Skip to main content

Why Venezuela govt granting amnesty to political prisoners isn't a sign of weakness

By Guillermo Barreto
 
On 20 May 2017, during a violent protest planned by sectors of the Venezuelan opposition, 21-year-old Orlando Figuera was attacked by a mob that accused him of being a Chavista. After being stabbed, he was doused with gasoline and set on fire in front of everyone present. Young Orlando was admitted to a hospital with multiple wounds and burns covering 80 percent of his body and died 15 days later, on 4 June.
The violence of this crime is an expression of what has characterized the Venezuelan right wing, led by people such as María Corina Machado, among others. Hatred, racism, and intolerance. Violent actions have accompanied the Venezuelan opposition since the beginning of Hugo Chávez's government. It is worth remembering the events of April 2002 when the business sector, private media, and minority sectors of the Armed Forces, supported by the governments of the United States and Spain, conspired to overthrow the government. On that occasion, they deployed snipers who fired from various points at both opposition and pro-government individuals to create the narrative that the government had ordered the shooting of unarmed demonstrators. The coup lasted only a couple of days, but the way it was carried out revealed the fascist nature of an opposition whose visible faces have not changed since then.
Chávez returned to power and not only called for peace and coexistence, but in 2007 he signed an amnesty decree that allowed for the release of many of those involved in those events. The decree granted amnesty to those who were prosecuted and convicted of committing any of 13 crimes, including the violent takeover of state and municipal governments, the unlawful deprivation of liberty of a minister, incitement to military rebellion, and a series of events that led to the death of people. We are referring to crimes that are clearly defined in Venezuelan law. These crimes are also defined in the laws of every other country in the world, including the United States. When President Chávez granted amnesty to these individuals, he was not nullifying the crime. He was extending a hand and calling for politics to be conducted within the framework of the law, peace, and coexistence.
Recently, the Acting President of Venezuela, Dr. Delcy Rodríguez, announced an amnesty and asked the National Assembly to draft and discuss an Amnesty Bill. This law would formalize a process of case review and release from prison that had already begun under President Nicolás Maduro Moros and that excludes those convicted of murder, drug trafficking, corruption, or human rights violations. The corporate media is already talking about the release of political prisoners, but it is important to be precise and understand what we are talking about. Political prisoners or politicians in prison?
According to Amnesty International, a political prisoner or prisoner of conscience is a person ‘imprisoned (or subjected to other forms of deprivation of liberty) solely because of who they are (their ethnic origin, sex, color, language, national or social origin, socioeconomic status, birth, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or other status) or for believing what they believe (their political, religious, or other deeply held convictions), who has not used violence or advocated violence or hatred in the circumstances leading to their arrest.’
The Parliamentary Assembly of the European Union also establishes that a person is a political prisoner when their detention has been imposed for purely political reasons unrelated to any crime.
Who, then, are the prisoners whom the mainstream media calls political prisoners? We are referring to people who promoted, instigated, and/or participated in violent actions explicitly characterized as crimes under Venezuelan law.
Let us recall those events. In 2013, after the official results were announced declaring then-candidate Nicolás Maduro Moros the winner of the elections, the losing candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonsky, rejected the results and called on his supporters to publicly express their rejection through the use of violence, which led to the murder of nine people, including children and adolescents. In 2014, opposition leaders, including Leopoldo López, María Corina Machado, and Antonio Ledezma, called for people to join a plan they called “La Salida” (The Way Out), which led to attacks on people identified with the government and attacks and set fires on public health, education, transportation, and electricity infrastructure, subsidized food storage and distribution networks, libraries, and even a preschool that was housing 89 children under the age of 6 at the time of the attack. In total, 43 people were killed and 878 injured during these events. Among the dead were nine security officials and a public prosecutor who was doing his job.
A similar situation occurred in 2017. The same actors, the same faces, but with even greater violence. A report by the human rights organization SURES refers to acts of violence that left 74 people dead, of whom only six were attributable to the security forces. Twenty-eight people were killed by gunfire, some from homemade weapons. Some people were killed while participating in activities in support of the government by shots fired from nearby buildings, and there was the terrible case of Orlando Figuera, with which we began this article. Most of the demonstrations, which also included road closures and the obstruction, under threat, of free movement, took place in municipalities whose authorities were from the opposition, some of whom even participated directly in the actions.
In 2024, after the 28 July elections, the opposition once again refused to recognize the results and called (once again) for violence. We can list, by way of example, that 12 universities, 7 preschools, 21 schools, 34 high schools, 6 Comprehensive Diagnostic Centers, 11 metro stations, 38 buses, 10 National Electoral Council headquarters, ministry headquarters, courts, police stations, etc., were attacked with blunt objects, incendiary bombs, and firearms. People (mostly women) who led community processes were murdered. Soldiers were killed. Several officers of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, professional troops, and 120 police officers were wounded.
There is no space to continue listing the actions of an opposition that, since the beginning of the Bolivarian Revolution, has not stopped in its attempt to overthrow the government and uses violence as a tool for that action. An opposition that has saturated its supporters with speeches of hatred and intolerance. We are not talking about political prisoners. We are talking about people who have committed crimes, have been charged and convicted for those crimes. People who have left deep wounds in the Venezuelan people. An amnesty at this time, however, is not a sign of weakness. It is not oblivion. It is a demonstration, as Chávez did in 2007, that Venezuela is committed to peace and a call (once again) to the sectors opposed to the government to follow paths framed by democracy, coexistence, and the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
---
This article was produced by Globetrotter. Guillermo R. Barreto is Venezuelan and holds a PhD in Science (Oxford University). He is a retired professor at the Simón Bolívar University (Venezuela). He was Deputy Minister of Science and Technology, president of the National Science and Technology Fund, and Minister of Ecosocialism and Water (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela). He is currently a researcher at the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research and a visiting collaborator at the Center for the Study of Social Transformations-IVIC

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests. 

Conversations from the margins: Caste, land and social justice in South Asia

By Prof K S Chalam*  Vidya Bhushan Rawat ’s three-volume body of conversational works constitutes an ambitious and largely unprecedented intellectual intervention into the study of marginalisation in South Asia . Drawing upon the method of extended dialogue, Rawat documents voices from across caste, region, ideology, and national boundaries to construct a living archive of dissent, memory, and struggle. 

Bangladesh goes to polls as press freedom concerns surface

By Nava Thakuria*  As Bangladesh heads for its 13th Parliamentary election and a referendum on the July National Charter simultaneously on Thursday (12 February 2026), interim government chief Professor Muhammad Yunus has urged all participating candidates to rise above personal and party interests and prioritize the greater interests of the Muslim-majority nation, regardless of the poll outcomes.