NICOLAS MADURO MOROS comes from a working-class family and was shaped by the trade union movement. He worked as a bus driver for the Caracas metro system and grew into a prominent union activist.

Within the Chavista project led by President Hugo Chavez, he built a career as a member of parliament, minister of foreign affairs (2006-12), and, from October 2012, vice-president. When a dying Chavez appointed him as his successor in December 2012, he did so with a clear message: Maduro was the man who could safeguard the unity of the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) and preserve the country’s social gains.

A heavy legacy

Maduro, however, inherited a daunting task. While Chavez could rely on near-mythical charisma and record-high oil prices, Maduro had to lead the country through an era of scarcity and unprecedented external and internal aggression.

Maduro’s presidency is inseparably linked to the “hybrid war” unleashed by the United States. While international media focused on his perceived lack of charisma compared to his predecessor, Maduro developed a survival strategy against a suffocating sanctions regime.

These unilateral coercive measures, which blocked vital oil revenues, had the explicit aim of imploding the Venezuelan economy and forcing the population into revolt. According to a Centre for Economic Policy Research report, to which Jeffrey Sachs contributed, economic sanctions in 2017-18 caused approximately 40,000 additional deaths in Venezuela.

As a result of the economic state of emergency and internal polarisation, more than seven million Venezuelans left the country. This resulted in an enormous brain drain that further undermined the economy.

Maduro did not face only economic opposition. During his rule, Venezuela confronted US-sponsored coup attempts, such as the failed “Operation Gideon,” and the shadow government of Juan Guaido, which was heavily backed by Washington.

And then there is polarisation. In the past, the gap between rich and poor was enormous. Chavez and Maduro sought to bridge this gap, earning them significant support among the poorer classes.

Conversely, among wealthier groups, resistance remains very high.
This is reflected in the media. As elsewhere in Latin America, commercial media outlets are largely owned by major capital groups that pursue a virulent anti-Maduro line. In contrast, public media outlets present the opposite perspective.

Commercial media maintains a massive impact on Venezuelan society; approximately 70 per cent of radio and TV stations are privately owned, while only a small minority are directly state-owned.

Maduro’s course

Despite polarisation, destabilisation attempts, and the manipulation of the political process by the US, Maduro managed to preserve unity within the armed forces and the PSUV.

During his rule, Maduro made significant efforts to strengthen civil society. The so-called comunas (communes) were granted substantial decision-making power and autonomy for local neighbourhood organisation. Despite staggering inflation, Maduro has managed to keep social programmes (Misiones) afloat in an adapted form.

Milicianos and colectivos were also established. These are civilian militias mainly intended to be able to withstand a possible foreign intervention or domestic organised unrest. In total, it involves approximately four million Venezuelans.

You can say a lot about these militias, but in any case they have ensured that Venezuela, after the kidnapping of Maduro, did not end up in a civil war, as happened after the military intervention in Libya in 2011.

In recent years, the Venezuelan economy has begun to recover, and some Venezuelans are returning home. This partially explains why Maduro won the 2024 elections.

In foreign affairs, Maduro followed Hugo Chavez’s footsteps, pursuing a tireless anti-imperialist course. Under his leadership, Venezuela served as an engine for Latin American integration, aiming to resist decades of United States interference.

By forging strategic alliances with countries such as China, Russia, and Iran, Maduro has effectively challenged Washington’s hegemony. This move toward a multilateral world — where Latin America is no longer the “backyard” of the US — made the country, alongside its vast oil reserves, a primary target of US aggression.

Human rights

Critics accuse Maduro of authoritarian excesses and disputed elections. While both issues warrant discussion, a complete picture requires acknowledging the circumstances and the highly biased reporting surrounding the country.

Venezuela is a besieged nation that has had to endure several coups and internal destabilisation efforts. As Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, noted in the 16th century: in a besieged fortress, any dissident is quickly viewed as a traitor.

Furthermore, due to the wealth gap, Latin America remains the continent with the highest levels of social and political violence. In polarised Venezuela, this violence is particularly acute. During the 2013 street blockades (guarimbas), dozens of police officers and civilians died due to actions by political opponents. Similar scenarios have repeated after almost every election.

In such a violent and besieged context, the boundaries of law enforcement are easily crossed. While this cannot be justified, a degree of modesty is appropriate for those observing from safe, stable positions.

Moreover, one must be cautious with reporting on state repression. For instance, a 2017 UN report on human rights was highly critical of the government, citing flagrant violations. However, international jurist and former UN expert Alfred de Zayas dismissed the report, claiming the team was ideological and “a priori opposed to the Bolivarian revolution.”

He argued the report relied on unreliable sources and ignored government information regarding victims of opposition riots. Often, a UN report reflects internal power balances more than the reality on the ground.

Democracy

A second reproach concerns the lack of democracy. Again, context is vital. Since Chavez won in 1998, the US has sought to tilt every subsequent election in its favour. It is not an exaggeration to call this “electoral warfare.”

Right-wing candidates have received financial support and strategic advice. Polling agencies of dubious reputation have organised exit polls that invariably produced results unfavourable to the left. People from the opposition camp were urged to infiltrate the electoral council.

In the 2024 presidential elections, a detailed scenario was allegedly designed to manipulate the process, involving sabotage and the organisation of post-election riots. The most important parts of that scenario were even published in advance by an expert in psychological warfare and disinformation.

The US stated in advance that it would only accept the result if the right-wing candidate won. While the official result showed Maduro with 52 per cent and the opposition with 43 per cent, the opposition claimed Maduro only received 30 per cent.

While much of the world adopted the opposition’s version, recent polls suggest the opposition lacks a broad following. In an October poll, 91 per cent of Venezuelans held an unfavourable opinion of Maria Corina Machado, the opposition figurehead. A poll by another firm in December confirms that. Moreover, 80 per cent of the respondents see the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Machado as a farce.

Even Donald Trump, with whom Machado worked closely, has indicated she lacks the domestic support to be a credible leader.

Since Maduro became president in 2013, there have been 12 elections and one referendum — an unusual record for a “dictator.”

You can, however, ask yourself how meaningful it is to call elections in a context of electoral warfare and how a political system can protect itself against so many external and internal hostilities without undermining its democratic content.

In any case, dismissing Maduro simply as a “dictator” ignores the complex reality of hybrid war and extreme polarisation. This does not absolve the government of responsibility, but it does demand a sober, balanced view of a democracy under permanent siege rather than simplistic caricatures.