Henrique Capriles: ‘Abstention in Venezuela only makes things easier for Maduro’

Venezuela is set to hold controversial elections on May 25 to choose new governors, mayors, and National Assembly representatives. The day is unprecedented due to the sheer number of positions being contested — and controversial once again, as the country remains mired in the latest political crisis triggered by the disputed July 28 presidential elections. Nicolás Maduro held onto power despite the opposition claiming victory and presenting documentation to support their case — something the government failed to do. Rival presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia now lives in exile in Spain, opposition leader María Corina Machado remains in hiding for security reasons, and hundreds of political prisoners continue to languish in Venezuelan jails.

Amid this volatile landscape, and with no changes to the National Electoral Council (CNE) or the presence of international observers, the opposition has once again split over whether to participate or abstain in the May 25 elections. Machado and González have backed a boycott, calling it “unforgivable” that some political figures are urging citizens to vote.

Among those calling for participation is Henrique Capriles Radonski. The 52-year-old former presidential candidate and ex-governor of Miranda is running again after having been banned from holding public office by the Chavista-controlled judiciary in 2017 — a ban that was supposed to last 15 years. Capriles says he was surprised to learn he had been reinstated and insists emphatically, during a Friday interview via videoconference, that he was not part of any backroom deal in exchange for legitimizing the government by running in the election. “It’s not popular to run in these elections,” he admits, “but it’s the right thing to do. You set an example with your actions.”

Question. You have maintained that Maduro stole last year’s July 28 elections.

Answer. Absolutely. It’s common knowledge in Venezuela that Maduro stole the elections.

Q. So why vote on May 25 and endorse the elections if conditions haven’t changed?

A. By voting, you don’t recognize the dictatorship or legitimize it. Millions of Venezuelans elected Edmundo González on July 28. Today, he should be in Miraflores [presidential palace], not Nicolás Maduro. For me, voting in Venezuela is an expression of resistance, of resilience, of not giving up.

Q. But how can you tell people to go vote if the result won’t be respected?

A. Because I think it’s always worse for the regime to have to steal the result. The opposition has already used abstention as a way of doing politics, but in the end, it leads to nothing. What can you build from abstention? All you’re doing is making things easier for the government. Maduro is happy once again with this debate between voting and not voting, but I assure you he’s not at ease. He’s in power, but he’s not at ease, because he knows his electoral base has been greatly diminished.

Q. Do you feel there will be reliable results?

A. Will it be a repeat of the July 28 elections? I don’t know. What I do know is that it’s much harder for him to have to do that [steal victory] than to say the opposition didn’t want to participate. For me, politics is action, and abstention is inaction. The election as a political event generates other political events. Furthermore, it’s the area where the government is weakest, and it has shown us this over the years. The government has so far maintained the call for elections; it has played with the dates, but it has maintained them. It’s likely that it wants to do away with the elections as they are currently provided for in the Constitution, which is why it’s proposing to change it. How do you tell people not to vote now and instead vote for the constitutional reform, which will be very, very, very soon?

Q. After the July 28 elections, Edmundo González is in exile; María Corina Machado is in hiding; and there are still hundreds of political prisoners. Is it possible to hold an election under these conditions?

A. I think what’s going to break the deadlock is if we try to bring politics back. Because if politics doesn’t return, the government will just entrench itself.

Q. That already happened in the July 28 elections.

A. There was something that wasn’t achieved. We thought an electoral defeat would open the door to negotiation, but that door didn’t open. We believed the election would resolve the political conflict in Venezuela, but it didn’t.

Q. What would you have done differently before, during, and after July 28?

A. I wouldn’t want to say it because it’s very easy to come along now and say, “I would have done this.” What we need to do is remember that unity was formed to seek peaceful political change. We don’t believe in solutions based on force, even though some talk about them.

When they called for La Salida in 2014, with Leopoldo López at the helm, it was done without the [opposition bloc] Democratic Unity Roundtable. What did that failure mean? It strengthened the Maduro government and weakened the democratic opposition. The [opposition] won the 2015 Assembly because there was perfect unity. After all the street protests in 2017, which we all took part in, there was an election and some comrades said we shouldn’t run in them. Indeed we didn’t even run in the 2018 presidential election. We gave Maduro six years.

Then came the interim government in 2019 [led by Juan Guaidó, who self-declared himself president of Venezuela]. That fantasy once again created fractures within the opposition, because it wasn’t institutional. How many times have we said that Maduro was illegitimate, and yet the expectation created by Edmundo himself was that Maduro would hand over the presidency? Where was he supposed to be sworn in? In the National Assembly that [Maduro ally] Jorge Rodríguez presides over and that you said you didn’t recognize.

Contradictions end up being very costly for the democratic opposition itself. We cannot stray from what we are. It’s Maduro who strayed from democracy, who violates the Constitution. We’re at an impasse. Maduro in power, Edmundo González in Madrid. What do we Venezuelans do? Do we give in to despair, resignation, or do we continue looking for a way to express the voice of the majority?

Q. Edmundo González didn’t go into exile by choice. The situation has been at an impasse for many years. How much longer can it go on for?

A. The government would have been more relaxed if Edmundo hadn’t been a candidate, if María Corina, disqualified [from running], had said: “We’re not going to the elections.” If I were María Corina or Edmundo, I would call on people to vote again. It’s about using the vote as an instrument of struggle. If María Corina and Edmundo say today, “Turn around, go vote,” Maduro won’t hold the elections on May 25. Maduro waited for María Corina to say that Venezuelans shouldn’t go to vote to call the election and to include the election of the National Assembly with the governor and mayoral elections. The inauguration of the National Assembly is in January of next year, and Maduro is holding the election now because the opposition was going to fall into the trap of abstention again.

Q. Most polls still show that Machado is the leader with the most support; she has a higher popularity rating and more support than you, for example. Why not continue to trust her strategy a little more?

A. That’s the mistake. In politics, more than following people, you have to follow ideas and proposals. If you promote abstention, explain to people what you’re going to do the next day. It’s as I was told, that we are going to do with Edmundo González the same thing we did with Guaidó. The problem wasn’t just the person, but the political idea. When I was the leader of the Democratic Unity Roundtable, I never asked people for loyalty or fanaticism toward me. It’s one thing for people to use you as a symbol and become fanatical, and it’s another thing for you to promote fanaticism.

Q. Your premise that Maduro shouldn’t be given anything is useful for political parties. They continue to operate, they can be financed, but what about the people? If Henrique Capriles is a member of parliament, how does that change the reality of any Venezuelan?

A. We need to put a face to this election because we’re electing governors, mayors, and representatives. It’s not a referendum. It’s always better to have a democrat in any position than to not to have one at all. I don’t have a parliamentary vocation, but what’s coming is an absolutely challenging constituent Parliament, where many issues regarding the country’s future will likely be discussed, such as constitutional reform. I believe I have to be there, being the voice of those who have no voice, being the voice of the Venezuelan people, who are the majority, who need an opposition and to be defended in every institutional space that exists.

Q. There’s widespread criticism that the opposition leadership abandoned the people who protested the results of July 28. What responsibility do you take for that?

A. I did everything I could to ensure we won on July 28, but I had no role in María Corina’s campaign command. I wasn’t the protagonist of July 28, nor did I want to be accused of taking the spotlight away from María Corina or Edmundo González. Rather, I was always in the second, third, or fourth row. It wasn’t my responsibility. There’s a sector of the opposition that has spent years investing resources in trying to discredit me. It must be because they’re worried that rationality will regain strength.

Q. Do you still have open channels with the Maduro government?

A. After July 28, Maduro and those around him went into war mode. After this election, I’m going to try to open channels to think about the possibility of negotiation processes in the future.

Q. Do you still believe that it is easier to talk to the Rodríguez siblings, Jorge and Delcy, than to Diosdado Cabello?

A. Diosdado always seems to have an absolutely radical voice. And with me, a personal obsession stemming from his defeat in the 2008 gubernatorial elections. And with the Rodríguez siblings... In the end, there’s a leadership that works in unison. Jorge Rodríguez has been Maduro’s negotiator, but it’s not because he’s nicer, it’s because the leadership works in unison.

Q. What did you think of Trump’s first 100 days regarding Venezuela?

A. Absolutely terrible. Picking people up based on their skin color, a tattoo... Being a suspect and ending up in a Salvadoran prison because of your nationality is terrible. What’s more, thinking again that applying economic pressure will cause a break in Venezuela and lead to Maduro’s exit is rehashing something we already lived through and that failed.

Q. What do you think of Maduro’s defense of the migrants imprisoned in El Salvador when there are hundreds of political prisoners in Venezuela?

A. It’s shameful, and it only shows how shameless Maduro is. It’s a mockery for Maduro to come out and defend Venezuelan migrants when he’s the one responsible for seven million Venezuelans being outside the country.

Q. What do you think about the ambiguity of opposition leaders like Guaidó, María Corina Machado, and Leopoldo López regarding the policies of Trump and Bukele?

A. That is also shameful. It’s as if Trump were the boss. Regarding El Salvador, it’s known that some Venezuelans have been involved in the Bukele government. It’s shameful.

Q. What is your opinion of the role of former Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in Venezuela?

A. I know he’s wanted to take on a role, to maintain himself as someone who has a channel of communication with the government. I don’t judge that; I’ve had my differences with him and I’ve expressed them, but, in the end, anyone who wants to help Venezuela find a solution is welcome. I’ve asked Zapatero for help in the release of political prisoners, and Zapatero has answered my call. He helped Edmundo González. Not acknowledging that would be a pettiness I won’t engage in.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition