The Peruvian left faces criticism for supporting Maduro's victory in Venezuela.

The recent presidential election in Venezuela has triggered a series of reactions in the Peruvian political sphere that highlight the complex relationship between the left and democratic practices in the region. Despite the evident irregularities in the electoral process, several Peruvian politicians have come out in support of Nicolás Maduro's victory, sparking an intense debate about the morality and political responsibility of the left in the country. The opacity of the Venezuelan electoral body and the speed with which Maduro was declared the winner have reignited protests in various cities across Venezuela. Thousands of citizens have taken to the streets demanding a transparent recount of the votes, reflecting the distrust towards a regime that has shown increasing repression. In light of this situation, the international community has a duty to act, demanding an electoral process that guarantees the will of the Venezuelan people. It is important to note that no impartial observer has validated the election results. The only delegations that had access to this process, such as the Carter Center and the UN, have called for transparency. On the other hand, independent studies have shown that the candidacy of Edmundo González Urrutia had a clear advantage, which raises questions about the legitimacy of Maduro's triumph. However, in Peru, some political representatives have chosen to ignore this evidence. Congress members such as Flavio Cruz, María Agüero, and Kelly Portalatino, as well as independent Guillermo Bermejo, have declared their support for what they consider a "clean victory" for Maduro. These politicians, who participated in a delegation that supposedly evaluated the electoral process, seem to have fallen into the trap of legitimizing a regime known for its authoritarianism. Vladimir Cerrón, a leader of the Peruvian left, has also spoken in favor of Chavismo, celebrating what he calls the triumph of the Bolivarian Revolution. This stance not only shows a lack of sensitivity to the situation of Venezuelans but also reveals a deep ideological bias that prioritizes loyalty to the cause over human rights and democracy. Even figures who could be considered more moderate within the left, such as Verónika Mendoza, have avoided condemning the Venezuelan regime. Instead of openly criticizing Maduro, Mendoza opted for general rhetoric that does not mention the human rights violations that have intensified in her country. This silence is troubling and calls into question the commitment of certain sectors of the Peruvian left to democratic principles. The cases of Roberto Sánchez and Sigrid Bazán, who have maintained a notable silence on the Venezuelan situation, also reflect a double standard. While their defense of democracy is vociferous when it comes to political adversaries, in this case, they choose omission in the face of a regime that clearly transgresses those values. This raises serious doubts about their ideological coherence and true commitment to democracy. What happened in Venezuela is a clear reminder that the Peruvian left, instead of learning from the mistakes of the past, seems to be repeating a cycle of adoration for authoritarian leaders who share their ideals. This inability to condemn fraud and repression paints them in a negative light and reveals a preference for maintaining power at the expense of justice and truth. Peruvian voters must reflect on these attitudes and behaviors that have been evident in recent days. The defense of democracy cannot be selective or depend on the political color of the oppressor. The situation in Venezuela invites us to question the legitimacy of those who, in the name of the left, justify atrocities and refuse to condemn tyrants. In a democratic context, it is imperative that politics is based on solid principles that prioritize human rights and the popular will. The Peruvian left has the responsibility to reevaluate its stance towards regimes like Maduro's and adopt a clear and firm position in defense of democracy if it truly aspires to represent the interests and aspirations of its people. Hopefully, this lesson will not be forgotten, and citizens will demand a change in the political narrative that allows tyranny to be cloaked in the guise of legitimacy.