By: Ricardo Abud
In the dizzying landscape of contemporary politics, where the immediacy of social media often overshadows the rigor of analysis, the scatological statements made by MCM acquire a specific weight capable of seriously distorting them.
Recently, the public debate has been shaken by statements made by the opposition leader María Corina Machado, broadcast on December 11 to the Swedish media outlet Sveriges Radio, in the context of an interview conducted in Norway.
According to the published report, the leader stated that "Colombian guerrillas and drug cartels have taken control of 60% of our population," also linking the country to massive human trafficking and prostitution networks on a scale that suggests an absolute social collapse. (Dave Ruthens, Swedish Radio) Link to the publication: (https://x.com/i/status/2000036186019004501)
These assertions, due to their extreme gravity and apparent disconnect from empirical verification, cannot be dismissed simply as part of the usual rhetoric of political confrontation. On the contrary, they demand a response based on facts, data, and civic responsibility, because claiming that more than half of a nation is under the direct control of criminal organizations is not a minor accusation; it is a description of an apocalyptic reality that would imply the non-existence of the state and the dissolution of civil society.
However, when these claims are compared with the demographic, sociological, and statistical reality of Venezuela, we find ourselves facing an inadequate extrapolation that risks stigmatizing millions of Venezuelan citizens and obscuring the true dimensions of the problems facing the country.
To grasp the magnitude of this statement, it is imperative to consider basic arithmetic and demographics. Venezuela has an approximate population of 28 million. If we accept the premise that 60% of this population is under the control of guerrilla groups and drug traffickers, we would be talking about almost 17 million human beings living under the direct subordination of criminal organizations. Such a scenario would make Venezuela an unprecedented case in modern history, surpassing even the conditions of so-called "failed states" at their worst moments of internal conflict.
To suggest that such a large number of people lack autonomy and live under the control of organized crime implies a total collapse of institutions, the impossibility of holding elections, and the absolute subjugation of schools, universities, hospitals, and entire communities. The visible reality, though harsh and complex, refutes this caricature: millions of Venezuelans in major cities and throughout the country continue to study, work, organize, and sustain the social fabric, far from being subject to the will of a guerrilla commander or a drug lord.
To date, no official source, international organization, or independent academic study has presented evidence to support a figure even remotely close to that percentage. Reports from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), as well as analyses from the Organized Crime Observatory, unequivocally acknowledge the presence of irregular groups and illicit activities. However, these organizations describe localized, complex, and constantly evolving phenomena. They speak of "areas of influence," "trafficking corridors," or a presence in specific rural and border areas, but these descriptions fall far short of implying demographic control over the majority of the country.
The fundamental error in this type of discourse lies in equating territorial presence in sparsely populated or low-density areas with population control. In criminology and state security, the concepts of territorial control and local influence are governed by spatial dynamics that do not automatically translate into population dominance.
Venezuelan geography is vast, and the existence of irregular camps in the jungle or at border crossings, although a serious sovereignty problem that must be addressed, does not mean that the citizens of Caracas, Valencia, Barquisimeto and Maracaibo live under the orders of drug trafficking.
Colombia, a neighboring country that has suffered the scourge of internal armed conflict for more than five decades, was never described, not even during the darkest moments of the war against cartels or insurgencies, as a nation where 60% of its inhabitants were under criminal control. Applying this standard to Venezuela, without the support of comparative data or serious intelligence reports, results in a reckless assertion and a political and communications blunder.
Even more delicate and morally questionable is the ease with which Venezuelan society is associated with such atrocious crimes as human trafficking and mass prostitution rings. While trafficking and sexual exploitation are serious problems in Latin America, exacerbated by forced migration and economic vulnerability, organizations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) emphasize that these are transnational phenomena.
They affect almost every country in the region, including Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil. Reducing this human tragedy to a sweeping accusation against Venezuela not only obscures the regional dimension of the problem, hindering coordinated solutions, but also perpetrates symbolic violence against the population.
Portraying the country as a vast center of prostitution and crime is not a form of denunciation, but rather of stigmatization. This type of narrative has direct consequences for the lives of Venezuelans, both within and beyond their borders. For the diaspora, it reinforces xenophobic prejudices in host countries, where Venezuelan migrants risk being seen not as people seeking opportunities, but as agents of chaos or potential criminals.
For those who remain in the country, it invalidates their daily struggle for a dignified existence. Millions of teachers, doctors, shopkeepers, and students who strive to maintain normalcy and decency amidst the crisis are summarily dismissed and reduced to the status of accomplices or passive victims of an omnipotent criminal structure.
In polarized societies like Venezuela, the dissemination of unsubstantiated claims exacerbates tensions and undermines the credibility of legitimate efforts to denounce injustice. Political criticism is necessary, and pointing out security failures, corruption, or the presence of irregular groups is the duty of the opposition. But amplified lies are dangerous because they turn an entire country into a caricature.
When public discourse abandons truth and takes refuge in alarmism, democracy weakens and debate is impoverished. If everything is portrayed as an absolute and irreparable catastrophe, if the country is already lost to crime, hope is extinguished and citizen participation is discouraged.
It's difficult not to perceive in these statements a political intent that goes beyond simple denunciation. This type of hyperbole often seeks to legitimize external narratives of intervention, sanction, or guardianship.
By portraying Venezuela as a territory beyond recovery on its own, a "failed state" of grotesque proportions, the aim is to justify any use of force, even those that violate national sovereignty and the dignity of its citizens. It is the tactic of exaggerating chaos to sell extreme solutions, a well-known strategy in global political communication that, unfortunately, usually leaves in its wake greater destruction and distrust.
Venezuela undoubtedly faces real and profound problems linked to institutional decay and the economic crisis. To deny this would be as irresponsible as exaggerating it. But acknowledging the illness does not authorize inventing a false terminal diagnosis designed for international headlines. Venezuela is much more than the problems that afflict it. It is a nation of people who resist, create, and build daily life under adverse conditions. Reducing them to a false crime statistic is an affront to their resilience.
Anyone aspiring to lead or represent a country must begin by respecting the truth, however uncomfortable or complex it may be. The responsibility of political leaders, whether in government or opposition, is to construct a discourse grounded in evidence and respect for the citizenry. Exaggeration and lies, when they become systematic tools of politics, cease to be a miscalculation and become a historical irresponsibility.
Venezuela needs accurate diagnoses and viable solutions, not apocalyptic fantasies that dehumanize its people and close the doors to the future. The truth doesn't need to be exaggerated to be compelling; Venezuelan reality is already challenging enough without adding fictions that only serve to destroy the image of a nation struggling to move forward.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE EXCLUSIONARY THAN BEING POOR.
0 $type={blogger}:
Publicar un comentario