In this conversation, Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodriguez dissects the complex aftermath of a hypothetical US military intervention in Venezuela, revealing how seemingly decisive actions can lead to unexpected and prolonged political and economic instability. The core thesis is that external intervention, particularly when driven by narrow geopolitical interests rather than a comprehensive understanding of Venezuela's systemic challenges, can sideline legitimate opposition, create new dependencies, and potentially entrench authoritarianism under a guise of economic recovery. This analysis is crucial for policymakers, international observers, and anyone seeking to understand the long-term consequences of foreign intervention beyond immediate military objectives. It highlights how a focus on oil extraction, detached from democratic institution-building, can lead to a "Saudi Arabia in the Caribbean" scenario, a hidden consequence that perpetuates autocracy.

The Unseen Currents: How Intervention Can Undermine Democracy in Venezuela

The immediate aftermath of a significant geopolitical event often masks deeper, more complex currents that can steer a nation toward unforeseen futures. In Venezuela's case, the narrative following a hypothetical US military intervention and the arrest of Nicolás Maduro might suggest a clear path to liberation and democracy. However, as Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodriguez argues in this conversation, the reality is far more intricate, fraught with the potential for new forms of dependency and the erosion of genuine self-determination. The conventional wisdom that intervention automatically leads to a stable, democratic successor state fails to account for the systemic dynamics at play, particularly when external actors prioritize resource control over institution-building. This discussion reveals how the pursuit of immediate economic gains, such as oil extraction, can inadvertently pave the way for prolonged autocratic rule, a hidden consequence that many observers overlook.

Why the Obvious Fix Makes Things Worse: The Paradox of External Control

The notion that a swift military intervention would seamlessly usher in a democratic Venezuela, with a clear opposition ready to assume power, has proven to be a misleading simplification. As Francisco Rodriguez explains, the reality on the ground has been a demoralized opposition, struggling to make sense of a scenario where the departure of a dictatorial leader did not automatically translate into their ascent to power. This disorientation stems from a strategic miscalculation by a significant portion of the opposition, particularly its most prominent figure, María Corina Machado.

Rodriguez highlights Machado's uncompromising stance, which, while resonating with a segment of the populace, has led her to align closely with external powers, most notably the Trump administration. This strategy, characterized by a call for military intervention and an embrace of Republican foreign policy, has had profound downstream effects. Instead of fostering domestic mobilization and building broad-based alliances, Machado's approach has made her heavily reliant on the political fortunes of a foreign leader. This dependence creates a critical vulnerability: her political future, and by extension, a potential democratic transition in Venezuela, becomes inextricably linked to the decisions of the U.S. President.

The immediate benefit of this strategy, from Machado's perspective, might have been the perceived leverage gained through international endorsement. However, the hidden cost is the alienation of other international actors and the creation of a situation where her legitimacy is contingent on external approval rather than a robust, internally driven political movement. The consequence of this strategy is a Venezuelan opposition that is sidelined, not empowered, by the very intervention it may have courted.

The system, in this context, responds not with a smooth transfer of power, but with a complex web of dependencies. When the expected outcome of intervention--the immediate collapse of the Maduro regime and the rise of a democratic opposition--does not materialize, the entire strategy comes under scrutiny. Rodriguez notes the saying, "nothing succeeds like success," and its corollary, "nothing fails like failure." The moment a political bid clearly fails, it becomes fertile ground for questioning not only the strategy but also its very proponents, potentially leading to accusations of betrayal.

Furthermore, Machado's alignment with Trump has led her to overlook or even tacitly support actions that run counter to democratic values, such as the stigmatization and deportation of Venezuelan immigrants and alleged extrajudicial executions. This creates a paradox: a leader seeking to liberate her country appears to condone human rights abuses by her key international ally. This is where conventional wisdom falters. The immediate goal of regime change overshadows the longer-term implications of compromising on fundamental principles, leading to a situation where the pursuit of power risks undermining the very values it claims to champion.

The conversation underscores a critical insight: the strategy of relying on external military intervention and courting specific foreign powers, while seemingly a direct path to power, can paradoxically lead to a loss of agency and a prolonged period of instability. The delayed payoff of building a strong, independent, and domestically rooted opposition is sacrificed for the perceived immediacy of foreign backing, a trade-off that, over time, erodes the foundations of a sustainable democratic future.

The Oil-Soaked Path to Autocracy: Trump's Imperial Ambitions and Venezuela's Future

The U.S. intervention in Venezuela, as described by Francisco Rodriguez, transcends a simple removal of a leader; it represents a stark assertion of external control over the nation's most vital resource: its oil. President Trump's pronouncements and actions reveal a plan to effectively run the Venezuelan economy, prioritizing U.S. interests and investment in the oil sector above all else. This approach, characterized by direct dealings with oil executives and a dismissal of Venezuelan governmental or opposition figures, signals a crude form of imperial power not seen in decades.

The immediate economic upside for Venezuela, as Rodriguez points out, is undeniable. The reversal of sanctions allows Venezuela to sell its oil to the U.S. and the Western world, markets it had been cut off from for seven years. This re-entry into global oil markets has the potential to generate significant revenues, fueling an economic recovery. For a country that has experienced one of the largest economic contractions outside of wartime, this access to capital is a crucial, albeit externally imposed, lifeline.

However, the long-term consequences of this externally managed recovery are deeply concerning. Rodriguez frames this scenario as the potential creation of a "Saudi Arabia in the Caribbean"--an autocratic state whose economy is entirely dependent on oil wealth, with the state and government wielding immense power. This model, he argues, combined with "winner-take-all" institutions, is a perfect recipe for autocracy. The U.S. administration, in its pursuit of oil, appears content with an autocratic government in Venezuela, as long as that government facilitates oil extraction.

This focus on oil extraction, detached from any meaningful commitment to democratic institution-building, presents a significant downstream effect. While the U.S. might believe it can manage Venezuela's economy, Rodriguez expresses fear that the Trump administration lacks the understanding to do so effectively. This ignorance could lead to a full-fledged economic crisis in the near term, exacerbated by dwindling supplies of food and basic necessities, and potentially hyperinflation. The system, in this instance, is being managed by actors who do not fully grasp its intricate workings, leading to immediate risks for the population.

The critical failure of this approach lies in its neglect of political transition. The U.S. has spoken "so little about democracy, so little about human rights." This suggests a willingness to accept an autocratic regime if it serves U.S. economic interests. The consequence is that even if oil revenues begin to flow, they may not lead to genuine prosperity or democratic freedoms for the Venezuelan people. Instead, they could further entrench the power of an authoritarian elite, who now have a powerful external patron focused on resource exploitation.

The contrast between the immediate economic benefit of re-entering oil markets and the long-term risk of entrenching autocracy is stark. This is where the difficulty of true systemic change becomes apparent. Building democratic institutions--reforming electoral processes, ensuring judicial independence, and creating a system where losers accept election outcomes without fear of persecution--requires patience and a commitment to values that extend beyond immediate economic gain. The U.S.-led approach, driven by a transactional view of international relations, risks overlooking these essential steps, thereby creating a situation where Venezuela might achieve economic recovery but at the profound cost of its democratic aspirations.

The Systemic Collapse: When Political Conflict Overwhelms Economic Reality

Francisco Rodriguez's analysis of Venezuela's economic collapse, particularly the staggering 71% contraction of GDP, moves beyond simplistic explanations of failed socialist policies. He posits that the crisis is rooted in a deeper failure of the political system to manage conflicts inherent in a polarized society, with the oil industry becoming the central battleground. This perspective offers a powerful example of systems thinking, illustrating how political struggles can directly dismantle economic infrastructure and revenue streams.

Rodriguez recounts his experience as the chief economist of Venezuela's Congressional Budget Office, where he witnessed firsthand how political factions, both government and opposition, began to "weaponize the economy." The government, under Maduro, sought to control oil revenues to maintain power. Conversely, the opposition lobbied the U.S. government to impose economic sanctions, believing this would cripple the regime. While these sanctions played a role, Rodriguez emphasizes that they do not fully explain the magnitude of the collapse.

The crucial insight here is the feedback loop created by this political conflict. Both sides believed that controlling or denying access to oil revenues was a strategic advantage. The government thought controlling revenue would keep them in power; the opposition thought denying revenue would drive out the government. This zero-sum game, however, led to a devastating outcome: the oil industry, the lifeblood of the Venezuelan economy, became the primary casualty.

Rodriguez describes how the opposition's strategy of lobbying for U.S. sanctions was incredibly damaging to the Venezuelan oil industry. This was not merely an economic policy; it was a political act with profound economic consequences. The system responded predictably: as revenue streams were choked off and the industry was targeted, production plummeted, and the economy contracted. The political struggle, intended to achieve a specific outcome (regime change or survival), spiraled out of control, leading to a systemic collapse that harmed everyone.

This illustrates a key principle of systems thinking: actions taken within one part of a system can have unintended and amplified consequences elsewhere. The political actors, focused on their immediate objectives, failed to foresee or adequately account for the cascading effects on the broader economy. The "obvious" solution for the opposition--sanctions--was pursued without a full mapping of its downstream effects on the very country they aimed to liberate.

Rodriguez's personal history with Nicolás Maduro, dating back to his dismissal from the Budget Office due to disagreements over fiscal policy, adds a layer of personal experience to this systemic analysis. It highlights how political power struggles, even at an administrative level, can shape economic outcomes and create long-standing animosities that influence national policy.

The consequence of this political conflict overriding economic rationality is a nation crippled by its own internal strife. The oil industry, instead of being a source of prosperity, became a tool of political warfare, ultimately leading to widespread economic devastation. This is a stark reminder that when political systems fail to manage conflict constructively, the entire society pays the price, often in ways far more severe than initially anticipated. The delayed payoff of a stable, democratic Venezuela is sacrificed for the immediate, destructive gains of political warfare.

The Unpopular but Durable Path: Building Democracy from Within

While the immediate focus in Venezuela has been on external intervention and the potential for oil-driven recovery, Francisco Rodriguez emphasizes that the true path to a stable, democratic future lies not in foreign dictates but in arduous, internally driven institutional reform. This perspective champions the idea that lasting change requires patience and a willingness to undertake difficult, often unpopular, structural adjustments--precisely the kind of effort that creates durable competitive advantage precisely because others are unwilling to wait.

Rodriguez outlines a vision for Venezuela that moves beyond simply installing a new leader or restarting oil production. The "best-case scenario," as he describes it, involves the U.S. using its leverage not to dictate terms, but to facilitate a democratic transition built from the ground up. This transition, however, cannot be an overnight affair. It requires a deliberate and careful process of institutional reform.

Key among these reforms are strengthening electoral institutions and ensuring the independence of the judiciary. These are not glamorous, immediate solutions; they are foundational elements that take time to establish and bear fruit. The goal is to create institutions that not only facilitate free and fair elections but also constrain the executive power from persecuting its opponents. This is the essence of a mature democracy: a system where political losers can accept their defeat without fear of reprisal, and where political careers do not end with imprisonment or worse.

This approach directly contrasts with the transactional, oil-focused strategy of the Trump administration. The latter seeks a quick economic fix, potentially at the expense of democratic values, leading to a scenario where Venezuela becomes an autocratic petro-state. Rodriguez's vision, conversely, prioritizes the long-term health of the political system, recognizing that true prosperity and stability are inextricably linked to democratic governance.

The difficulty of this path is precisely why it is durable. Building robust democratic institutions requires sustained effort, consensus-building, and a commitment to principles that may not yield immediate political victories. It demands that leaders and citizens alike engage in the hard work of compromise and institutional design. This is where competitive advantage is forged: by undertaking the effortful thinking and patient execution that others, seeking quicker results, will inevitably neglect.

Rodriguez's insight highlights the difference between being "solved" and being "actually improved." An intervention might "solve" the immediate problem of a dictatorial leader, but it does not guarantee a lasting improvement in the country's governance or the well-being of its people. True improvement comes from the slow, deliberate process of building resilient democratic structures. This is the payoff that requires patience most people lack, and it is precisely this patience that can lead to a genuinely prosperous and democratic Venezuela, a future that is possible but by no means assured.

Key Action Items

• Prioritize Institutional Reform Over Immediate Economic Gains: Recognize that sustainable recovery and democracy in Venezuela depend on rebuilding fundamental institutions (electoral bodies, judiciary) rather than solely focusing on oil revenue. This is a long-term investment, paying off in 5-10 years with a stable, democratic society.
• Build Broad-Based, Domestic Opposition Alliances: For opposition leaders, shift strategy away from exclusive reliance on foreign powers and toward forging robust, internally driven coalitions. This requires patient negotiation and compromise, with payoffs visible over the next 1-3 years as a unified front emerges.
• Demand Transparency and Accountability in External Aid/Investment: If external actors are involved in Venezuela's economic recovery, ensure that their involvement is conditional on democratic progress and human rights protections, not just resource extraction. This requires immediate and ongoing advocacy.
• Invest in Independent Media and Civil Society: Support the development of a free press and active civil society organizations. These are crucial for holding power accountable and fostering informed public discourse, with groundwork laid now for impact over the next 2-5 years.
• Embrace the Discomfort of Gradual Progress: Understand that building democracy is a marathon, not a sprint. Be prepared for slow progress and setbacks, as this patient approach creates a more resilient and lasting outcome than quick fixes. This mindset shift is immediate, with tangible results emerging over 3-7 years.
• Develop Contingency Plans for Autocratic Entrenchment: Acknowledge the risk that external intervention could inadvertently lead to a new form of autocracy. Develop strategies to counter this possibility, focusing on international pressure for democratic norms and support for internal democratic forces, a process requiring immediate strategic planning and ongoing execution.
• Re-evaluate the Role of Military Intervention: Recognize that military intervention, while seemingly decisive, often creates complex downstream consequences that undermine long-term democratic goals. This requires a fundamental re-evaluation of foreign policy tools, a critical and immediate intellectual exercise.