Henrique Capriles: ‘Venezuelans will not settle for just a reshuffling of power’

Henrique Capriles Radonski, 53, has regained prominence on the Venezuelan political scene. A member of the National Assembly in a Venezuela without Nicolás Maduro, Capriles is eager to speak. He pauses for several minutes before answering each question, and sometimes returns to and elaborates on his previous responses. Although conciliatory, he reveals a persistent unease with a segment of the opposition that, he says, has judged him harshly. Capriles, an opposition leader, former mayor, former governor, and former presidential candidate, is concerned that the “new political moment” spoken of by interim president Delcy Rodríguez results in nothing more than an oil deal. He insists that without trustworthy institutions and freedoms, elections will change nothing.

Question. After the capture of Maduro on January 3, what do you think happened? Why did U.S. President Donald Trump back Delcy Rodríguez?

Answer. At some point, Venezuelans will debate how we got to this point, but one truth is undeniable: everything Maduro said would happen, didn’t. Neither [Chinese President] Xi Jinping nor [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, two of his most important allies, came to his defense, suggesting a certain unanimity within the international community in seeing this as an opportunity, despite its implications for international law. Rather than dwelling on diagnoses, I would look at the difference with 2019: this is Trump’s second presidency, and the question is what his theory of change is, because it’s now understood that removing Maduro doesn’t mean restoring democracy in 24 hours.

Q. What type of transition does Venezuela need?

A. Changing it isn’t something that happens overnight. As people become poorer, it becomes harder to restore democracy because you become more dependent on the government. That’s why, when I hear Secretary of State Marco Rubio talk about stabilization, recovery, and transition, I see a shift: there’s an awareness that the country must be stabilized economically. Venezuela is on the verge of collapse; it’s a paralyzed country, with a black market that’s almost three times the official rate and inflation that has skyrocketed in recent days.

Q. And then what?

A.Then comes reinstitutionalization, even though Delcy Rodríguez doesn’t like the word. A new political moment isn’t just about changing a law or voting; it’s about starting to seriously discuss the institutions. That second step is what allows us to reach elections. And that’s what I would even say to [the presidents of Brazil and Colombia] Lula or Gustavo Petro: a new election is the end of this story, not the beginning. That’s where I see the change in U.S. policy toward Venezuela.

Q. What timeframes do you see as possible?

A. That’s the big question: how long? I wouldn’t set a fixed timeframe. It’s clear the government is clinging to the argument that Maduro is a prisoner. And with that, the Constitutional Chamber builds a continuity and an interim presidency without adhering to the timeframes established by the Constitution, which would require declaring the absolute vacancy and calling elections within 30 days. The debate can take place, but not now, because calling elections today would be like doing a 360-degree turn and ending up back where we started. The real question is how quickly the Venezuelan economy can be stabilized. My concern is that the president of the United States only talks about how many millions of barrels have arrived. In Venezuela, we have to ask ourselves if the institutions are serving the country. Who trusts the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office, or the National Electoral Council? We can talk about a new political moment when we sit down to negotiate how the reinstitutionalization process will unfold and when the opposition is represented so that there is a balance.

Q. Should María Corina Machado have a significant role?

A. I have acknowledged, privately and publicly, María Corina’s effort and strength on more than one occasion. I thought she wouldn’t stay in the race, but she did, even after being disqualified, and I believe the Nobel Prize is a recognition of her perseverance. For me, she should have been the candidate because she won the primaries and had the most support. And she has the right to compete in elections; if she or any other political actor is denied that right, we are not opening doors to democracy. That said, I believe that in the current situation, we need to depersonalize things.

Q. Have you spoken to her recently?

A. I haven’t spoken to her in a while.

Q. How long?

A. I don’t know, I only keep track of that with my wife.

Q. What role will you play in this process?

A. My aspiration is not Miraflores [presidential palace]. I’m not obsessed with getting into power. What I want is for Venezuela to change. My role is to open channels of democracy and be present where key issues are being discussed, as is happening today with the hydrocarbons law. It’s important to be there: it’s always better for the opposition to have a voice, even if it’s in a corner, than to have none at all.

Q. You abstained from voting on that law.

A. We are going to have a substantive discussion on the oil issue, and the government knows that. And it’s not just about talking about royalties or taxes. The problem with PDVSA [the state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A.] isn’t the law: it’s that the industry was looted and destroyed and became the main center of corruption for the so-called Bolivarian Revolution. All the recent presidents of PDVSA have ended up in prison, and while there was talk of the oil strike or the sanctions, nobody mentioned scandals like the one involving more than $20 billion stolen in a single year.

Q. Is there more space for the opposition in a Venezuela without Maduro?

A. I don’t feel that way. And I don’t think we’re in a transition, either.

Q. Why is the opposition still so divided?

A. We have all shared responsibility for both the good times and the bad. It’s a lie that the opposition hasn’t made mistakes, and some have been very costly, but I don’t see any possibility of a future without a reconciliation of the democratic sector. The differences have reached unacceptable extremes, such as attacking journalists for not toeing a particular line of opinion, and that is incompatible with a democratic opposition.

Q. And what have been your mistakes?

A. I’ve made many mistakes, and I’ll continue to make them, but the important thing is to learn. Abstention was always a mistake: I was there, I learned, and I didn’t go back. I also think it was a mistake to have supported the interim government [of Juan Guaidó].

Q. What is happening in Miraflores? Do you believe there is unity between the Rodríguez siblings and Diosdado Cabello?

A. Whether they get along or not is of no interest to me. The big question is whether anything has actually changed, and the answer is, so far, no. When will the repressive apparatus be dismantled? When will the hate speech law, used to persecute people for tweeting, be repealed?

Q. So there isn’t a new political moment?

A. The new political moment is about having a free press, restoring international television signals, and ensuring that the release of prisoners means full freedom. Hopefully, it’s just a matter of time. Otherwise, it’s just a reshuffling to ensure nothing changes. After so many abuses, Venezuelans will not settle for that. That is Delcy Rodríguez’s challenge and how she wants history to remember her. After what happened on January 3, in the way it happened, it could happen again.

Q. What is happening in the barracks? How do you reinstitutionalize the armed forces in a country where thousands of civilians act like militiamen?

A. The issue of security doesn’t seem to be on the agenda right now. But reinstitutionalization means the Armed Forces must once again uphold the Constitution. Maduro used them to stay in power, but that has changed today. The question is whether they will continue defending a political party or return to their constitutional role.

Q. What is Vladimir Padrino’s role? In other circumstances, wouldn’t a defense minister have resigned after such an attack?

A. The government will never acknowledge weakness or failure. It seems that in the U.S. decision it wasn’t who had military strength that mattered, but who has strength in terms of government functioning, specifically from an economic standpoint. And that is Delcy Rodríguez.

Q. Do you believe the United States exercises external tutelage over Venezuela

A. That word, “tutelage,” sounds to me like someone talking about my mother. I think María Corina has an important role to play there: beyond her legitimate aspirations, she has to prevent Rubio’s three‑step plan from stopping at the first one once economic goals start being met. I’m not going to get into internal opposition differences. The truth is that when María Corina herself opens up the possibility of a new election, you see that there has been a shift. We were accused of being normalizers, but we never changed sides; we said that [Maduro did not win] the 2024 election. But I’m not going to dwell on that discussion, because it never ends.

Q. Are there direct channels to Delcy or Jorge Rodríguez?

A. No.

Q. Can the cause of political prisoners reunify the opposition?

A. That’s a cause for everyone. We’re all demanding the freedom of political prisoners. If we turn this into partisan conflict, the government will shut down, and we want them released as soon as possible. There’s a common cause, but we have to be very careful that no one tries to capitalize on the release of a political prisoner.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition