By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Venezuela’s acting president, Delcy Rodríguez, affirmed that Nicolás Maduro remains the legitimate leader of the country. She stated that both Maduro and his wife are innocent, and as acting president, she is diligently managing the nation’s affairs in accordance with the constitution. Rodríguez has reportedly softened her stance towards the U.S. following Maduro’s capture, even contemplating a visit to the United States after discussions with President Trump. This evolving dynamic is underscored by a significant increase in cooperation with U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, particularly concerning the distribution of Venezuela’s oil reserves, with substantial sales already underway and more anticipated.
Read the original article here
Delcy Rodriguez, in her capacity as acting leader, has firmly asserted that Nicolás Maduro remains the “legitimate president” of Venezuela. This statement, while perhaps predictable given her position, underscores the ongoing political complexities and internal power dynamics within the South American nation. The assertion is essentially a reiteration of the government’s stance, seeking to maintain a semblance of constitutional continuity amidst widespread international skepticism and domestic challenges.
Rodriguez’s declaration serves as a direct counterpoint to any notion that Maduro’s leadership has been irrevocably undermined or replaced. In essence, her words are intended to solidify his position and, by extension, legitimize her own role as acting leader. The underlying strategy appears to be the maintenance of the existing power structure, a move that conveniently sidesteps the constitutional requirement for new elections within a 90-day period. This constitutional provision, according to many observers, would only be triggered if Maduro were no longer considered president.
The argument for Maduro’s legitimacy, as presented through Rodriguez’s statement, hinges on his continued, albeit contested, hold on the presidency. This creates a legalistic loophole, allowing the current administration to persist without the immediate pressure of an electoral contest. The Venezuelan Constitution, despite its established text, has a history of being circumvented by those in power, a pattern that many believe is being repeated in this instance. The core of this strategy is to ensure that as long as Maduro is technically the head of state, the obligation to hold new elections within a specific timeframe is suspended.
From a broader perspective, the United States seems to be adopting a strategy of fostering a gradual transition rather than an abrupt one. This approach, whether ultimately successful or not, suggests a calculated effort to manage the situation in Venezuela without causing immediate widespread instability. The international community’s reactions, or lack thereof, can be interpreted through this lens of strategic patience, allowing for a slow-moving resolution.
The question of Maduro’s current whereabouts and his potential fate has also been a subject of much speculation. Comparisons have been drawn to historical figures like Noriega, who faced legal repercussions and imprisonment in the U.S. for extended periods. This parallel suggests a potential trajectory for Maduro, where his current standing might be temporary, leading to eventual legal scrutiny and confinement, similar to past instances of deposed foreign leaders.
The idea of foreign leaders dictating the legitimacy of another nation’s president is a sensitive one. However, when a leader is perceived as unelected and having remained in power after losing a legitimate electoral process, their claim to legitimacy is fundamentally weakened. True legitimacy, many argue, can only be derived from free and fair elections where the will of the people is genuinely expressed and respected. Any other basis for leadership is seen as inherently flawed.
The global landscape, filled with numerous pressing issues, has sometimes led to the Venezuelan situation being overlooked or somewhat forgotten. This can create an environment where a leader’s continued presence in power, however contested, can persist with less immediate international scrutiny. However, when Venezuela is not embroiled in outright warfare, the principle of self-determination through fair elections becomes paramount in determining who is the legitimate leader.
The notion that any government not chosen through a free and fair election lacks legitimacy is a strong and widely held principle. It implies that power derived from coercion or rigged processes is inherently invalid. In this context, Maduro’s regime, viewed as unelected and having clung to power, is seen by many as lacking any real claim to legitimate governance. The only path to true legitimacy, in this view, lies in the democratic mandate of the people.
Rodriguez’s assertion that Maduro is the legitimate president can be seen as a strategic maneuver, a way to maintain her own position of power. If Maduro were to officially step down or be removed, her own interim presidency would likely be subject to a strict time limit, necessitating new elections. Therefore, by reinforcing Maduro’s legitimacy, she ensures the continuation of the current political order and her role within it.
The broader international response, particularly from the U.S., appears to be geared towards a managed transition, avoiding the sudden collapse of the existing power structure. This approach, while complex and fraught with uncertainty, aims to prevent a more chaotic outcome. The effectiveness of this strategy remains to be seen, as the situation in Venezuela is deeply entrenched and multifaceted.
The question of Maduro’s actual presence and involvement in the current political landscape also raises curiosity. Some speculate about his potential downfall, drawing parallels to historical figures who have faced significant legal consequences for their actions. The implication is that his current position might be precarious, with future repercussions looming.
Ultimately, the claim of legitimacy made by Delcy Rodriguez for Nicolás Maduro is a powerful statement within the internal political discourse of Venezuela. It is a declaration designed to uphold the existing government and its continuity, even as significant portions of the international community and segments of the Venezuelan populace question its foundational legitimacy, often emphasizing the importance of democratic elections as the sole arbiter of true leadership.