First German chancellor Otto von Bismarck famously opined, "Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best." That's as true today as it was when he said it, about one-and-a-half centuries ago. Unfortunately, many politicians ignore it and try to carry on regardless, usually with disastrous or tragic consequences.
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado has said she should "absolutely" be in charge of the country, following the US ousting of President Nicolás Maduro last week.
"We are ready and willing to serve our people as we have been mandated," Machado said in an interview with the BBC's US partner CBS.
She thanked US President Donald Trump for his "leadership and courage" after US forces stormed Caracas and arrested Maduro, but said nobody trusted the deposed president's ally who has been appointed as interim leader.
Machado and her opposition movement claimed victory in 2024's heavily disputed elections, but Trump has refused to back her, saying she lacks popular support.
There's more at the link.
I accept that Ms. Machado won an electoral majority in Venezuela during the most recent elections, but she never took power, because Maduro and his goons controlled almost every avenue of control open to them. She was blocked at every turn, and had to go into hiding in case he arrested her - in which case she'd surely have had an accident or illness while incarcerated that would have killed her. She recently had to be smuggled out of the country to accept her Nobel Peace Prize.
There's simply no way she can muster enough support from the authority structures in Venezuela to hope to take over. Maduro and Chavez loyalists would kill her before she took office, and the entire government bureaucracy and machinery of state - long since converted into bribe-taking, corrupt, self-seeking figureheads - would refuse to obey any directive she issued, or any law she had passed, that threatens their place in the sun. She may have popular support among the electorate, but the reality of the Venezuelan equivalent of the "Deep State" is that electoral support doesn't matter at this time. As we noted yesterday:
Trump “is correct in saying this is a deeply corrupt regime, and it’s a deeply factionalised military and state structure engaged in all sorts of illicit activities, who would be hard pressed to part with their ill-gotten gains, prestige and positions, and literally put their necks on the line,” says Christopher Sabatini, senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House.
. . .
And Maduro and Hugo Chávez, his predecessor, bought loyalty by carving the state into fiefdoms from which their various clients could extract rents, impoverishing the nation while creating powerful rival power centres.
“Now the head is gone, as we see when you have dictators die, you end up getting a lot of rivals under the leader jostling for power. So don’t be surprised if somebody in the military shoots the vice-president. That’s part of the disintegration,” says Pape.
Again, more at the link.
I agree that, in simple justice, Ms. Machado probably should be the next President of Venezuela. However, in cold, hard, practical terms, for her to assume that office would be a death sentence for her, her family, and many Venezuelans who support her. It would plunge that country into even greater turmoil. It's simply impossible under present conditions. To think otherwise is to live in cloud cuckoo land.
Peter
9 comments:
Absent the rule of law and good men to enforce it, the strong rule the weak.
Why should I want to spend American soldiers' lives and American tax money on a crusade to conquer and remake another country in America's image? Venezuelan problems are for Venezuelans to fix. If they need libertarian books to learn how to self-organize for peaceful productivity, they can download the pdfs for free.
I would - mostly - agree. With the caveat that it would be prudent to work to ensure that whatever emerges from the chaos is less of a problem for the US than the Chavez-Maduro drug cartel. That needs to be our primary goal.
Hopefully, that would be better for ordinary Venezualans as well, but at seventh and last its *their* country, not ours, and they’re the ones that will need to fix it.
Even ignoring the death sentence bit, she under no circumstances should be put in charge. If there is anything the last 60 years has taught me its that women should never be put in positions of authority.
If she is put in charge, it is highly likely Venezuela will go the same way every nation that has ever elected a woman into the highest seat of authority.
But all that is neither here nor there. None of us are Venezuelans. Well probably not. Its not our country, not our people, not our future. The only ones who should decide are them.
That being said if they do elect her, I feel pity for the next generation as it is likely things will get worse for them.
Also I should note "She thanked US President Donald Trump for his "leadership and courage"" This is a bad sign even ignoring the woman bit. You should not be thanking another nation for acting without authorization in your own country, and before anyone starts I am not defending Maduro. I don't have any opinions on him one way or the next, but if you want to lead your people, you cannot say things that might invite other nations to think interfering in your nation is ok at any level.
If she had said something like "Thank you for removing him, but he was our problem and you should not have interfered." Well I still would think she shouldn't be in charge because again (Woman.) But I would be less inclined to think she would be willing to sell her nation out if things go bad.
Her saying what she did makes her look like she would be perfectly willing to allow foreigners to do as they want in Venezuela. Its a bad look.
- W
Let Milei send them some chainsaws, and some Argentinian testosterone to assist in the wielding of them . . .
Your initial premise stinks. Who would you rather have as your head of government--Margaret Thatcher or any of her successors and immediate predecessors?
Sadly true... dammit...
Golda Meir? Margaret Thatcher? Queen Elizabeth 1?
I think what you’re arguing is that left/green female leaders have failed abysmally. Which is true, but perhaps the problem is “left/green” rather than “female”?
My immediate thought reading anonymous 11:50 AM was Margaret Thatcher also. That being said, Mrs Thatcher seems to have been an anomaly, rather than a rule.
Post a Comment