By Marc Vandepitte on January 12, 2026
Is Nicolás Maduro a ruthless dictator or the guardian of a besieged castle? In a country torn apart by sanctions and “electoral warfare,” the reality is more complex than Western headlines would have us believe.
Nicolás Maduro Moros (1962) comes from a working-class family and was shaped by the trade union movement. He worked as a bus driver in the metro system of the capital Caracas and became a trade union activist.
In the Chavista project surrounding President Hugo Chávez, he made a career as a member of parliament, Minister of Foreign Affairs (2006-2012) and, from October 2012, Vice President. When a dying Chávez appointed him as his successor in December 2012, he did so with a clear message: Maduro was the man who could guarantee the unity of the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) and social achievements.
A heavy legacy
However, Maduro inherited a heavy burden. Whereas Chávez could count on almost mythical charisma and record-high oil prices, Maduro had to lead the country in an era of scarcity and unprecedented external and internal aggression.
Maduro’s presidency is inextricably linked to the ‘hybrid war” unleashed by the United States. While the international media focused on his supposed lack of personal charisma compared to his predecessor, Maduro was building a survival strategy for his country against a suffocating regime of sanctions imposed by the US.
During Maduro’s rule, Venezuela faced US-sponsored coup attempts and other destabilization efforts.
The unilateral coercive measures, which blocked the country’s vital oil revenues, had the explicit goal of causing the Venezuelan economy to implode and forcing the population to revolt. According to a CEPR report, to which leading economist Jeffrey Sachs contributed, the economic sanctions caused approximately 40,000 additional deaths in Venezuela in 2017-2018.
As a result of the economic emergency and internal polarization, more than 7 million Venezuelans left the country. The result was a massive brain drain that further undermined the economy.
Maduro did not only face economic opposition. During his reign, Venezuela also faced US-sponsored coup attempts, such as the failed “Operation Gideon” and the shadow government of Juan Guaidó, pushed by Washington.
And then there is the polarization. For years, the gap between rich and poor was enormous. Chávez and Maduro tried to narrow it, which earned them a lot of support among the poorer classes. Among the richer groups, the opposite was true: there was and still is a great deal of resistance.
This is also reflected in the media. As elsewhere in Latin America (and in our own countries), the commercial media are owned by large capital groups, which take a virulent anti-Maduro line in their reporting. In the public media, on the other hand, you hear the opposite view. The commercial media have a huge impact on Venezuelan society. Approximately 70 percent of radio and TV stations are privately owned. Only a small minority are directly owned by the state.
Maduro’s course
Despite the polarization, attempts at destabilization, and manipulation of the political process by the US, Maduro managed to maintain unity within the armed forces and the PSUV. During his reign, Maduro made great efforts to strengthen civil society. The so-called comunas[6] were given considerable decision-making power and autonomy for the organization of local neighborhoods. Despite enormous inflation, Maduro has managed to maintain the social programs (Misiones)[7] in an adapted form.
The colectivos ensured that Venezuela did not descend into civil war after Maduro’s kidnapping, as happened in Libya in 2011.
Milicianos and colectivos were also established. These are civilian militias primarily intended to resist any foreign intervention or domestic organized unrest. In total, they comprise approximately 4 million Venezuelans.
Whatever one may say about these militias, they have at least ensured that Venezuela did not descend into civil war after Maduro’s kidnapping, as happened after the military intervention in Libya in 2011.
In recent years, the Venezuelan economy has been picking up again and Venezuelans are returning to their country. This also explains why Maduro won the elections in 2024 (see below).
On the foreign policy front, Maduro followed in Hugo Chávez’s footsteps with a tireless anti-imperialist course. Under his leadership, Venezuela acted as the driving force behind Latin American integration, with the aim of taking a stand against decades of interference by the United States.
By forging strategic alliances with countries such as China, Russia, and Iran, Maduro effectively challenged Washington’s hegemony. This course toward a multilateral world—in which Latin America and Venezuela are no longer the backyard of the US—made the country, in addition to its large oil reserves, the main target of American aggression.
Human rights
Critics accuse Maduro of authoritarian excesses and contested elections. There is much to be said about both, but to get a clear picture, it is necessary to face the circumstances and context and take into account the highly biased reporting on the country.
First of all, we are talking about a besieged country that has had to cope with several coups and internal destabilizations in recent decades. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, already knew in the sixteenth century that any dissident in a besieged castle is quickly seen as a traitor.
Due to the wide gap between rich and poor, Latin America is also the continent with the highest level of social and political violence. In highly polarized Venezuela, this type of violence is even more prevalent. During the street blockades (guarimbas) in 2013, dozens of police officers and civilians were killed by actions of political opponents. The same scenario repeated itself after almost every election.
A UN report sometimes says more about the balance of power within the UN than about the situation on the ground
In such a violent and besieged context, the limits of law enforcement are easily exceeded. That cannot be justified, but from our safe, carefree position, a degree of modesty is also appropriate.
Moreover, we must be particularly careful when reporting on any unnecessary or unacceptable repression. For example, a 2017 UN report on human rights in Venezuela was particularly critical of the government. It spoke of flagrant violations and even executions.
But international lawyer and former UN independent expert Alfred De Zayas made mincemeat of this report. According to him, the UN team that drafted the report was “unprofessional, highly ideological, neoconservative, and a priori opposed to the Bolivarian revolution.”
It was also based “on unreliable sources” and “ignored much of the information provided by the government about the victims of the street riots.” A UN report sometimes says more about the balance of power within the UN than about the situation on the ground.
The commercial media ignored this criticism and widely publicized the findings in their reporting, because this fitted in perfectly with their ideological line. It is this kind of biased reporting that the average citizen depends on to inform themselves and form an opinion. Vigilance is therefore more than necessary.
Democracy
A second criticism concerns the lack of democracy. Here, too, context is of the utmost importance in order to form a balanced judgment. Since Chávez won the election in 1998, the US has done everything in its power to influence all subsequent elections with great zeal. It is no exaggeration to speak of “electoral warfare.”
Right-wing candidates received advice and financial support. Polling agencies of dubious character organized polls and exit polls that invariably produced unfavorable results for the left. People from the opposition camp were urged to infiltrate the electoral council.
For the 2024 presidential elections, a detailed scenario was developed to completely manipulate the elections, including sabotage actions, organizing a “private count,” and organizing riots afterwards. The most important parts of that scenario were even published in advance by an expert in psychological warfare and disinformation.
The US had said in advance that it would only accept the result if the (far) right-wing candidate won. According to the official results, Maduro won 52 percent and the opposition candidate 43 percent. According to the opposition’s own count, Maduro won 30 percent and they themselves 69 percent.
Almost the entire world was taken in by the version of the opposition and the US. Various recent opinion polls now show that the opposition does not have much support among the population at all.
Those who dismiss Maduro as a “dictator” ignore the complex reality of hybrid warfare and extreme and violent polarization.
In an October poll, 91 percent of Venezuelans had an unfavorable opinion of María Corina Machado, the figurehead of the opposition. A poll by another agency in December confirms this. Moreover, 80 percent of those surveyed consider the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Machado to be a farce.
Even Trump, with whom Machado worked very closely, has indicated that she does not have “the support or respect within the country” to be a credible leader.
Since Maduro became president in 2013, there have been 12 elections and one referendum. Not bad for a “dictator.” One might wonder how meaningful it is to hold elections in a context of electoral warfare and how a political system can protect itself from so much external and internal hostility without undermining its democratic content.
In any case, those who dismiss Maduro as a ‘dictator’ ignore the complex reality of hybrid warfare and extreme and violent polarization. This does not absolve Caracas of responsibility, but it does call for a sober, balanced view of democracy under permanent siege rather than simplistic caricatures.
Source: De Wereld Morgen translation Resumen Latinoamericano – English