At the time of writing, another student demonstration was due to take place in Caracas yesterday, to demand, among other things, the freeing of the hundreds of protesters detained by the authorities and justice for the more than 500 wounded in the recent street clashes.
As concerns and tensions mount regarding the continuing crisis in Venezuela, Pope Francis has added his moral weight to the calls for an end to the violence and a concerted effort at reconciliation, urging “a sincere dialogue” aimed at achieving “justice that encompasses concrete themes for the common good.”
Similarly, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called for “concrete gestures by all parties to reduce polarisation” and engage in dialogue, appealing to Venezuelans “to voice differences and grievances peacefully and in accordance with the law, and to seek common ground.”
In a thoughtful and balanced opinion piece published widely across the Americas, the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States (OAS), José Miguel Insulza, has affirmed that the “profound divisions” in Venezuelan society can only be resolved through an “open and frank” dialogue between the government and the opposition, restating an age-old but oft-forgotten point: “Only dialogue can change the dynamics of confrontation.”
In this respect, Mr Insulza also asserts that the crisis will not be resolved from “outside” and rejects any notion of intervention, declaring that those times have “passed” in the Americas and should never return. Nonetheless, he correctly stresses that the situation in Venezuela will have serious economic and political repercussions in the region and appeals to both sides, “with no intention of intervening and with full respect for the sovereignty of Venezuela,” to resolve their differences through dialogue.
As welcome as these and other calls for dialogue are, everyone knows that it is a case of easier said than done.
President Nicolás Maduro’s attempt to convene a national peace conference on Wednesday, involving different political and social sectors, may indicate that it has dawned on Mr Maduro that he has no option but to pursue some sort of dialogue. But the repressive instincts of his regime seem to be preventing progress.
The main opposition leader, Henrique Capriles, refused to participate in the conference, denouncing the “repression” exercised by Mr Maduro’s government. In addition, the opposition coalition, the Table for Democratic Unity, stated that it would prefer not to participate in a “simulation of dialogue,” calling instead for a dialogue based on “previously agreed terms, with an agenda of issues relevant to the national interest,” and with the participation of a trusted national or international third party to act as facilitator or mediator.
The OAS had announced earlier this week that an extraordinary meeting of its Permanent Council was going to be held yesterday to discuss a proposal by Panama for the hemisphere’s foreign ministers to meet to find a solution to the Venezuelan crisis, alongside reports that former US President Jimmy Carter was offering himself as a mediator. The meeting was, however, cancelled when Venezuela objected to it, reportedly on procedural grounds. Perhaps the Venezuelans were playing for time and such a meeting could yet take place. Certainly, acceptance of the need for a facilitator or mediator, whether Mr Carter or a prominent Latin American, would be a step in the right direction.
In the meantime, restrictions on the media should be removed by the Maduro administration, as a sign of good faith. Reporters Without Borders, which has documented cases of media harassment and censorship, says that “dialogue is needed for news reporting to be conducted in a trouble-free manner.” Equally, broadcast media pluralism, objective news coverage and the free flow of information should, ideally, help reduce polarisation and contribute to an environment conducive to dialogue.
The problem though with authoritarian regimes, whether of the left or the right, is that they are seldom open to making concessions – they generally see this as a sign of weakness. And, as we have witnessed in the Arab Spring and more recently in Ukraine, they only agree to dialogue when confronted by extreme measures or, unfortunately, when it is too late. The use of extreme measures in the quest for democracy is, of course, a paradox that those who champion democracy and the rule of law must be honest about.
In the case of Venezuela, one has to hope that better sense will prevail and that Mr Insulza’s words will be heeded: “Only dialogue can change the dynamics of confrontation.”
