Venezuela: What is moral is what is effective

By: Beatrice E. Rangel - 20/07/2026

Democracies don't usually deteriorate overnight. They begin to erode when those in power stop understanding that ethics is not an obstacle to governing, but rather the indispensable condition for governing well. Politics may be the art of the possible, but it only produces lasting results when it is based on principles. That is why the maxim of Spanish congresswoman Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo—"What is moral is what is effective"—contains a truth that history confirms time and again.

Recent events in Spain and Venezuela offer an eloquent illustration.

In Spain, the National Court has determined that there is sufficient evidence to open a criminal investigation against former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero for alleged crimes related to influence peddling and illicit enrichment. It will be up to the courts to determine responsibility. But, whatever the legal outcome, this episode compels a re-examination of the role played by the man who, after leaving La Moncloa (the Prime Minister's official residence), became one of the Venezuelan regime's main European interlocutors.

That administration was presented for years as an effort at mediation and understanding. However, it ended up linking Spain's international prestige with a government widely criticized by the democratic community. If the accusations hold up, the damage will extend beyond the figure of the former president: it will also affect the credibility of a foreign policy that, since the democratic transition, has made Spain a privileged interlocutor between Europe and Latin America. A reputation built by King Juan Carlos I, Adolfo Suárez, and Felipe González could be lost much faster than it took to build it.

Venezuela offers an even more painful lesson. The tragedy caused by the double earthquake of June 24th tested not only the logistical capacity of the State, but also its commitment to the lives of its citizens.

While governments and international organizations offered immediate humanitarian assistance, the official response was marked by disorganization, opacity, and decisions that were difficult to understand. Field hospitals were set up far from the worst-affected areas; food and medical aid was held up for days; and international rescue teams reported obstacles to carrying out their work. In an emergency of this magnitude, every hour lost translates into human lives.

Beyond administrative responsibilities, the tragedy revealed a deeper problem: when a government stops considering the citizen as the center of its actions, inefficiency ceases to be an accident and becomes an inevitable consequence.

Spain and Venezuela experience very different realities. However, both episodes highlight a common truth: transgressing ethical principles never yields lasting advantages. It may offer immediate benefits, but ultimately weakens institutions, erodes public trust, and reduces the state's capacity to fulfill its functions.

Spain risks losing some of the moral authority that for decades allowed it to play a unique role in Latin America. Venezuela faces a far more dramatic challenge: rebuilding a country whose population has suffered not only a natural disaster, but also a deep distrust of institutions that failed to rise to the occasion during the most critical moment.

History shows that nations do not prosper solely because of the quality of their laws or the abundance of their resources. They prosper when those who govern them understand that power only retains legitimacy as long as it remains subject to principles.

Because, in the end, the most effective policy is still the most moral one.

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».