The slow fall: Consequences of inaction and the limits of justice

The Slow Fall

Since July 29, 2025, a series of events began that further eroded the capabilities of the Bolivarian regime. Lacking legitimacy, repression and persecution became the regime’s modus operandi, intensifying arbitrary arrests and increasing social tension.

The arrest and torture of political dissidents, the use of state resources to intimidate the election winner into exile—using the Spanish embassy in Caracas to force the elected president to leave for Spain, signing a manifesto under coercion acknowledging his electoral defeat—the issuance of an arrest warrant against María Corina Machado, forcing her to remain in hiding for over 18 months, are just some of the many actions carried out by the Bolivarian regime during these months.

These actions, contrary to national law, human rights, international criminal law, the democratic charter, and any international legal standard, undermine peace, the integrity of citizens, and, of course, democracy in Venezuela. They set a harmful precedent worldwide, where a state obligated to follow the law suffers no consequences if it violates it.

These 18 months not only demonstrate the slow collapse of a completely illegitimate and illegal regime but also reveal the decay of the entire international legal framework, which, due to its ineffectiveness, leaves citizens defenseless against illegal state actions.

We must understand that laws exist to prevent states from exercising absolute power over their citizens. Justice is meant to defend citizens from the state’s abuse of power, and it is only just when it aligns with the law, is timely, and its rulings can be enforced.

An international justice system that takes decades to judge state excesses is of little use, especially when there are no mechanisms to enforce rulings that states are obliged to comply with.

Regarding multilateral organizations, it would be disingenuous to describe them as forums where governments agree on how to wield power while evading justice. Thus, both the OAS and the UN are not competent to enforce justice.

Turning a Blind Eye Has Consequences

When justice organizations, through inaction or lack of enforcement, allow states to exercise power authoritatively and without adherence to the law, it signals to governments worldwide that they are completely immune to consequences.

The most direct consequence is that states understand they are not scrutinized by anyone. This creates the global consequences we are witnessing today.

Events in Gaza, Iran, Ukraine, and Venezuela clearly show that the system meant to enforce the law on governments does not function. Citizens invest time, effort, and money to create institutions and trust in them, yet these organizations have been completely undermined. Decisions are made based not on law but on personal interests or the interests of other states, leaving citizens entirely defenseless. At the end of the day, it is the citizen who rises every day to pay taxes that fund both national and international institutions so they can operate ethically and morally for the well-being of their citizens.

In Venezuela, we have observed for years how the decaying international justice system is absent and indifferent to the humanitarian and social crisis in our country.

Faced with such an ineffective and failing system, citizens hope that someone with sufficient resources and strength will enforce their rights and help restore democracy and the rule of law.

Solutions Create Other Problems

The solution is well known: after a naval blockade lasting over five months and economic sanctions on Venezuelan oil, the Bolivarian regime attempted to resist until, on January 3, in a military operation, the regime’s leader was removed and taken to U.S. justice to face charges including drug trafficking, terrorism, and money laundering.

Without going into the judicial details Nicolás Maduro will face, the geopolitical impact of this U.S. action reveals a much more serious problem:

"The law only applies if there is a willingness to enforce it; there is no obligation to do so."

Maduro suffered no consequences for violating national or international law. Other governments did not see him as a threat; on the contrary, such violations were tolerated if they aligned with certain interests. Breaking the law does not generate punishment or consequences. One could also say that Trump can violate “international law” without consequences, all in the name of removing a narcotrafficking dictator. Even if some governments express dissatisfaction, the law of the strongest prevails.

In the First Part, the article provides the historical and political context of Venezuela under the Bolivarian regime, how institutions and legitimacy have been eroded, and the opposition’s strategy to confront this reality.

Finally, the Third Part focuses on Venezuela’s future, addressing social resilience, national reconciliation, the country’s reconstruction, and the author’s concluding reflections on the challenges and questions facing Venezuelan society.