Peruvian congress members in Venezuela: Observers or accomplices of Chavismo?

The recent visit of a group of Peruvian congress members to Venezuela has brought to the forefront not only the legitimacy of the elections held in that country but also the ethics and responsibility of these representatives in their role as observers. Despite the congress members, belonging to the parties Perú Libre and Juntos por el Perú-Voces del Pueblo, attempting to present a positive narrative about the political situation in Venezuela, the facts reveal a very different story. The mission of these congress members, who sought to "certify" Nicolás Maduro's victory, has been undermined by the statement from the Carter Center, which has labeled the elections as "non-democratic" and lacking electoral integrity. This report highlights a critical point: the lack of adequate conditions for a transparent and fair electoral process. In this context, the passionate defense of these congress members for a regime that has been the subject of multiple fraud allegations raises concerns. Maduro's response to the criticism has been characteristically defiant. Instead of addressing the questions constructively, he has chosen to discredit the institutions that have called into question the legitimacy of his government. His attack on the credibility of the Carter Center reflects a well-known strategy: diverting attention from accusations through confrontation. Thus, the situation becomes even more complex, as his announcement to take the case to the Supreme Court of Justice, an entity that has proven to be merely an appendage of his regime, only strengthens the perception of a compromised judicial system. The implications of this trip extend beyond Venezuela. The fact that the congress members were financed by the Chavista regime raises serious questions about their independence and motivations. Although the Peruvian Congress hastened to clarify that public funds were not used for the trip, the lack of transparency regarding who covered the expenses is alarming. In a climate where accountability is crucial, the evasive response of the legislators to questions about funding only exacerbates public distrust. Furthermore, the ties of some of these congress members to controversial figures in Peru, such as the fugitive Vladimir Cerrón, add fuel to the fire. The situation of Kelly Portalatino, who not only participated in the trip but also missed a summons from the Public Ministry, highlights the potential for a conflict of interest that could have repercussions beyond the electoral sphere in Venezuela. Reactions in the Peruvian political arena have not been slow to arrive. Some experts have suggested that this issue should be addressed by the Ethics Commission of Congress, given the seriousness of the situation. However, there are reservations about the effectiveness of this commission, especially considering the history of impunity in similar cases. It is possible that these four congress members may not face significant consequences, which could send a troubling message about the integrity of the Peruvian political system. This episode highlights an alarming phenomenon: the use of the "electoral observer" figure as a tool to grant legitimacy to regimes that maintain power through fraud and repression. Chavismo has perfected this tactic, calling upon sympathetic figures who, instead of acting as true defenders of democracy, become complicit in a machinery that undermines the principles of a fair electoral process. As events unfold in Venezuela, it is imperative that Peruvian citizens maintain constant scrutiny over their representatives. This case not only underscores the lack of ethics among some congress members but also raises questions about how political interests can prevail over democratic principles. If these legislators are not questioned or held accountable, there is a risk of normalizing complicity with dictatorial regimes. At a time when democracy is under siege in various parts of the world, the role of legislators must be to serve as a bastion of truth and justice. On the contrary, what is observed is a defense of a tyrant who has not hesitated to employ repressive tactics to remain in power. This episode could serve as a call to reflect on the responsibility that elected representatives have to act in the best interest of their citizens, rather than for the benefit of dictatorial regimes that relegate human rights and freedom to a secondary status. Ultimately, the episode involving the four Peruvian congress members who traveled to Venezuela is not just a political scandal but a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the importance of ethics in the exercise of power. In a context where political divisions are deep, such situations demand a unified response in defense of the democratic principles that many are striving to restore in Venezuela and throughout the region.