The right to choose is not merely individual. It is a right of society.
En las semanas previas a las elecciones presidenciales venezolanas del 28 de julio, el presidente colombiano Gustavo Petro alzó la voz contra la inhabilitación de la líder opositora María Corina Machado, calificándola de golpe antidemocrático. El Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela le cerró las puertas a Machado tras su victoria en las primarias, obligándola a ceder su candidatura a la historiadora Corina Yoris, quien también encontró obstáculos para inscribirse. Petro no solo señaló al gobierno de Maduro: advirtió que la exclusión política es una enfermedad que recorre toda América Latina, y que condenarla en otros sin reconocerla en casa es, en sí misma, una forma de hipocresía democrática. En su voz resuena una pregunta más antigua y más honda: ¿a quién pertenece realmente el derecho a elegir?
- Venezuela inhabilitó a María Corina Machado mediante un tribunal que ratificó una veda de quince años, borrándola del proceso electoral pese a haber ganado las primarias opositoras.
- La candidatura de emergencia de Corina Yoris también fue bloqueada, dejando a la oposición sin representación formal y a millones de votantes sin su candidata preferida.
- Petro rompió con la cautela diplomática habitual al llamar la situación un 'golpe antidemocrático', enmarcando la exclusión no como un asunto venezolano sino como una crisis de legitimidad regional.
- Su advertencia más incómoda apuntó hacia adentro: otros gobiernos latinoamericanos practican exclusiones similares mientras condenan las de Caracas, revelando una hipocresía continental.
- Machado persiste como símbolo de resistencia democrática, pero el aparato institucional venezolano continúa estrechando el espacio electoral a medida que se acerca julio.
El presidente colombiano Gustavo Petro calificó esta semana la inhabilitación de la líder opositora venezolana María Corina Machado como un "golpe antidemocrático", después de que el Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela le impidiera participar en los comicios presidenciales del 28 de julio. Machado, quien había ganado las primarias de la oposición, se vio obligada a traspasar su candidatura a la historiadora Corina Yoris, quien a su vez enfrentó trabas al intentar inscribirse en la Plataforma Unitaria Democrática.
Petro fue más allá de una simple crítica al gobierno de Maduro. Argumentó que el derecho a votar y a ser votado no es una prerrogativa individual sino un bien colectivo: cuando se le niega a una persona, se le niega a toda la sociedad. Sus palabras llevaban además una carga autocrítica: señaló que América Latina condena en Venezuela lo que tolera en sus propios países, sugiriendo que la exclusión política es un patrón continental, no una anomalía aislada.
La inhabilitación de Machado tiene raíces en su respaldo público a las sanciones estadounidenses contra el gobierno de Maduro y en su apoyo a Juan Guaidó durante la crisis de 2019. El Tribunal Supremo de Justicia venezolano ratificó una veda de quince años para ejercer cargos públicos, cerrándole formalmente el camino electoral. Aun así, Machado ha mantenido su postura como figura de resistencia democrática, exigiendo elecciones libres y transparentes.
La intervención de Petro refleja una inquietud creciente en algunas capitales latinoamericanas sobre el rumbo de Venezuela. Si sus declaraciones se traducirán en presión concreta sobre Caracas es aún incierto, pero su voz añade peso a un debate que ya no puede ignorarse: el de cuánto espacio queda para la competencia electoral genuina en un país donde el partido gobernante controla los mecanismos del poder.
Colombia's president Gustavo Petro took aim at Venezuela's electoral authorities this week, calling the disqualification of opposition leader María Corina Machado an "antidemocratic coup." The Venezuelan National Electoral Council had barred Machado from running in the country's presidential election scheduled for July 28, a decision that forced her to hand her candidacy to historian Corina Yoris—who herself encountered obstacles when attempting to register with the Democratic Unitary Platform.
Petro's condemnation went beyond a simple rebuke of Maduro's government. He framed the exclusion as a fundamental assault on democratic principle itself, arguing that the right to vote and be voted for belongs not to individuals alone but to society as a whole. "The right to choose is not merely individual," Petro said. "It is a right of society. And today this discussion is evident in what happened to María Corina Machado and others before her: they were disqualified from electoral campaigns by administrative authorities."
The Colombian leader's remarks carried a pointed irony. He acknowledged that similar practices occur within his own region, suggesting that Latin American democracies often condemn in others what they tolerate at home. "We attack what they do there because it is undoubtedly an antidemocratic coup," Petro observed, "but we hide that it also happens here." His words implied a broader pattern of political exclusion across the continent, one that transcends any single government or ideology.
Machado's path to disqualification began with her victory in the opposition's primary elections. That success, however, triggered administrative action against her. Venezuela's Supreme Court of Justice upheld a fifteen-year ban on her holding public office, a ruling that effectively removed her from the ballot. The court's decision came after Machado's public support for United States sanctions against the Maduro government and her backing of Juan Guaidó, the opposition figure who had claimed the interim presidency in 2019.
Despite the legal barrier, Machado has continued to position herself as a symbol of democratic resistance. She has maintained her calls for free and fair elections in Venezuela, even as the institutional machinery of the state works to prevent her participation. Her disqualification, and the subsequent blocking of her chosen successor, underscores the narrowing space for electoral competition in a country where the ruling party controls the mechanisms of power.
Petro's intervention signals that the Venezuelan government's actions are drawing scrutiny from neighboring capitals. His emphasis on political rights as a collective rather than individual concern suggests he views the disqualifications as a threat to democratic legitimacy across the region. Whether his words will translate into concrete pressure on Caracas remains unclear, but they reflect growing concern among some Latin American leaders about the trajectory of Venezuelan democracy as the July election approaches.
Citações Notáveis
The right to choose is not merely individual. It is a right of society, and today this discussion is evident in what happened to María Corina Machado and others before her.— Gustavo Petro, Colombian President
We attack what they do there because it is undoubtedly an antidemocratic coup, but we hide that it also happens here.— Gustavo Petro, Colombian President
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did Petro specifically call this a "coup" rather than just a disqualification?
Because he's arguing that removing a candidate from the ballot through administrative means—rather than through voters—is a seizure of democratic power. It's the state apparatus overriding the people's choice.
But Machado lost the general election before, didn't she? Why does her disqualification matter so much?
She won the opposition primary. That's the key. The voters had already chosen her. The disqualification came after that choice, which is why Petro sees it as the state nullifying what citizens had decided.
Petro mentioned that Colombia does similar things. What did he mean?
He was pointing out that Latin American democracies often use administrative or legal mechanisms to exclude candidates they don't like. It's not unique to Venezuela, but the region tends to criticize it loudly when Maduro does it while staying quiet about their own practices.
Does Machado have any path back into the race?
Not through the July election. Her candidacy is gone, and the person she endorsed couldn't even register. She's continuing to speak about democracy and free elections, but institutionally, she's locked out.
What does Petro gain by speaking up?
He positions himself as a defender of democratic norms in the region. It also signals to his own opposition that he takes their political rights seriously—a kind of reassurance that his government won't use the same tactics.