Venezuela: When will democracy arrive? Tarek William Saab as a symbol of stubborn impunity

By: Ricardo Israel - 01/02/2026

This column bears witness to questions that still remain unanswered, such as how soon democracy will return. After Maduro's capture, an atmosphere of hope arose, accompanied by a great uncertainty: the lack of a clear timeline for reaching the end goal, which is nothing less than the return of full sovereignty to the Venezuelan people. The U.S. still has a role to play, and much to say, since the reality today shows that the dictator is gone, but the dictatorship remains, and the actions that have been present in all successful transitions to democracy have not yet been initiated.

From another perspective, modernization in the oil sector has initiated perestroika, but glasnost is not yet evident. And, by the way, Delcy is no Gorbachev.

The interim president announced a general amnesty and the closure of the Helicoide prison, but is that enough? Does it include everyone, without discrimination? For starters, it excludes the many military personnel who have been denied any benefits in the past. According to Foro Penal, 711 people have been released since Maduro's fall, although “more than 11,000 people continue to face arbitrary restrictions on their freedom.” What's the catch? It's presented as an act of clemency, not as it should be: the restoration of fundamental rights. Most of those convicted were imprisoned for exercising rights guaranteed not only by international treaties but also by Venezuelan law, meaning that judges were complicit in this situation.

Everything indicates that the transition has begun, but the fear remains and there will be no sense of tranquility as long as not only Diosdado Cabello and Padrino Lopez remain in positions that allow them to continue threatening, but also Tarek William Saab, the very symbol of injustice, use of torture and persecution of innocents from his position as attorney general, ratified in January by Maduro.

Beyond the promises of US authorities and a mention of democracy in a third stage, without a timeline or specifications, the question remains: what comes after Maduro? Delcy Rodríguez is supposedly just a stepping stone. At the same time, doubts persist about what to do and what to expect in a situation where there is still no visible fracture at either the top (generals) or the bottom (troops) of the Armed Forces, nor is there any popular mobilization of a level that would even worry the dictatorial structures. During a transition, there should be changes at both levels so that everyone understands that we are truly moving toward a democracy and not something that claims to be one but is not.

Hence the mention of the Attorney General as a symbol that his removal would show that ending impunity is an achievable goal, and when President Trump emphasizes the obedience shown by Delcy Rodríguez on the oil issue, it is understood that if for Cabello and Padrino López we still have to wait, Tarek William Saab is a possible target for a change in the atmosphere of fear and dread that still persists, and without his removal, the change is simply not yet felt at the level of daily life, since a simple opinion could still land the person who expresses it in jail.

Incidentally, the democratic opposition has much to say, and it still lacks concrete proposals and actions. The question remains: what to do to give a push, or at least a nudge, to those who continue to govern, especially if the US commitment might weaken, not due to a lack of will on the part of the White House, but because of a process that forces it to concentrate on what is undoubtedly its main focus today: the midterm elections this November 2026. Hence the need for the democratic opposition to have such a strong presence in Venezuela and in Washington that it becomes clear that they have been the legitimate government since July 29th and will continue to be so as soon as elections are held. Therefore, I believe that the title of what I wrote in these pages in August 2024 remains valid: that in Venezuela the only luxury the opposition cannot afford is irrelevance. More than a personal opinion, this is what all successful transition experiences have had in common: the democratic opposition as a relevant actor, recognized as such by everyone, inside and outside the country, even those where there was coexistence with the old regime for years, as happened in Spain with those who came from Francoism, in Chile with General Pinochet as commander-in-chief of the army, or in South Africa with former apartheid authorities.

The capture of Maduro demonstrated that the US was serious and that there had been a noticeable shift from Biden to Trump. So too was the imposition on the Rodríguez brothers of a complete overhaul of oil policy, where actions speak louder than the justifications offered by Chavismo. However, aside from generalities about a probable or possible future, near or far, the same clarity surrounding the transition is lacking.

As a Chilean, I personally feel very proud of the successful transition that Chile experienced, where the most relevant thing was reaching agreements in practice, since nothing was signed anywhere regarding what divided the country, that is, democracy in politics and the market in economics, a process where yesterday's enemies were transformed not necessarily into friends, but in democracy they became only adversaries.

I am bothered by the hypocrisy of those who criticized that dialogue process back then, probably similar to those who criticize the US now. But Venezuelans, both inside and outside the country, know that Venezuela is incomparably better today than it was on January 2nd, but there is still work to be done to move forward more effectively and quickly toward democracy. For starters, as demonstrated by the doubts of some well-known oil companies regarding the stability the White House can offer investors who are being asked to invest a minimum of US$100 billion, the truth is that only a country living in democracy can offer such security. Therefore, Washington should promote a long-term dialogue with those who won on July 29th, and these same people should also work to earn their place, through whatever pressure is necessary, since the future of the country is at stake.

The experience of successful transitions, each different from the others, such as that of Venezuela, with the unprecedented role of an unelected leader who nonetheless holds a special position, as is the case of María Corina Machado (MCM), has not changed the fact that there is still a victory at the polls, an election that was simply stolen, but which has no power whatsoever, since the conditions have not allowed for street mobilizations that would worry those in power.

Just as in successful experiences, impactful actions are also needed to convince the military, judges, and other sectors that have been complicit in a civilian-military dictatorship. The return of exiles is urgently needed, en masse in the case of politicians, as is the permission for peaceful demonstrations and access to the media so that their voices can be heard by all Venezuelans. It is also essential to legitimize public spaces as places for the exchange of ideas and alternatives, so that upon her future return, MCM can be greeted by perhaps a million people in Caracas, marking the beginning of a national tour. Furthermore, she needs to meet with the Rodríguez brothers in Miraflores or another symbolic location to initiate a process of dialogue and conversation on equal footing.

The US can achieve all of this since Venezuela is in transition, but the problem is that it's barely noticeable, and in some cases, far too subtle. Therefore, actions are needed that demonstrate the dictatorship can no longer continue its repression and that doing so will come at a cost, as happened with Maduro, who refused to heed all the opportunities offered to him for a way out, simply rejecting them with disdain and a dance-like gesture. For this reason, Tarek William Saab needs to be removed from the scene, ideally arrested and prosecuted, which, of course, is unlikely to happen. However, it is perfectly feasible for him to be removed from his position and replaced by a distinguished jurist, male or female, with an impeccable track record, who can guarantee everyone that justice will be served and that no one will be persecuted for their beliefs. This person cannot be someone who held a similar position in the past, someone who, even if they later became a dissident, committed similar injustices while in power.

Personally, I'm not worried about the US imposing decisions of this kind, equivalent to what it has successfully done with oil, since I must reiterate what I've said and written since January 3rd: my concern isn't that the US will become more involved, but less so, that it will lose interest, as long as there isn't a timetable and roadmap for a safe transition to democracy. My greater concern is that the White House will focus on the difficult midterm elections, which, like almost all elections in a democracy, will be decided by internal issues such as the economy, and not by what happens in Caracas.

I hope that action is taken quickly for two reasons. First, some decisions were made to avoid repeating the bad experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan, but that comparison is based on a mistake, both gross and fatal, since those countries had no democratic tradition whatsoever, unlike the very decent one of Venezuela, before the Venezuelans themselves elected Chavez.

The second, and most important, is that the White House loses interest in focusing exclusively on the next election, since one of the most rigorously followed quasi-scientific laws in the U.S. is that as elections approach, there is no other issue or concern in Washington than winning them, and even interventions abroad have to adapt.

Furthermore, if the Republicans lose, since President Trump is ineligible for reelection, he becomes a "lame duck," an expression that describes the loss of influence, especially for someone who has so clearly dominated the political scene. If all attention is focused on the next presidential election, this includes the current likely candidates: Vice President Vance for president, but also Marco Rubio, currently a possible vice-presidential candidate, unless the polls propel him to run independently in the primaries. And in that scenario, Venezuela undoubtedly loses the central role it currently plays, where key state institutions such as the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA have an unusual level of interest.

Furthermore, during election periods, Washington is particularly fickle, as everything hinges on election day, making changes of heart frequent. More than one seemingly loyal ally has suffered the consequences, as evidenced by well-studied cases like Vietnam and Afghanistan. Recently, this has once again affected the Kurds in Syria, following the rapprochement between the US and the new government of (ex) jihadists who overthrew dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Moreover, given the existing polarization, this concern has a real basis, since if the Democrats win the House of Representatives, given that the party is currently controlled by its most leftist faction, a constitutional accusation, a political trial against Trump, will almost certainly be presented, which will undoubtedly have repercussions on the interest currently being shown to Venezuela.

Therefore, time is of the essence, and every effort must be made to ensure that the U.S. makes decisions that are ideally irreversible, paving the way for democracy. There's a reason the U.S. coined the well-known expression that you can walk and chew gum at the same time—that is, oil and democracy together, side by side, not one instead of the other, nor one after the other.

Furthermore, the US must be convinced that those who remain in power do not operate with political codes but with those of a mafia, and thus they deceived Venezuelan democrats time and again, as they also did with the Biden administration. This experience should not be repeated—that of letting them buy time, since in this way they strengthen themselves, acting not even as Machiavelli advised, but with the codes of the cinematic Godfather.

Biden was deceived in Barbados, and perhaps the Rodríguez brothers' faction is looking to repeat the experience, thinking that Washington will be satisfied, that it will only be interested in oil, and that if they drag out the conversation long enough, Trump and the Republicans will be so preoccupied with domestic politics that they will forget about imposing democracy. Let's remember that Biden and González, his Latin America advisor who aided Chavismo from his position in the White House, believed that oil and democracy could be reconciled. In exchange for the return of companies like Chevron, the release of the narco-nephews and Maduro's front man, they demanded a clean election, and the response was the ban on MCM, which ultimately made a mockery of him, with no consequences for the perpetrators.

To prevent Trump and Rubio from suffering the same fate, time is of the essence, and the democratic opposition cannot afford to be left behind by passing trains that only come once. Just a few days ago, MCM met with Rubio, highlighting the importance and necessity of a greater democratic opposition presence in the decision-making process and of pressuring the US to do what it must. Otherwise, there is a real risk that attention to urgent matters will be hijacked by an electoral calendar that now seems increasingly difficult.

Undoubtedly, Trump and Rubio understand that they are negotiating with a mafia, and that the Rodríguez family wants to buy time. While they have been compliant on the oil issue, they have not been compliant with the signals that have been present in all successful democratization processes, including those as difficult as, or even more difficult than, Venezuela. The amnesty announcement has been well received, even though, so far, there has been more release than actual prisoners, as prohibitions and restrictions abound, as happened with Edmundo González's son-in-law. Everything indicates that the Rodríguez family may be convinced that they only need to address the oil issue and buy time, since the narrative that a kind of "partnership" has been built between them and Washington is not only false, but also fuels all sorts of accusations and conspiracy theories from many anti-Americans, including those who live there.

What is certain is that successful interventions leading to democracy, such as Panama in 1989, are in the minority, given that most of them during the period of the Monroe Doctrine's existence have failed, insofar as they did not lead to any democracy at all. To avoid repeating negative examples, we must consider not only the United States but also the abundant history and diversity of democratic transitions in Latin America and the rest of the world. It is unfortunate that this issue has not been given the prominence and importance it deserves by the democratic opposition, just as it has lacked something that has been present in other experiences that ultimately achieved democracy: self-criticism.

It hasn't even been a month since Maduro's capture, but there's concern that something similar is happening in the US, given the lack of clarity regarding what should and shouldn't be done, despite the lessons learned from cases like Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Eastern Europe, and many others. The US itself was successful after its military occupations of Germany and Japan, where General MacArthur allowed the emperor, in whose name Pearl Harbor was attacked, to survive, but there was never any doubt that nothing should stand in the way of democracy. The same principle must be clear to prevent any such monstrosity from being attempted in Venezuela.

Democracy is not a flower that blooms spontaneously, as the US seems to have mistakenly believed in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the negative consequences that forced humiliating withdrawals. Willpower alone is not enough; certain conditions are necessary. It is, therefore, a process, and in Venezuela, there have been too many years of dictatorship, requiring continued overturning of the status quo and concrete signals that there will be no turning back on the democratic objective. At the risk of being repetitive, I insist that this must be done, before anything else is focused on the US election in November. One of these signals is removing from his current post the person whose very name evokes the worst abuses of Chavismo, such as Attorney General Tarek William Saab.

There are opinions in Washington that seem to believe that economic openness and liberalization alone generate democracy, but cases like China, Vietnam, and others absolutely contradict this position. Furthermore, both the US and the democratic opposition should be wary of privatizations that could favor the regime's allies, since both Pinochet in Chile and Putin in Russia handed over public companies using political bias as the awarding criterion, and the Sandinistas had their own Nicaraguan spoils system.

I am also alarmed by the misrepresentation of the recent appointment of an experienced diplomat, ostensibly to report on events in Venezuela. Given what happened in Iraq, this could also signal a gradual distancing of the US from the front lines of policy, with the appearance of an intermediary, much like what occurred with the appointment of an ambassador to Iraq in 2003. It is crucial that the democratic opposition do what it failed to do in the past: try to better understand how US policy works, interpreting the signals it sends, so as not to be left out. Furthermore, those who won the July 29th election need to be more politically engaged and not forget that they are the legitimate government. It is necessary to do what was not done after that day and to assert that presence in order to neutralize those who still support the regime, for example, judges, military personnel, police officers, and those responsible for the electoral system.

Washington must realize that the only language Chavismo understands, regardless of faction A, B, or C, is the language of power. Therefore, it must use this language in relation to the democratization that is still either not in sight or considered too distant. To begin with, the Rodríguez brothers must be compelled to personally receive MCM and Edmundo González to initiate a negotiation process that respects them as the winners of the election and, therefore, as bearers of the people's sovereign decision. This single act, in addition to the winners acting as such everywhere, can create a turning point, effectively paving the way for clean elections. Not only must they be received and negotiated with, but their safety must also be guaranteed so they can engage in politics without fear of being attacked.

Replacing the Attorney General with a true jurist is a necessary and urgent step, since Maduro dealt a blow against the mafia, and now, one is needed in favor of democracy, especially when the colectivos are parading around with their weapons generating fear, as if nothing had changed, and restrictions that impede freedom of the press remain.

If these steps aren't taken, a monstrosity could emerge, a continuation of the dictatorship under a different guise or name. MCM's own popularity could evaporate in the name of a supposed "tranquility" or "new normal," and Rubio's third term could fizzle out or simply fail to materialize, as has happened in other cases where Castro-Chavismo has set the trend. And don't say it can't happen, because it has happened elsewhere, so we mustn't repeat the words of those who said Venezuela would never become another Cuba.

The democratic opposition must be more active, and the U.S. must also make a decisive move. The process must be protected, as well as those who deserve the trust of the majority of Venezuelans, such as Delcy Rodríguez. Undoubtedly, the current situation is undermining her leadership, as it affects the ethical contract she forged with the people—something as rare as Mandela's in South Africa, without whose providential intervention things would not have been the same. Through Trump, the U.S. now holds all the cards, but Delcy Rodríguez seems to project an image of indifference, knowing she could be imprisoned as easily as receiving amnesty and protection. It appears Trump cares less about words than actions, but I believe there has been too much leniency toward the Rodríguezes' double standards, too much understanding that they must show for their increasingly dwindling base, according to the polls.

In conclusion, regarding successful transitions, what is still lacking is a roadmap to democracy and timelines, however tentative they may be, since the goal will not be reached if progress is not made from day one in democratization, which is sometimes difficult to understand in a country like the USA that has been blessed by the absence of tyrannies on its territory.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

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