To the dismay of Spanish democracy, Rodríguez Zapatero has emerged as a critical advocate for a beleaguered regime, aligning himself with the oppressive Venezuelan dictatorship. The former president’s active involvement in supporting this brutal government, marked by the arrest of thousands—including many teenagers—and numerous killings in just a few days, casts a shadow over Spain’s international reputation. Zapatero’s unwavering stance raises serious questions about his commitment to democratic principles. It’s worth considering how Spanish democrats, who once opposed Franco’s dictatorship, would react if a leader from a European democracy had come to Madrid to support the Francoist regime.
Recent mass demonstrations across Venezuela have highlighted the Chavista regime’s struggle against an unstoppable wave of popular dissent. On election day, it was clear that this time, unlike in 2018, the regime’s electoral fraud was indefensible. María Corina Machado, supported by credible international observers, provided reliable data showing widespread opposition to Maduro. Yet, Zapatero remains steadfast, siding with the criminal regime and ignoring mathematically conclusive evidence that trustworthy international bodies validated 83.5% of the election results.
Zapatero’s legacy is now inextricably linked to his role as a staunch defender of the dictatorship. María Corina, the most prominent leader in Latin America, has painted a damning portrait of him, accusing him of attempting to divide the democratic opposition to ensure the survival of Maduro’s authoritarian rule. She has labeled him “immoral,” capable of disregarding the atrocities he has witnessed. She also highlighted the “Zapatero effect,” where the number of arrests of opposition figures increases coincidentally with the former PSOE secretary’s visits to the dictator. Zapatero is now equated with the “Cuban invaders” who are actively working to intimidate and neutralize the Venezuelan military.
Rodríguez Zapatero’s alignment with the Castro-Chavista regime is evident in his use of their rhetoric, blaming the so-called “blockade” for Venezuela’s widespread hunger and mass exodus. By proposing to exclude Corina Machado from the electoral process, a plan exposed by the democratic opposition, Zapatero has positioned himself as the foremost international supporter of the Chavista dictatorship. This legacy will forever mark his historical record. His current silence, driven by self-interest, reflects his role as the spokesperson for the Castro-Chavista electoral mission, appointed by the Puebla Group after they barred the European Union’s participation. Zapatero now echoes Maduro, who has been accused of state terrorism by human rights organizations.
Expecting the dictatorship to release the electoral records now is futile—they are incriminating evidence. What matters most is acknowledging the true victor, Edmundo González Urrutia. Meanwhile, leaders like Lula and Petro attempt to preserve Maduro’s rule without jeopardizing their political futures in Brazil and Colombia. However, their efforts to navigate this complex situation, such as suggesting a repeat election, are unlikely to succeed. Analyzing the electoral fraud must consider the broader geopolitical context of the new Cold War, notably driven by Xi Jinping’s China. Like the conflict in Ukraine, the future of liberal democracies, including Spain’s, is also at stake in Venezuela.
Zapatero is an active player in this global struggle. His participation in Russia Today, Putin’s propaganda outlet, was not to engage in harmless banter but to support anti-Western narratives, reminiscent of his stance during the Catalonian independence crisis. His repetition of Castro-Chavez talking points, blaming Venezuela’s plight on external sanctions, is contradicted by the analysis of esteemed Venezuelan economist Ricardo Hausmann.
In 2002, Chávez fired 20,000 skilled employees from Petróleos de Venezuela, replacing them with unqualified loyalists. This decision plunged oil production from 7 million barrels daily to a mere 700,000. Chavismo sustained itself when oil prices were high, but when they plummeted, the disaster was inevitable. As Hausmann from Harvard points out, the country’s downfall is not due to sanctions but to “self-inflicted wounds.” Castro-Chavismo has led Venezuela to poverty while enriching its leaders obscenely.
It should come as no surprise that they adopted his political tactics with Rodríguez Zapatero’s involvement in the Castro-Chavista Puebla Group. The former socialist president admitted that it was Juan Carlos Monedero, a member of Podemos, who “recommended” him to Maduro—a fact that is now evident. The PSOE under Sánchez and Zapatero tends to mirror the strategies of whichever political allies it needs to maintain power. When reliant on Podemos, they veer left; when dealing with nationalists, they follow suit.
With Zapatero’s integration into the Castro-Chavista Puebla Group, it’s no shock that they have absorbed his political practices. From an obsession with controlling the judiciary and the media to the colonization of public institutions with loyalists, they replicate whatever is necessary to cling to power. Monedero might even call this approach “Colored Leninism.”
In contrast, the true spirit of democracy rings out in Maria Corina Machado’s words during the remarkable demonstration in Caracas: “For 25 years, they’ve tried to divide us—white against black, rich against poor, left against right, those inside against those outside. We’ve dismantled all that: today, we are simply citizens.”
The dictatorship will inevitably fall, with Zapatero among those within it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Rodríguez Zapatero’s current stance on Venezuela?
Rodríguez Zapatero has been a vocal supporter of Nicolás Maduro’s regime, which has been widely criticized for its human rights abuses and electoral fraud. His alignment with the regime raises questions about his commitment to democratic principles.
How has Zapatero justified his support for the Venezuelan government?
Zapatero has echoed the Castro-Chavista argument that external sanctions, rather than internal policies, are responsible for Venezuela’s economic hardships and political repression. This stance aligns him with the regime’s narrative despite substantial evidence of systemic corruption and mismanagement.
What has been the impact of Zapatero’s support on his image?
Zapatero’s support for Maduro’s dictatorship has significantly tarnished his reputation. Critics argue that his actions undermine Spain’s democratic values and international image, portraying him as an enabler of authoritarian rule.
What role has Zapatero played in Venezuelan politics?
Zapatero has been involved in various diplomatic efforts related to Venezuela, often supporting initiatives that favor the Chavista regime. His involvement includes endorsing electoral processes that international observers have widely discredited.
How does Zapatero’s position compare to other European leaders?
Unlike many European leaders who have condemned the Venezuelan regime’s actions and called for democratic reforms, Zapatero’s stance has been more conciliatory. His support for Maduro contrasts sharply with the broader European condemnation of the regime’s human rights abuses.
What do Venezuelan opposition leaders think of Zapatero?
Venezuelan opposition leaders, such as María Corina Machado, have criticized Zapatero for his perceived collaboration with the Maduro regime. They accuse him of undermining democratic opposition efforts and ignoring the regime’s violent repression.
Has Zapatero faced any consequences for his support of the Venezuelan regime?
While Zapatero has not faced official consequences, his support for the Venezuelan government has led to significant public criticism and damage to his reputation. His alignment with an authoritarian regime has sparked debate about his commitment to democratic values.
What would be expected of Zapatero if he were a true democrat?
One would expect him to denounce the Venezuelan regime’s abuses, support democratic reforms in Venezuela, and advocate for international pressure on the regime to uphold human rights and fair elections.
Conclusion
If Rodríguez Zapatero were a true democrat, his approach to the crisis in Venezuela would be markedly different. His support for Nicolás Maduro’s regime stands in stark contrast to the values of democratic governance and human rights. A genuine democrat would denounce the Venezuelan government’s egregious human rights violations, including the arbitrary arrests, political repression, and electoral fraud that have plagued the country.
A true democrat would advocate for meaningful international pressure on the Venezuelan regime, support the democratic opposition, and call for comprehensive reforms to restore democratic legitimacy. This would include endorsing independent investigations into electoral fraud, condemning the regime’s violence, and promoting dialogue between the government and opposition to facilitate a peaceful transition to democracy.
