Maduro’s removal won’t dismantle chavismo; military power remains Venezuela’s true core, expert warns
Removing Nicolás Maduro from power would not signal the end of chavismo in Venezuela, an international law specialist cautions. According to Priscila Caneparo, the real locus of authority in the South American nation resides with its military forces. These forces have consistently held strategic positions across Venezuela’s economy, political landscape, and institutional framework since the tenure of Hugo Chávez.
The enduring influence of the military means that the ideological movement persists beyond any single leader. Caneparo emphasized that even a significant leadership change would fail to fundamentally alter the established power dynamics within the country.
She underscored that chavismo’s survival is intrinsically linked to the armed forces’ unwavering support for the movement. The specialist’s analysis in 2025 indicates that only a withdrawal of military endorsement could truly dismantle the entrenched system.
The Military’s Enduring Influence
Venezuela’s military apparatus has been deeply embedded in the nation’s fabric for decades, particularly consolidating its power under Hugo Chávez’s leadership. Generals and high-ranking officers have been strategically placed in key economic sectors, state-owned enterprises, and administrative roles, creating a pervasive network of control. This extensive integration ensures that their interests are directly tied to the political system currently in place.
Caneparo firmly states that “chavismo has not died.” She asserts that “removing Maduro does not mean that chavismo has died. Chavismo will only die if the generals, if the military forces, if the Venezuelan army forces no longer support this movement.” This highlights the critical role the military plays in maintaining the ideological and political continuity of the regime, irrespective of who occupies the presidential palace.
Assessing a Hypothetical US Operation
The expert raised serious questions regarding a hypothetical military operation orchestrated by the United States, described as leading to the apprehension of Maduro and his spouse by American special forces from their residence. Caneparo views such an action as highly improbable without significant internal collaboration from Venezuelan military elements. The logistical complexities and inherent risks of such an intervention necessitate local complicity.
For her, the success of any foreign intervention aimed at “pinching Maduro” from Venezuelan territory would hinge on intelligence leaks and active support from within the country’s armed forces. The idea that a purely external force could operate undetected and effectively without some level of internal assistance is considered unrealistic.
“Certainly there was [information leaked],” Caneparo analyzed, adding, “we don’t know how much of that military faction is supporting [external powers], because without that support, there would be no way for the United States to enter Venezuelan territory and extract Maduro.” This implies a fragmented military loyalty, with potential factions aligning with external interests.
Uncertainties of a Transition Government
A paramount concern highlighted by Caneparo is the distinct lack of a clear framework for a transition government in Venezuela following a hypothetical removal of the current leadership in 2025. She pointed out stark contradictions in publicly available information, noting that some reports initially suggested alignment from high-ranking officials, such as the vice president, with external forces, only for them to subsequently declare renewed loyalty to Maduro. This ambiguity creates a vacuum of leadership and severely undermines any prospects for stability. The specialist critically questioned the vague pronouncements from external actors, which often state an intention to “take over” without offering tangible details on implementation. “The United States does not disclose how they will conduct this transition government; they simply say, ‘we will take over.’ But how will you take over? How will public policies be formulated to save the Venezuelan people? How will the legitimacy of this government be established?” Caneparo queried, emphasizing the profound need for transparency and a viable plan for governance.
Escalation Risks and Geopolitical Stakes
Caneparo warned that the existing situation, marked by a lack of clarity and contradictory signals, could inadvertently “re-energize chavismo within Venezuela.” Such an environment risks leading the population into a state of “social effervescence,” as public frustration and uncertainty could be exploited by existing political factions. This volatile climate could potentially galvanize support for the very movement that external forces might be attempting to dismantle, demonstrating the delicate balance of political interventions.
In her analysis, there is a tangible risk that the United States might become more deeply involved, potentially engaging in direct military action within Venezuelan territory. This scenario could unfold if social forces within Venezuela actively resist or oppose American interests, particularly those related to the exploitation of petroleum resources by US companies. The rich oil reserves of Venezuela represent a significant geopolitical stake, which could drive further foreign intervention.
The specialist emphasized that any perception of external imposition without a clear, legitimate path forward could trigger widespread opposition. This opposition, if strong enough, might prompt a more forceful response from international actors, further complicating the already precarious political landscape. The interplay of internal resistance and external pressure creates a dangerous feedback loop, where each action could provoke an escalated reaction.
Regional Repercussions and International Scrutiny
The potential for continued instability in Venezuela carries significant implications for regional security across Latin America in 2025. Neighboring countries frequently bear the brunt of political and economic crises, often facing increased migratory flows and security challenges along their borders. The unresolved power struggle and the uncertain future of Venezuela could therefore destabilize the entire region.
Furthermore, any foreign intervention, or even perceived interference, would inevitably draw intense scrutiny from the international community. Global bodies and human rights organizations would closely monitor actions, demanding adherence to international law and respect for national sovereignty. The legitimacy of any new government or transition process would largely depend on widespread international recognition and adherence to democratic principles, which remains a complex challenge given the country’s deep divisions.
Venezuela’s Complex Path Forward
The situation in Venezuela remains profoundly complex, underscoring that a change in leadership alone cannot address deeply entrenched political and military structures. The path to stability and a sustainable future for the nation requires a comprehensive approach that acknowledges the military’s pervasive influence and prioritizes the welfare and democratic aspirations of its citizens.
Venezuela, Chavismo, Maduro, military power, political transition
