Speakers Tags Used in Events

Welcome to our new episode of This is Democracy. This week, we are continuing our discussion of democracies and elections around the world. This is, as we've said many times on the podcast, this is a year with more democracies voting, and more non democracies voting as well in elections around the world than at any point in human history before. And these elections and democracies and non democracies will really set the course for so many countries and probably for our globe moving forward for the next years and decades we are going to discuss today the recent elections in Venezuela and the controversies over those recent elections in Venezuela. On July 28 2024 the country of Venezuela held elections, and the incumbent president and dictator, Nicolás Maduro, claims he won the elections, but almost all observers, including the United States, are pretty clear on the evidence that Maduro lost these elections, what has happened in Venezuela and where do we go from here? We're going to understand the history surrounding these elections, what occurred in these elections, and we're going to think about based on knowledge of what's happened in other societies, particularly in the same region. We're going to discuss where we think these election results might go in the future of Venezuela. We are fortunate to be joined by my colleague and friend and someone who I think has done some of the most impressive work on authoritarianism and related regime change issues in Latin America. This is my colleague, Professor Kurt Wayland. Kurt Wayland is the Mike Hogg Professor in the Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. He's done amazing primary source research and direct interviews, the kind of work that historians love when you get dirty with the primary sources. He's done this research in so many countries in the region, probably as many as anyone else, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru and, of course, Venezuela. I probably left off some other countries, and I've of course forgotten to mention that he's also done research in the United States. Professor Wayland is the author of seven books. I'm going to just name a few of them, The Politics of Market Reform in Fragile Democracies, which was published in 2002, Making Waves: Democratic Contention in Europe and Latin America. 2014. Assault on Democracy: Communism, Fascism and Authoritarianism During the Interwar Years, published in 2021 and published just this year, a book I need to read because I haven't kept up with everything Kurt's written. It's impossible to keep up with it. Democracy's Resilience to Populism Threat, a book that's probably directly relevant to our discussion today. Professor Kurt Wayland, Kurt, thanks for joining us today.

Yeah, thank you for having me. It'll be important to talk about this tragic events in Venezuela.

Yes, yes. We are eager to hear your thoughts before we turn to Kurt's insights on this important topic. We have, of course, Mr. Zachary's poem. What's your poem titled today Zachary?

Hungry in Caracas

Hungry in Caracas, it, it sounds almost like a parable of sorts. Is it? We'll see. We'll see. Okay, let's hear it

We'll see, we'll see

Okay, let's hear it

Outside the voting booth in Caracas, they lined up at 6am counting the years of tyranny in stacks of bills and ribs exposed outside the voting booth in Caracas were guards armed with guns, frowning at the people and thinking also of their next meal. It is a truth seldom acknowledged that people don't just vote when they hate or when they love, that sometimes people vote because they are angry, that sometimes people vote because they are hungry. Outside the voting booth in Caracas, each of them recognized this fundamental truth, the voters lining up one by one, the guards holding their guns, and the mustachioed man staring down at them from the wall, who knew and still does, that his people are hungry for change.

I love the range of that Zachary, from the Hungry, Angry voters to the mustachioed militaristic leader. What is your poem about?

My poem is about you. I think it's really about what motivates people to vote even when they know that the outcome of the election is not going to be respected. It's a sort of anger and hunger for something different that brings people to the polls. And there's something deeply inspiring in that, but there's also something very sad, I think, in the sort of desperation of people turning to the ballot box even though they know it's not going to be respected,

Right, right. Very well, said. Kurt to help us understand that this sad moment, in some ways, this tragic moment, as I think you mentioned earlier, where should we start? Nicolás Maduro is the dictator who replaced the prior dictator, Hugo Chávez. How should we understand the origins of this regime?

So if you want to go back to the origins, I think Venezuela had democracy that was oligarchic and ossified and elitist, but that used to have from the late 1950s to the 1990s two party competition and alternation in power. So it was a democracy, but it was ossified and corrupt. So that allowed for the rise of Hugo Chávez, who was military nationalist, who had actually made a coup attempt against that ossified democracy, but to then took the electoral route, and due to vast popular discontent, he was swept into office in the landslide in 1998 and he started as a democratically elected leader, but he is a populist, and populists want power, and they want more power, and they want to stay in power for a long time. And so Hugo Chávez immediately transformed the institutions to concentrate more power to get control of the legislature, soon, pack the courts, push the opposition aside. So what Hugo Chávez did he transfer? He used his democratically elected position to transform Venezuela gradually, slowly, into what we call a soft authoritarian regime. And I say soft because Hugo Chávez was tremendously charismatic. He had an electrifying personality. So Hugo Chávez could do this transformation from democracy into authoritarian rule, but not using very much violence and repression at all. So he was illiberal. He was undemocratic. He used his charisma to essentially establish his political hegemony and cement cement his authoritarian regime. But he was not brutal and repressive. Then what happens is that Chávez dies an early age of cancer, and he had these charismatic leaders are so full of themselves they don't want to nurture rivals. So he had survived himself, typically, by comparing weaklings and sycophants. And when he was about to die, he nominated one of those weaklings and sycophants, Nicholás Maduro, as his successor. So then Maduro comes in, has an authoritarian regime, but doesn't have the charismatic authority and popular support of Hugo Chávez. So soon, Maduro faces opposition challenges. What do you do if you have an authoritarian regime, you don't have a lot of popular support, you use your control of the military and you crack down. And so Maduro cracked down hard in 2014 against opposition protests. He cracked down again in 2017 he cracked down in 2019 so what he did is he transformed Hugo Chávez's soft authoritarian regime into a harsh, repressive dictatorship. By the way, much, much Hyser than Victor Orbán's in Hungary. So Orban still has a soft authoritarian regime. Venezuela has turned into a really repressive dictatorship. So these dictatorships, they don't they don't respect elections. They still hold elections to have a window dressing because they claim to have to be democratic. But they do whatever they can, ban opposition politicians. Make life hard for the opposition, control the airwaves, spent tremendously before the election, so Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro, got himself re-elected in 2018 in a complete sham election that the opposition boycotted, but the opposition has no leverage against him. Protests don't work. International pressure hasn't worked, so the opposition decided this time, when Maduro came up for re-election, to challenge him in the election, thinking that the time was right for a change, because at the same time that Maduro transformed Venezuela into a brutal dictatorship, he has also ruined the economy. I mean rowing, there hasn't been a country suffering so badly outside of war, than Venezuela. Venezuela, in the last 20 years has seen its GDP drop by 75% I'm talking about 75% which is a tremendous collapse, 75% so about three or four years ago, when the economy hit, worked. Autumn, about 80, 90% of the population lived in poverty. 8 million Venezuelans have left the country in despair, and so I mean, has done total mismanagement, but holding this election, the opposition thought they could finally make dent, and opinion polls showed overwhelming support for the opposition, very low support for Maduro. The exit polls show overwhelming support for the opposition, so they clearly, clearly won, but Maduro, for reasons that I can explain later, Maduro just simply claims to have won, sits there, has support from the military, has taken over all the institutions and justice I won, and the opposition can claim whatever they want, the international community can demand whatever they want. I'll just keep governing.

Kurt, that's a incredibly helpful overview, and I'm amazed at how much you were able to pack into that one answer that really helps us understand the rise of what was first a populist authoritarian regime and what now sounds like almost an Orwellian nightmare, is dictatorship which is obviously destroying the country, and it also helps to explain the incredibly large number of Venezuelan refugees coming to the United States, for example. Why did Maduro hold this election? It was clear he was going to lose. He did ban the Leader of the Opposition, Maria Corina Machado, but even with the stand-in opposition figure, Edmundo Gonzalez, it was quite clear from weeks ago, I think, right, that the opposition was going to get more votes. Why did he subject himself to this election?

So this is interesting about these authoritarian regimes. When you go back and you mentioned my inter-war book in the inter-war years, authoritarian rulers were happy to call themselves dictators, and they were proud that they are dictators. But after the Second World War, dictatorship hasn't been that cool anymore, and especially after the end of the Cold War, when the United States in the 1990s had tremendous global hegemony and pushed countries to become liberal and democratic. Nowadays, it's not cool anymore not to hold elections. So virtually every country in the world holds elections, and a lot of these elections are complete sham. The incumbent wins by 98% of the vote. But the old elections say, oh, you know, we have a democratic facade. And I think that is especially the case in cases where authoritarian regime emerges fairly gradually from a democracy. I mean, there wasn't a military coup, you know, right now I'm down in Chile, when in Chile there was a military coup. Dictator Pinochet closed elections. I just want to do as a military dictator. But if you are populist leader who transforms his country from a democracy into an authoritarian regime, you don't want to cancel elections and then suddenly become a dictator. You try, and if you're Chávez, you have a lot of popularity, you think you can win all these elections, and you maintain elections. It's not cool not to have elections, especially in the Western Hemisphere, under the nose of the United States, in a region that in 2001 adopted a Democratic Charter that the region committed to democracy. And so you claim against all evidence that this is democratic, and this is democratic, and you all the elections, and then you try to manipulate the stage. You mentioned the banning of the main opposition candidate. You try to manipulate things in all kinds of ways so that somehow or other, you think he might be able to eke out victory. I don't know what Maduro thought, whether he thought somehow his manipulations would allow him to achieve some kind of shame victory, or whether he just thought, it doesn't matter, but not holding elections, it's just not legit anymore.

And, Kurt, did, did Maduro think he would win? Was he fooled? There have been a number of articles saying that he's surrounded by so many sycophants that that he actually thought he was still popular. Is that true? Or is he more cynical than that.

It's very hard to know. We don't have access to the inner, innner workings of the Maduro regime. We don't know some of these, some of these dictators are really quite united and believe their own propaganda. I mean, what is interesting and what I honestly do not understand, while Maduro outlawed the main opposition candidate and created all kinds of trouble for the opposition, and imprisoned opposition leaders, left and right and all the kind of thing. He allowed opinion polls to go forward, and every single credible opinion poll showed like the vote preference of 70% For the opposition and 25% for Maduro. So if so, I would find it kind of surprising if Maduro didn't know what the population was like. Maybe they thought that by for example, there are rumors that do it on election day, they created trouble for people to vote, especially opposition neighborhoods, you know, long lines and very slow movement, and whereas in their own neighborhoods, you know, so they maybe they thought, in just manipulating the voting process or that they could somehow others manipulate ballot boxes, that they would come up with the result. It's hard to know what exactly is going on, but, but what I frankly, wonder is whether Maduro just thought the result doesn't matter. I mean, he said before the election, the famous quote, I'll win by hook or crook. It doesn't matter. You know, this way or other. And so these dictators, you know, he knew that he had a lot of support from the military, which is absolutely decisive, for reasons that I can explain. And so in some sense, it doesn't matter to him what the election result is. He just sits there, protected by the military, knows he will stay in power. The domestic opposition can shout and yell. The international community can make pressure. He has enough support from China, Russia, Iran, and he'll just sit there. He sits on oil, so he has some economic lifeline and election result in some basic sense, doesn't matter that much to him.

It's a terrible situation. Zachary,

Why is the military support so critical. Why does that make or break Maduro's regime?

So this is interesting, in any authoritarian regime, ultimately, it comes down to who controls organized coercion. Because if you're under an authoritarian regime, you don't have procedural, institutional legitimacy, and so you need, ultimately, the capacity to rely on coercion if there's problem, if there is protests, you need to have the capacity to clamp down. Now, front line of that is the police and these paramilitaries that they have in these paramilitary gangs that they have in Venezuela. But ultimately, when push comes to shove, it depends on the military. The military is the mainstay of every single authoritarian regime, the Ultima ratio. So and Maduro has that military support for the same reason that Maduro feels compelled to stay in power, which is the following. During his 11 years as a dictator, Maduro has committed a bunch of human rights violations. He has ensured military loyalty by allowing the military to engage in large scale corruption, contraband. The military and Maduro are involved in international drug trafficking. Two of Maduro's nephews were apprehended in 2015 for involvement in drug trafficking. So the whole clique in power, Maduro, his political support, his narrow aids and the military, which is the mainstay, they're all essentially a crime cartel mafia and so the problem is the international community has become legalized. The international community says we don't accept corruption. We don't accept human rights violations anymore. And so the international community has threatened to indict Maduro and a whole bunch of his underlings for their human rights violations, for their corruption, for their involvement in drug trafficking, not only the US, but also the International Criminal Court. And so that whole mafia in power essentially feels compelled to stay in power, because if they were to lose power, they go to jail, to jail. And you see the international presidents. When the president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, stepped down in 2022 within three weeks, he was in chains and extradited to the United States. And so that's what Maduro and all the main generals fear. If they lose power, they're going to go to jail forever, and so that's the reason why they cling to power, regardless of what happens. And by Maduro can be assured of military support. They all, you know this saying they all have to hang together so that they don't hang separately.

Right, right. It makes a lot of sense. And it's, it's, it's a paradoxical consequence of creating an international system that is in some cases, trying to hold war criminals and other horrible leaders accountable. The examples of Slobodan Milosevic from Serbia and others obviously stand stand out. Yes, please.

I think this is one of the most painful dilemmas that the international community is facing, because in many ways, we want to hold these bad guys accountable, you know, and we want to deter bad behavior in the future. But the big paradox that, unfortunately, a lot of the advocates and academics who are in favor of this legalization of International Affairs don't want to face up to the terrible paradox is that the current leaders in power who have already committed all kinds of malfeasance and misdeeds, they now have a big incentive not to give up power and to keep doing the bad things due to that threat of international prosecution. It's a terrible paradox that the international community has a hard time dealing with.

So do you think, Kurt, that it would be a better scenario if the international community were able to offer Maduro and his closest criminals safe haven to go live in Russia or live in the south of France, as the former dictator of Haiti did. Is that a viable alternative?

That is the thing, right? I mean, you think France would want to have sit Maduro in some fancy, fancy mansion in the Riviera, you know, sipping Gin Tonic by lying around the pool in France? I mean, you know, this has become impossible. Can you imagine the outcry? Of course, nobody would want the guy. The only places that he could go to would be North Korea, which is not precisely, very attractive. And so that is a terrible dilemma, because you refer, you know, you probably alluded, to the south of France to former dictator of Haiti Duvalier. He went to France. At that time, there was still, you know, Haiti, former French colony. He could go to France. And he left. And so he ended that nightmare in Haiti. But nowadays Maduro go to France. I mean, no way. And so that is the problem we would be the international community would need to designate like St Helena or something at the safe haven dictators and give them beautiful mansions there. But, you see, for my joke, it's not a viable alternative, and it's right, it's not a credible offer. The opposition, knowing of the terrible dilemma, the opposition said, Maduro, you know, if we win, we will negotiate with you and exit. That's not credible, because if they win, and Maduro recognizes the victory is in a very weak position. Is he going to believe that they will give him safe haven, and even if the Venezuelan opposition would want it. How about the US and how about the International Criminal Court? I mean, now in this election controversy, the head of the OAS has requested the of the International Criminal Court to have an order order of imprisonment from Maduro. You can't easily have that go away.

Zachary.

And one thing I've noticed, which I find fascinating but also deeply strange, is the way in which some on the far left in the United States idolize Venezuela and the Chávez tradition that Maduro carries on. And you also mentioned that there is still some popular support in Venezuela for Maduro and for Chávezism. Um, where does that come from? You think, and, and what role will that play in the potential resolution of of this fiasco.

So to talk about the support inside Venezuela, I mean, Hugo Chávez was hugely, hugely popular for all his failings. Hugo Chávez took on an ossified elitist democracy and claimed to do things for poorer people. And given that, Hugo Chávez benefited from the global commodities boom, he rolled over one a bunch of social programs, you know, he tried to advance popular health care, literacy campaigns, all these kinds of things. So some people benefited from Chávez, and Chávez was highly revered, and some of that still persists. But I think the main support for my guru is essentially people who are utterly dependent upon him. Every person who works in the vastly swelled public administration has to promise support to Maduro, otherwise they lose their job. And what Maduro has done, he has devilishly taken advantage of the terrible crisis that he helped to create by using a program of distribution of food packages to the poor who have nothing to eat, and controls that through a surveillance system to essentially say you only eat if you support me. And so when you see now people protesting in favor of Maduro, a lot of those are essentially bought lackeys. And so that is also, you know, there is the regime holds a whole bunch of people hostage, because if you don't vote, and people probably fear if they vote, they have to vote for Maduro, you don't vote, you don't eat. So that's the domestic support. So So is that voluntary? Autonomous? Probably not. I think a lot of that is coerced and dependent internationally. Unfortunately, as I said, I'm down in Chile and I was recently in Brazil, a number of left wingers still have this sort of strange ideological affinity. So the Chilean Communist Party has recognized the Venezuelan election, and Maduro has reelected the Brazilian Workers Party, the Workers Party of President Lula in Brazil, which rose under an authoritarian regime and was very important for Brazil's democratization, the Workers Party of Brazil has recognized Maduro's victory to be out of that kind of misunderstood ideological affinity. So there's this left-wing thing like, Oh yeah, you know, he's kind of bad, but he still is a left winger, and we need to support him, and also driven a little by anti-Americanism. So So you have this strange kind of sort of support for a left winger that leaves democracy out of the picture. And that is really very disturbing.

This is all very depressing. I have to say, Kurt, it sounds like we have a truly dystopian regime, but a dystopian regime that has developed coup-proof tentacles, as as many in the field would say, so. So what are the what are the options for going forward? I mean, there is a very well organized opposition, courageous, an opposition that was able to bring out a lot of voters, and also, as you said, the economy in Venezuela, despite Venezuela having more oil resources than any other country in the world, more oil than Saudi Arabia, even, nonetheless, this country is starving because of the mismanagement and the corruption and the International sanctions. So is there a breaking point? What does that look like? Where do you see this going?

I unfortunately do not see a breaking point, and I do not see a realistic chance for Maduro leaving office anytime soon. I think the opposition is enormously courageous. I admire the courage of people to not only to go out and campaign and to be opposition candidates, but even to vote for the opposition. I admire their courage in protesting, but I do not think that they have the cloud by far domestically to really do something. And the international community, the international community, of course, is divided, as I mentioned. Maduro, has support from the kind of bad axis of China and Russia and Iran and whatever Western countries, many countries have not recognized the result of the election, and they're pushing for Venezuela to make transparent the voting process and to negotiate and all this kind of thing. And Maduro just doesn't do it, you know. So here, in some sense, surprisingly, a group of left-wing governments in Latin America, led by Luna da Silva, who, as president, although his party recognized the election as President, hasn't done it. Gustavo Pedro of Mexico and of Colombia, sorry, and then AMLO of Mexico, they have all pushed Venezuela to make the Election Results transparent, and Maduro says, yeah, and maybe not, and maybe whatever, and just doesn't do it. And so I think the international community essentially has no leverage. What leverage do you have? I mean, the country, the country's economy, is going terribly, but oil gives it a little bit of a lifeline, and Maduro doesn't care. I mean, what does Maduro care? Sitting in his palace surrounded by military people who are compelled to support him, if 80% of the population starve, I mean, it just doesn't and what can the international community do? The United States has imposed sanctions. Doesn't do any good, because countries like China, Russia, Iran, enable Maduro to evade sanctions to a good extent. The Latin American governments, you know, they make like diplomatic moves, but they're not going to. I mean, what would it take? I mean, honestly, it would take a military invasion of Venezuela. And nobody is prepared to do that well.

Well Kurt, what about the possibility that we've seen in other countries such as Ukraine, where mid and lower level members of the military who see their families suffering, who see their neighborhoods destroyed, who are ashamed of what they're seeing, that they at some point. Point turn on the generals and and their dictator.

So this is a good point, and I think that two reasons that it hasn't happened in Venezuela, um, the first is that Hugo Chávez faced a coup attempt in 2002 and then he got of course scared and what do you do? And he was very close to Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Cuba sent 2,000 intelligence agents that essentially helped Chávez purge the military and install an internal surveillance and control system that was very strong and very effective. And so they essentially the military, I mean Maduro is aware that the only real threat he would face would be from the defection of military. And so they try to prevent it at all cost. Through surveillance, through harsh crack downs, through purges, I mean, there are a lot of stories that military people who showed some sign of disloyalty are being tortured, are being killed. So so coercion has enabled him to keep military loyalty. The second thing is the following. What is the situation in which lower level military people defect? Essentially, if you have sustained mass protests that get suppressed with large-scale violence, and it goes on and on and on. And then at some point or other, members of the military might say, I don't wanna I don't wanna do this anymore. But in some sense, you know, and I don't know how to say that, fortunately or unfortunately, from the perspective of what we are saying, unfortunately, there were large-scale protests in Venezuela for two, three days. Then it died down because the repression was effective. And so two, three days, you know, you crack down. Yes. You you imprison 2,000 people. You kill a bunch of people. It wasn't sustained enough, and it wasn't broad enough. And when you see where the so, like, the recent opposition protest last Saturday was in the eastern part of Caracas, which is a middle class neighborhood. If the protests had led to a mass outpouring of popular protests some some popular neighborhoods like Petare protested, but the whole western part of Caracas is the real stronghold of Chavista support. And there wasn't very much protest going on there if there had been really massive outpouring. If it hadn't only been, know, predominantly educated middle class people, but if there had been, you know, millions of poor Venezuelans just pouring down from the slums and hills and poor neighborhoods of Caracas into the city center, besieging the Presidential Palace. If there have been a real kind of popular assault on the regime and that had gone on and then there had been just killing, killing, killing, killing, then you might have seen defection. But but the regime managed very quickly to contain and suppress the protests and confine them primarily to the middle-class areas, and that is just simply not enough to prompt large-scale military defection.

Well, that's a that's a very compelling, if sad, answer. Kurt, we like to close every episode with something hopeful, and I think we need that in this case. Our listeners are are are people who, like us, care about democracy, want to see reform to regimes like the one you've described. They wanna see reform in The United States too. What are the things we can do? What do you, as a as a leading scholar of the region, how do you think about your work and the work of your students and others contributing in some positive way to this terrible situation?

No. No. You caught me you caught me on a blank. I I I mean, the only thing you can do is try to support the Venezuelan opposition, you know, support the many, many I mean, hundreds of thousands of people who left Venezuela, went to The United States. Somehow or other I mean, I don't even know what we can do to do that. Limit the crackdown that will happen. I mean, what I what I frankly predict, and I'm sorry that I'm not really providing much optimism, but I predict that in a couple of weeks, the regime will imprison the two opposition politicians that led the challenge. And, you know, then the best we can do is some personal exchange or whatever. I mean, I think the perspective is very, very bad negative. I'm sorry that I can't follow your your recommendation to come up with something. The most optimistic thing is that, you know, even Maduro at some point has to die. And, I mean, maybe then that succession issue will provide some hope.

No. That's a that's an honest and and compelling answer.

And I do It it's a very I mean, I joked with you before the session. I mean, you talked about your son's poem. I said this will have to be a very sad elegy that you like.

What what do you think US policy should be? Are we is it appropriate to keep sanctions on Venezuela? Are there any any changes you would recommend in US policy?

I I think I think that the US has tried a number of things. You know, the Biden administration was involved in a negotiation effort last year and last fall, offering easing of sanctions if the regime actually went ahead with honest elections. And as we see now, it didn't work very well. I I'm sorry that I think kind of approximation doesn't work very much. That regime has negotiated on so many accounts essentially in bad faith using it as a stalling tactic, get over temporary problems, and then just simply cement its hold again. I think the only option is essentially to sanction the hell out of them. And, you know, for from the part of the United States. I I I do not think that the US has a lot of options. I mean, it shows in some sense how weak the United States has become internationally even in its own Western Hemisphere. I mean, when you think that the United States has been unable to forestall Venezuelans descend into authoritarianism, into brutal dictatorship, into total implosion and destruction of the country, that the United States has not had any real leverage over that process in a country so import, you know, even for the oil supply of the US and the world as Venezuela. It shows you when people talk about US or Germany and US predominance and whatever. I mean, the Venezuelan case is a striking example how weak the United States has become even in the Western Hemisphere.

Zachary, what do you think of all this? I mean, as as someone who cares about democracy, as part of a generation that's hoping to see more democracy in more countries, This is hard to listen to. Right? This is a really difficult story, and and, you know, and in some ways, it it is in our backyard. How do you react to this?

I think it's a very sad story, certainly. I think, at the very least, this discussion should be a reminder not to look at the politics of our neighbors in Latin America as some sort of caricature, but to really engage with the conditions on the ground and to listen to what people are saying. I think it's very easy for Venezuela to become either a sort of punching bag of the right in the United States, a sort of like, this is what socialism looks like sort of lie, or a caricature on the left that it is obviously also opposed to the truth. I think it's a reminder of how important it is to engage with and reckon with the real conditions on the ground at the very least.

I agree, and and I think Kurt has quite brilliantly laid out for us in his work and in the discussion here an important research agenda, a research agenda not just for scholars like Kurt and myself, but for for all kinds of citizens, which is thinking through what are the options, what are the things the international community can and cannot do. And I would just highlight a point that Kurt made, which is that, in some ways, the efforts to hold appropriately leaders accountable for their crimes, and in theory, I'm certainly for that, but that effort often makes it harder to get them to leave power. And if our goal as supporters of democracy in a broad sense is about getting dictators out and nondictators in and building institutions, it's probably time we think through a little more, in a more sophisticated way how to do that. It it it seems as if the dictators are ahead of us in our thinking about international democracy and international democratic procedures. Is that a fair note to close on, Kurt? Do you agree with that?

No. I absolutely agree. I think the international community has to face up to that terrible paradox that this legalization of international affairs has this unintended side effect. And I do not know what could be done to, you know I mean, I made the joke about Saint Helena. There would have to be some kinda international safe haven, some way of sort of emergency amnesty, whatever, and it would have to be credible and enforced by the international community, unfortunately, limiting that international regime of prosecuting violators of human rights and other norms in order to I mean, not only induce, but allow them to step down from power. I mean and how to do that? Man, that is a very, very difficult how to build an international regime in a world that is so divided between the democratic forces that are on the defensive now and sort of ascending authoritarian forces of China and Russia and Iran, whatever. I do not know how that could be done, but it's an urgent agenda.

Yes. And, of course, even your joke about Saint Helena points to another problem. When Napoleon was sent to Saint Helena, first of all, he wasn't happy to be there, and then in the end, he was poisoned because they were fearful. The European states said he would come back again, which is always the concern if you if you let these people go to a Saint Helena, that they'll just return. Kurt Weyland, thank you so much for joining us today, for sharing, really, I think, compelling, if quite depressing, insights into Venezuela and and I think the larger challenge of dictatorship and coup proofing regimes in in various places around the world. Venezuela is just one of the worst examples, but there are many others. I encourage our listeners to read Kurt's work. It's really eye opening in its depth and its comparative, breadth. So thank you, Kurt, for joining us today.

Yeah. Thank you for having me, and I'm sorry that I had to provide such a bleak picture. But, you know, as scholars, we have to face the facts, and, unfortunately, the facts in Venezuela are very dark.

That's right. We we have to pursue the truth. And and for activists who care about democracy, we have to stare the reality in the face. We can't dream up futures that that don't match the world that we're in. Zachary, thank you for your inspiring poem and excellent questions as always, And thank you to our loyal listeners and subscribers to our Substack for joining us for this discussion of This Is Democracy.