Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the civilian and military leaders surrounding him have engaged in harsh repression and human rights abuses during their time in power. Human rights organizations as well as the United Nations have documented thousands of instances of arbitrary detentions, torture, rape and extrajudicial executions ordered by the highest levels of the regime’s leadership against political opponents and the population at large. The repression has ramped up significantly since Maduro stole the country’s most recent presidential election in late July.
So, if Maduro is guilty of crimes, why not arrest him? The idea of detaining Maduro has floated around for years, as it has for other past and present world leaders guilty of abuses. In the case of Maduro, the debate has gained more attention in recent weeks, to such an extent that it seems to have spooked Venezuela’s leadership. The threat of arrest will influence Maduro’s behavior moving forward, but it’s not clear if that will be positive or negative for Venezuela. At its most harmless, the discussion simply risks raising false hope for change. But some scenarios create the potential for dangerous escalations.
In the weeks since Maduro refused to recognize the election results showing that his opponent, Edmundo Gonzalez, had won approximately 70 percent of the vote, the hopes that the election could drive democratic change have faded. Protest marches are getting smaller. The opposition leadership has resumed some of its traditional infighting and finger-pointing over who is to blame for the strategic failure to oust the dictatorial regime. Many actors inside and outside Venezuela have now pressed the pause button, waiting to see how the U.S. election plays out in November, even as uncertainty remains about what a victory for either Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump will mean for Washington’s Venezuela policy in the coming four years.