple truth.

 

This article was previously posted in Links: Journal of Socialist Renewal

Steve Ellner is a retired professor at the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela where he lived for over 40 years. He is currently an Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives. His latest book is the co-edited collection Latin American Social Movements and Progressive Governments: Creative Tensions Between Resistance and Convergence.