Opinion / Columnist
Venezuelans are celebrating a phantom independence - and will soon realise they were sold a dummy
05 Jan 2026 at 21:29hrs |
0 Views
It is understandable - yet deeply saddening.
Over the past few days, I have watched as Venezuelans - and others who genuinely value freedom and democracy - celebrate what they perceive as "independence in Venezuela."
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
We, the people of Zimbabwe, should know better - and perhaps even caution the people of Venezuela.
How does the removal of one man, Nicolás Maduro, suddenly translate into "independence" for Venezuela?
How does the exit of a single figure dismantle an entire authoritarian system that has been carefully built, militarised, and institutionalised over decades?
It does not.
The same oppressive machinery remains firmly intact, only now with the United States seemingly willing to work with it under a new arrangement.
What is unfolding in Venezuela today is disturbingly familiar to Zimbabweans.
In November 2017, we were told we were witnessing a "new dawn."
Robert Mugabe had been removed, and the nation erupted in celebration.
Yet beneath the euphoria, nothing fundamental changed.
The security establishment remained untouched.
The laws that enabled repression were retained.
The culture of impunity endured.
We did not dismantle the Mugabe system - we merely rebranded it.
The speed with which Western governments embraced Emmerson Mnangagwa - who had once served as Mugabe's deputy but returned as the new president through military intervention - was telling.
The United Kingdom, through its then ambassador Catriona Laing, was among the first to congratulate and legitimise the new government.
The message was clear: continuity was acceptable, so long as certain interests were protected.
Venezuela now stands at the same crossroads, celebrating what appears to be change but is, in reality, continuity dressed up as liberation.
History is repeating itself - not by accident, but by design.
The fundamental flaw in Western intervention lies in its fixation on individuals rather than systems.
Western governments do not primarily concern themselves with whether a people are genuinely free, whether institutions are democratic, or whether citizens enjoy dignity and justice.
Their focus is far narrower: removing leaders who obstruct strategic or economic interests.
Once that obstacle is removed or neutralised through compliance, principles are quietly abandoned.
In Zimbabwe, Mugabe became expendable after the fast-track land reform programme disrupted Western economic interests.
His authoritarianism, electoral manipulation, and human rights abuses had been tolerated for years.
What changed was not his governance style, but his defiance.
In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez - and later Nicolás Maduro - crossed a similar line by nationalising the oil industry, directly undermining American oil companies that had previously operated in the country and generated billions of dollars.
What followed was not a genuine democratic crusade, but sanctions, isolation, and prolonged legal warfare disguised as concern for freedom.
American oil corporations did not simply walk away.
They launched long-running court battles demanding compensation, with billions of dollars tied up in international arbitration claims.
Yet this reality is rarely acknowledged.
This is precisely how Zimbabwe ended up with Emmerson Mnangagwa still in power, provided he remained sufficiently agreeable to Western interests.
The Global Compensation Deed, committing Zimbabwe to compensate dispossessed white farmers, became the clearest symbol of this accommodation.
It was never about justice for ordinary Zimbabweans, many of whom remain landless, unemployed, and impoverished.
It was about appeasing the West and maintaining their favor, while questions of democratic reform and historical accountability were quietly sidelined.
We are now watching a similar script unfold in Venezuela.
The United States has openly spoken about "running Venezuela," yet there is conspicuous silence on reforming state institutions, strengthening democratic checks and balances, or ensuring free, fair, and credible elections.
There is no serious conversation about dismantling the security apparatus that enforces repression, restoring judicial independence, or guaranteeing civil liberties.
More tellingly, Venezuela's opposition - which won the July 2024 elections but was denied victory - has been effectively sidelined.
Those who genuinely command popular support have been marginalised in favour of negotiating with elements of the very system that subverted the electoral will of the people.
This alone exposes the hollowness of the so-called transition.
Instead, Washington has signalled its willingness to work with Maduro's deputy, now president, Delcy Rodríguez, provided she aligns her administration with US expectations.
The warning has been explicit.
As US officials have stated, failure to comply would mean, to quote directly, that "she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro."
Legitimacy, therefore, is conditional, and sovereignty is transactional.
It is within this context that the United States has announced the re-entry of American oil companies into Venezuela, ostensibly to "fix the sector."
This is the "right thing" Rodríguez is expected to do.
As long as she plays along and reopens Venezuela's most strategic resource to American corporate interests, she - and her government - will remain acceptable partners.
Authoritarian governance will suddenly become less urgent, less condemned, and more tolerable.
The Venezuelan people, however, will see little change.
Power will remain centralised.
Dissent will remain dangerous.
Institutions will remain captured.
Elections will remain ritualistic rather than meaningful.
The rhetoric may soften, sanctions may be adjusted, and international smiles may return, but the lived reality of ordinary citizens will remain largely unchanged.
In the end, the people of Venezuela will be left with a Maduro system without Maduro - just as Zimbabweans were left with a Mugabe system without Mugabe.
Faces change, slogans change, and diplomatic language evolves, but the machinery of repression remains intact.
So what, exactly, is the "independence" that Venezuelans are being asked to celebrate?
Independence from a single individual, perhaps - but not independence from authoritarian rule, economic exploitation, or external manipulation.
Zimbabweans learned this lesson the hard way.
Venezuela now risks celebrating a phantom independence, only to later discover that it was sold a dummy.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Over the past few days, I have watched as Venezuelans - and others who genuinely value freedom and democracy - celebrate what they perceive as "independence in Venezuela."
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
We, the people of Zimbabwe, should know better - and perhaps even caution the people of Venezuela.
How does the removal of one man, Nicolás Maduro, suddenly translate into "independence" for Venezuela?
How does the exit of a single figure dismantle an entire authoritarian system that has been carefully built, militarised, and institutionalised over decades?
It does not.
The same oppressive machinery remains firmly intact, only now with the United States seemingly willing to work with it under a new arrangement.
What is unfolding in Venezuela today is disturbingly familiar to Zimbabweans.
In November 2017, we were told we were witnessing a "new dawn."
Robert Mugabe had been removed, and the nation erupted in celebration.
Yet beneath the euphoria, nothing fundamental changed.
The security establishment remained untouched.
The laws that enabled repression were retained.
The culture of impunity endured.
We did not dismantle the Mugabe system - we merely rebranded it.
The speed with which Western governments embraced Emmerson Mnangagwa - who had once served as Mugabe's deputy but returned as the new president through military intervention - was telling.
The United Kingdom, through its then ambassador Catriona Laing, was among the first to congratulate and legitimise the new government.
The message was clear: continuity was acceptable, so long as certain interests were protected.
Venezuela now stands at the same crossroads, celebrating what appears to be change but is, in reality, continuity dressed up as liberation.
History is repeating itself - not by accident, but by design.
The fundamental flaw in Western intervention lies in its fixation on individuals rather than systems.
Western governments do not primarily concern themselves with whether a people are genuinely free, whether institutions are democratic, or whether citizens enjoy dignity and justice.
Their focus is far narrower: removing leaders who obstruct strategic or economic interests.
Once that obstacle is removed or neutralised through compliance, principles are quietly abandoned.
In Zimbabwe, Mugabe became expendable after the fast-track land reform programme disrupted Western economic interests.
His authoritarianism, electoral manipulation, and human rights abuses had been tolerated for years.
What changed was not his governance style, but his defiance.
In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez - and later Nicolás Maduro - crossed a similar line by nationalising the oil industry, directly undermining American oil companies that had previously operated in the country and generated billions of dollars.
What followed was not a genuine democratic crusade, but sanctions, isolation, and prolonged legal warfare disguised as concern for freedom.
American oil corporations did not simply walk away.
They launched long-running court battles demanding compensation, with billions of dollars tied up in international arbitration claims.
This is precisely how Zimbabwe ended up with Emmerson Mnangagwa still in power, provided he remained sufficiently agreeable to Western interests.
The Global Compensation Deed, committing Zimbabwe to compensate dispossessed white farmers, became the clearest symbol of this accommodation.
It was never about justice for ordinary Zimbabweans, many of whom remain landless, unemployed, and impoverished.
It was about appeasing the West and maintaining their favor, while questions of democratic reform and historical accountability were quietly sidelined.
We are now watching a similar script unfold in Venezuela.
The United States has openly spoken about "running Venezuela," yet there is conspicuous silence on reforming state institutions, strengthening democratic checks and balances, or ensuring free, fair, and credible elections.
There is no serious conversation about dismantling the security apparatus that enforces repression, restoring judicial independence, or guaranteeing civil liberties.
More tellingly, Venezuela's opposition - which won the July 2024 elections but was denied victory - has been effectively sidelined.
Those who genuinely command popular support have been marginalised in favour of negotiating with elements of the very system that subverted the electoral will of the people.
This alone exposes the hollowness of the so-called transition.
Instead, Washington has signalled its willingness to work with Maduro's deputy, now president, Delcy Rodríguez, provided she aligns her administration with US expectations.
The warning has been explicit.
As US officials have stated, failure to comply would mean, to quote directly, that "she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro."
Legitimacy, therefore, is conditional, and sovereignty is transactional.
It is within this context that the United States has announced the re-entry of American oil companies into Venezuela, ostensibly to "fix the sector."
This is the "right thing" Rodríguez is expected to do.
As long as she plays along and reopens Venezuela's most strategic resource to American corporate interests, she - and her government - will remain acceptable partners.
Authoritarian governance will suddenly become less urgent, less condemned, and more tolerable.
The Venezuelan people, however, will see little change.
Power will remain centralised.
Dissent will remain dangerous.
Institutions will remain captured.
Elections will remain ritualistic rather than meaningful.
The rhetoric may soften, sanctions may be adjusted, and international smiles may return, but the lived reality of ordinary citizens will remain largely unchanged.
In the end, the people of Venezuela will be left with a Maduro system without Maduro - just as Zimbabweans were left with a Mugabe system without Mugabe.
Faces change, slogans change, and diplomatic language evolves, but the machinery of repression remains intact.
So what, exactly, is the "independence" that Venezuelans are being asked to celebrate?
Independence from a single individual, perhaps - but not independence from authoritarian rule, economic exploitation, or external manipulation.
Zimbabweans learned this lesson the hard way.
Venezuela now risks celebrating a phantom independence, only to later discover that it was sold a dummy.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
