On Venezuela, the Foundations of Democracy, and Why People Advocate for Others’ Misery

by Jasper Gilley

Much of the world is checking what is as of this writing the number one trending hashtag on Twitter, #Venezuela, with hope that it will bring news of steps towards the downfall of one of the world’s most odious regimes.

Some, however, are checking it with vitriolic ideological anger. These people seem not to be those you might think (Russian and Chinese oligarchs with a vested financial interest in the perpetuation of the Maduro regime, for instance.) Their ranks include Jill Stein, former US Green Party candidate for president:

As well as various others of lesser public weight:

Meanwhile, (ostensibly American) left-wing protestors have gathered at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington DC to protest what they see as a logical continuation of the US’ history of meddling in smaller countries’ affairs:

This is even the case when bona fide Venezuelans arrive to stage a counter-protest:

It’s remarkable that some subsection of the inhabitants of liberal, first-world nations will take time out of their day to publicly support a regime about as morally depraved as any that currently exist. Implicitly or explicitly, those protesting against the US government’s support for Venezuela’s democratic movement are helping to prop up a regime that has taken a country that should be as wealthy as any OPEC petrostate into a situation where:

• More than half of families cannot meet basic food needs
• Newborns have poorer chances of survival than those in Syria
• Three-quarters of the population has lost 19 pounds
• The education system has completely collapsed

In short, supporters of the Maduro regime, whether Twitter-based or otherwise, are in effect earnestly advocating for the proliferation of others’ misery. How is it possible that inhabitants of liberal democracies – who have reaped the fruits of liberal democracy their entire lives – come to vehemently oppose the spread of that same ideology to new nations? It is possible that such protestors oppose liberal democracy precisely because of their lifelong enjoyment of its fruits. The United States, as well as many other liberal democracies, was founded with remarkable cognizance of the full extent of human tyranny and cruelty. Indeed, many of the core ideas of modern liberal democracy – checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and popular voting, for example – were instituted with the explicit purpose of nothing other than preventing the atrocities that, as any student of history will know, seem to come very naturally to humans. It is perhaps for this reason that Winston Churchill said,

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

When democracy is separated from its very motivation – the existence of atrocities – by its sheer success and proliferation, as is arguably the case in much of the contemporary world, it may become the case that those who have benefitted from it the most lose sight of exactly why it’s necessary. Indeed, with no easily experienceable reference points regarding outcomes of other systems of government, one might formulate a complete political ideology based on the experienced shortcomings of whatever liberal democracy one lives in. In the case of Venezuela, Jill Stein may be generalizing an ideology from the arguably negative collective experiences of interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, or from the perceived excesses of the American capitalist class.

It’s worth noting that her suppositions are utterly absurd, as well. Ten years ago, US foreign policy might have supported Juan Guaidó for the purpose of gaining easier access to Venezuela’s oil. In the meantime, however, America has quietly become an energy superpower largely due to the rise of fracking, to the extent that it is now the world’s largest producer of crude oil. This is what made America’s strong sanctions on Venezuelan oil possible in the first place. Ironically, if there were no sanctions, Venezuela’s economy would likely have fared better over the past few years, so that the Maduro regime might not even be in crisis at the moment.

That democracy is motivated and empowered by the existence of tyranny and atrocity does, however, suggest a way of keeping the ideology of liberal democracy powerful and urgent. We must let those who have suffered from democracy’s absence most vividly be the champions of its refinement where it already exists. In the case of Venezuela, this means listening to the Venezuelan refugees currently in the United States (even, or especially, if it means the cessation of a protest against them.) Generally, this means continuing America’s proud legacy of being the world’s foremost haven for immigrants. We must do this – if we are to avoid becoming an absurdist farce of a crumbled democracy with an election-rigging former bus driver beholden to illiberal regimes across the world as President.