It is about to be two years since Juan Guaidó (La Guaira, 37 years old) took office as president of the National Assembly of Venezuela.
In a matter of weeks, he went from being an almost unknown politician to leading the opposition to Chavismo.
As head of Parliament, he proclaimed himself interim president and, with strong support from the international community, tried to force the downfall of Nicolás Maduro, the formation of a transitional government and the holding of elections with guarantees.
However, the Bolivarian revolution continues to expand its power.
On December 6, he regained control of the legislature in elections surrounded by accusations of fraud that barely registered a 30% participation.
Guaidó responded with an alternative consultation that was held telematically over the past week and culminated in a face-to-face vote on Saturday.
The leader of Voluntad Popular, the party of Leopoldo López, seeks to stop the attrition, demobilization and internal criticism generated by the failure of the strategy.
In this interview with EL PAÍS, carried out by videoconference, he shows his determination to keep the National Assembly with an opposition majority in operation, even in parallel, as of January 5, when the new deputies take office.
Question.
How reliable is the consultation that you have just called?
Reply.
Beyond the effort that the organizing committee has made, we must compare this with what it is.
A citizen movement, organized from civil society, which of course in my case I promoted in the first person.
They were five very successful days of participation because despite the pandemic and the persecution and in contrast to what was on December 6 [holding of legislative elections], they achieved important messages.
One, that organization and union are fundamental in Venezuela.
Two, the rejection of fraud, but also raise the fight and the solution to the conflict in presidential and parliamentary elections.
It would be a mistake to compare it with December 6 even, because December 6 was made by usurping the tools and resources of the State.
Q.
But how reliable will a result be that has not been audited?
Are they not falling into an error similar to the one they criticize?
A.
No, that is the great differentiation.
A process like that cannot be compared to one of demonstration of volunteers and civic participation.
Today we still have people in jail for having handed in a flyer or for having placed a [voting] point.
Q.
On January 5, the mandate of the National Assembly with an opposition majority, which was forcefully achieved in 2015, will come to an end, by which you are recognized as the president in charge of about 60 countries.
From that day on, what will Juan Guaidó be?
R.
International recognition and the presidency in charge today are instruments of defense of what remains of democracy in Venezuela.
Institutional continuity is the principle that we are embracing at this time, having not had a valid election, to continue the mandate of the National Assembly and the presidency in charge.
On what basis?
Article 233 of the Constitution, the non-election held on December 6.
But the most important thing is the defense of Venezuelans, of the people.
We cannot allow a void in dialogue.
To approximate a solution, we are going to need internal force and the legitimate dialogue of the people of Venezuela, and that means maintaining and installing the constitutional continuity of Parliament on January 5.
Q.
As of January 6, then, are you going to continue to consider yourself president in charge?
R.
For the Constitution and institutional continuity based on the national Parliament.
We cannot fall into the trap.
What are they looking for?
Annihilate the democratic alternative, which is why, for example, they did not accept the very sensible offer that Europe made recently to defer fraud and qualify for a recognized and competitive process.
Maduro is not interested in the legitimacy of that December 6 process.
Q.
You were proclaimed interim president and recognized to achieve one goal: cessation of usurpation, transitional government, free elections.
Two years later, none of that has been achieved.
Should your interim government be maintained as it is structured or does it have to be modified and cut positions?
R.
I think it should be improved to do it faster.
International pressure must be facilitated, but also guarantees for those who are supporting Maduro today.
Any transition creates uncertainties, even in democracies.
In short, from January 5, 6, what we have to do is strengthen the international coalition, internal mobilization to generate pressure, but also guarantees, the framework for the transition.
Q.
All these objectives that you have stressed many times have also lost credibility.
In these two years, expectations were very high and there is a lot of criticism towards the structure of that interim government.
Should that structure be maintained?
R.
The review has to do with the objective and also the environment of Venezuela.
Today, everyday life in Venezuela is a feat, from placing gasoline to buying food.
If we want to expand the recognition of the national Parliament, the rejection of fraud and increase pressure, we probably do not need 36 ambassadors, we need 44. But in Venezuela, how do we protect those who have been appointed by the government in charge?
Q.
Last year we asked you about the failure of your plans and you asked not to confuse that term with frustration.
Do you still believe that you have not failed?
R.
I still believe that people want to get out of Maduro.
Our great mandate is to get out of the dictatorship, achieve the transition and free elections.
Anything that is oriented in this direction will work.
To see it differently is to agree with the dictatorship, which tortured, assassinated, and stole elections.
Processes must be improved, but without losing sight of the context.
For example, informational inequality.
Not once was the popular consultation mentioned in the national channels, there was no talk of fraud, and Juan Guaidó cannot be mentioned in any program.
Q.
What has been your main mistake in these two years?
R.
I think there are two things to improve in the very short term.
The first thing, to generate certainty that there is going to be a transition, to give precise guarantees to all sectors.
A specific example is how to improve a process like the one in Norway or what happened on April 30.
Guarantees are essential to generate pressure and dilemmas for the dictatorship.
And the other important element is the management of the construction of effective consensus.
What does this mean?
Unity, which has to be in two senses: stability and governance, but it also has to be bold.
Q.
From the first it follows that the internal force has perhaps been neglected a bit for the international force, specifically because of the great support that the US has given them. Was that a mistake?
R.
No, more than that are the guarantees.
Internally, we have seen great mobilizations, great expressions, but we can manage to strengthen that framework.
There are many people around Maduro who are jaded too.
P.
Until now they have appealed to immediacy.
One of their mottos was “the moment is now”, but if we look to the future a kind of crossing of the desert is glimpsed.
What comes next and how are you going to convince the entire anti-Chavista universe that you are the right person to continue leading this attempt to force change?
R.
There it is summarized, in forcing a solution, what we can offer in the short term.
In order to offer guarantees, legitimate dialogue is needed.
How do we do it?
Through the national Parliament.
Parliament has a leadership and a directive, which in this case assumes the presidency in charge of the extraordinary situation that Venezuela is going through.
And in that there is a political consensus of all the parties of the democratic alternative.
Beyond the person, I believe that there is an absolute political consensus taking out the public differences that you know and that I recognize, but which are opinions and personal cases.
Q.
And the solution will go through a negotiation?
R.
I do not want to talk about negotiation because the term is different, for what is understood in the international community, to what we live in Venezuela.
When Maduro speaks of negotiation, he does so rhetorically, to reduce the resolution of the conflict.
The solution to the conflict goes through presidential and parliamentary elections.
More than negotiation, I would like to talk about guarantees to achieve an election.
For that we need pressure, force, because Maduro has voluntarily demonstrated that he does not agree to a negotiation.
The closest examples are the envoys from Brussels to Caracas, the nominations commission, the mediation of the Kingdom of Norway.
I change the word negotiation to make it more specific and put guarantees on the table for all sectors to achieve a presidential and parliamentary election so as not to distort the concept, because Maduro has even made it pejorative by misusing it.
Q.
That is, the departure of Maduro will not be negotiated, but the conditions could be negotiated to have a scenario that allows Venezuelans to decide whether or not to leave Maduro.
R.
I do not want to use the word negotiation, again, because this generates many conflicts within Venezuela.
And I ask the international community for help to mean this, because if we don't feed the narrative of the dictatorship.
The guarantees will achieve presidential and parliamentary elections.
I think it is important for Maduro to leave and that happens through other pressure mechanisms.
But the guarantees are directed even to their environment.
Q.
During the peace process with the FARC in Colombia, the Government commented on the problem it had internally when using one or the other words.
You know that the international community talks about a negotiated solution, but that word scares you because perhaps the extreme, more conservative sector in Venezuela would reject it.
Do you think you should change that balance between what you have to say outside and what you have to say inside?
R.
I do not have the means in Venezuela to explain it.
The mechanism of communication with citizens for us is Twitter.
And only eight out of every ten Venezuelans have daily access to the Internet.
Q.
And because of that virtuality, you are more interim president for the international community than for the Venezuelans themselves.
R.
I would not speak of virtuality, but of effectiveness to get out of Maduro.
At the end of the day the great need of the people of Venezuela is to get out of Maduro.
Q.
A change is going to take place in Washington, where you have had Trump as your greatest supporter in the international community.
What do you expect from Joe Biden?
Would you have liked Trump to have won the election again?
A.
The most important thing with the Administration of President-elect Biden is simple: give our allies the opportunity to resolve the conflict.
We want the bipartisan approach that we have had so far.
With respect to the Administration of President Trump, the gratitude of Venezuelans in the determination in the fight for democracy.
But ultimately the Americans choose, we are 100% respectful of this process, before, during and after the election.
We want the solution to the conflict to also serve as security for the entire continent.
P.
Days ago you asked to strengthen the sanctions.
Why?
Do you think the measures taken so far have been of any use?
R
.
More than strengthening, I spoke of homologate.
Because the dictatorship through Iran or other countries tries to
bypass
[divert the sanctions], so the pressures do not have the desired effect.
When I speak of strengthening I mean improving, propping up effectively.
P.
And those that have been taken until today have achieved something?
R.
They are the only tool that have led the dictatorship, for example, to sit with Norway, to sit with Europe, they are the only tool that really hurts them.
Today we are not in the scenario of a bad government.
[Maduro] is a criminal against humanity who systematically tortures, murders, and represses.
Q. You
know that in the EU there are many different positions.
Are you afraid that from now on some countries will withdraw support for your position?
R.
I have full confidence in the support of the EU to the Venezuelan cause and the understanding of the intention of the dictatorship to annihilate the democratic alternative.
Q.
Would you understand that the EU maintained that support for the Venezuelan cause, that it kept you as an interlocutor but that it did not continue to recognize you with the title of president in charge?
R.
I think that strengthening itself is important, both for the position and for the institution.
And I think there is an understanding of this.
The opposite would be, again, to validate the thesis of the dictatorship.
Q.
If the EU does not continue to recognize you as president in charge, do you think it validates Maduro?
R. It does
not validate Maduro but we must insist on the protection of the democratic alternative.
What happens if the dictatorship kidnaps me?
That is always a latent risk.
Q.
You do not like the word negotiation, but both the EU and Norway have on several occasions sponsored a kind of mediation, an exploration of a way out.
Are you willing to participate in an initiative of these characteristics?
R.
The one who does not want negotiation is Maduro.
If I wanted a negotiation I would have agreed on something.
The dictatorship plays a lot with propaganda.
[We are ready] to do everything that comes close to guarantees in the shortest possible time.
Q.
There is a name that has flown over the conversation, although it has not been cited.
Can a solid opposition be made without Juan Guaidó and Henrique Capriles being together?
R.
You can make opposition, without a doubt, it is not a matter of people.
I think that makes it easier, but they are not exclusive factors.
For example, Henrique is part of a political party, Primero Justicia, which is absolutely aligned with everything we have been talking about.
It is not a determining factor, but it would be a facilitating factor.