Don't get me wrong. She has firmly opposed maduro and is a beacon of hope for many in Venezuela but she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful yet? She is just a career politician that just happens to be in the opposition of the venezuelan goverment when Maduro (a dictator) is in power. But she hasn't done anything extraordinary to merit the award.
Don't get me wrong, but perhaps what was missing was greater media coverage and genuine interest in Venezuela's situation.
María Corina Machado orchestrated a HUGE covert months long operation to collect tally sheets from the overwhelming majority of voting machines during the 2024 presidential election. Her team trained poll watchers to demand vote receipts (as legally permitted) then capture and transmit that data through various channels, even from the most remote regions of the country.
There are documented cases of people—poll workers and participants in the plan—being imprisoned or even killed for their involvement.
Thanks to this operation, the website resultadospresidencialesvenezuela2024.com exists, where venezuelan can verify the actual vote count per candidate, backed by fingerprint records and the serial numbers of both the software and hardware used.
These verified results confirm that Edmundo González was the true winner of the election.
The data provides undeniable evidence that Nicolás Maduro installed himself as a dictator, with the full support of the national electoral authority, which, to this day, has refused to release the official election results (a procedure that has historically been routine).
You can also verify the results here https://macedoniadelnorte.com/ (a whole story behind this hostname). Again, only possible by the María Corina's huge effort
Sounds right from the playbook of the superpowers, when an oil rich country has a government that doesn't allow them to profit from their oil resources - (1) demonize the current leader and government, (2) Give international publicity and recognition to a politician ideologically friendly to them (3) Destabilise the unfriendly government by launching an internal / external war against them (4) Install the friendly puppet politician as the leader of the country (while shouting "democracy has won", if you are western superpower) (5) Profit!
This comment reads as deeply ignorant and callous toward the treatment of the Venezuelan people by their government. Fully 1/3 of Venezuelans have fled the country due to repression and economic decline due to Maduro’s mismanagement. As someone who reads Spanish I can tell you the the media in non US aligned Latin American countries is regularly reporting on the dictatorship in Venezuela.
Not everything is about oils or some conspiracy of western governments.
And what’s funny is that I’m even willing to trade oil deals if someone gets rid of the murderer kleptocracy that stole Venezuela from us. So yeah let’s do some oil deals if you help us get back to democracy.
Will you still have democracy once Corina Machado realizes her plan to privatize oil companies?
I have little doubt she did a lot of good practical work for Venezuelan democracy (to expose Maduro's government). But her ideology - accept foreign invasion (which will inevitably kill innocent venezuelans) and privatizing oil reserves (which will inevitably result in undemocratic fallout of the profits) - is unfortunately not that of peace and democracy.
I wish she would more look at Norway as an example, which is a rare case of oil profits being shared collectively and democratically.
I’m not advocating for an invasion don’t get me wrong.
Venezuela had the biggest oil earnings of its history during the early Chavez years and all that money was pilfered. The oil industry infrastructure, the electric infrastructure is currently in shambles due to lack of investment, maintenance and corruption. Part of the recovery of Venezuela will require external investments just to get production back to the levels we had before this calamity.
They also took massive loans in exchange for future oil at insane prices, when people argues that we are going to lose our oil if X or Y happens to me it doesn’t mean anything, because we already lost it with these inept criminals in the government anyway.
Edit: even Maduro is now offering our country’s riches to the US in exchange for remaining in power:
> I’m not advocating for an invasion don’t get me wrong.
Note that while you're not, the Nobel Peace prize winner unfortunately is. And honestly, much more so than privatizing oil, I think this would be the end of even the sham democracy that currently exists. The examples of countries becoming more democratic after a foreign military invasion intent on regime change are entirely restricted to the losing powers in WW 2.
> Will you still have democracy once Corina Machado realizes her plan to privatize oil companies?
Yes. Norway is basically the only real democracy with a nationalized oil firm, and they found oil after having been a democracy for like 100 years. Everywhere else state oil companies are piggy banks for tyrants and prevent the country from investing in economic development because they don’t need private tax revenues. State oil companies are a trap.
I think you missed my point - how can you claim you have democracy if you're not allowing your citizens to decide what to do with national resources (by privatizing them)? Privatization is a trap as well.
Private/state distinction matters only a little in practice for democracy. What matters is whether people have democratic control (equal participation on decision-making) over these structures.
> due to repression and economic decline due to Maduro’s mismanagement
Let's be real, sanctions play a big role in the economic decline of Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy. In fact, it's a very problematic totalitarian regime, where women have limited rights and the royalty has been known to kill enemies. They very much mismanage money, with ridiculous projects, ostentatious lifestyles if you're royalty or the elite, and have the "highest prevalence of modern slavery of all countries in the Arab States region" [1].
Saudi Arabia is doing well economically though because it isn't sanctioned by the USA, and you don't hear bad press about it's totalitarian regime, or corruption, etc. because it's a USA ally.
If the USA cared about how people are treated by their government, they'd be in Sudan or Congo. The USA cares about getting rid of Maduro, so they will make it as difficult as possible for the Venezuelan regime to make money from its oil, while pointing out all that's wrong and blaming Maduro for everything.
I'm not saying things are well in Venezuela, or that Maduro is a good leader. I'm saying this is all part of a playbook that's been successful before, and it's reductionist to not blame the USA for Venezuela's decline.
Sanctions are absolutely not the reason for economic decline. Chavez installed cronies into the national oil company who ran it into the ground, and Maduro spent the everything they had on the security state. Both successive regimes have made private industry nearly impossible.
You're creating a false dichotomy. It is true that Venezuela is very poorly governed, and it's also that the the US is doing everything they can to prevent Venezuela from monetizing their natural resources, oil in particular, in order to try to inflict economic suffering on the common people. This is the whole sadistic, and nonsensical, point of sanctions - inflict suffering on common people in hopes they'll blame their government instead of people inflicting suffering on them, overthrow their government, and then align themselves with the people inflicting suffering on them.
Without US sanctions Venezuela, and Venezuelans, would be in a dramatically better place today.
The countless human rights violations, stealing elections etc. predate the sanctions. This honestly feels like patronizing. Look up the UN reports of all the human rights violations happened over the last couple of decades there.
Wiki conveniently has a nice graph demonstrating the real GDP/capita in Venezuela [1], which is reasonably reflective of the economic crisis. In 1980 it was around $16,000. By ~2013-2014 it had peaked a bit higher than $18,000 and had risen dramatically faster than the average for Latin America.
In 2014 there were mass protests against the government, in reality it was an attempt to overthrow the government, which was responded to with brutality. That brutality was met with sanctions. Today their GDP/capita is about $5000. That's obviously going to be explained in part by the decline in oil prices around the same time, but not to that degree, to say the least.
* - As an addendum here it's also unclear to me how exactly Wiki is calculating that figure and whether it accounts for, in any way, the substantial scale of emigration from Venezuela. If not, then the relative decline is even larger than it sounds.
Not quite. A useful term related to sanctions is overcompliance. You can read the exact verbiage of some of the earliest sanctions here. [1] In a nutshell engaging in any form of trade (including transfer of expertise or whatever else) that directly or indirectly benefited a sanctioned person could trigger extremely harsh penalties.
Many government officials in Venezuela have direct involvement with various industries, including oil. So it suddenly becomes this extremely complex and dangerous mess when doing any trade whatsoever with Venezuela. This is why their economy completely collapsed following the sanctions.
Absolutely, which makes this whole thread all the more absurd, or at least typical. It seems increasingly likely we'll get a war in Venezuela, likely supported by this Nobel Peace Prize winner, with the goal of installing her in power. It seems Guaido is out of fashion? Anyhow, if "we" win, and she gets installed, you know the first thing she's going to do? Trade access to your natural resources for wealth and power. They're the only reason the US is there. And then in a decade you'll be ranting against her.
Look at the history of people the US sponsors in regime change operations around the world, and how things turn out. So long as they're loyal to the US, first and foremost, anything goes. Carlos Castillo Armas, Fulgencio Batista, Humberto Castelo Blanco, Augusto Pinochet, Efrain Rios Montt and many more though I'm limiting myself to the Americas. Of course I can fully understand the perspective that 'anything must be better than this shit show.' But it often turns out, in hindsight, that that's not exactly the case.
And in general this is a big part of the reason that I'm highly opposed to the US meddling in countries around the world. There's always such a heavy price to pay in American dollars and the blood of others. And.. for what? Yeah yeah, this time it's different...
My man the alternative we are currently suffering is WAY worse, you think we care if we do business with the US once we recover our democracy? It’s what I’m expecting. The country needs a lot of foreign investment, the US was our main partner before these criminals came to power.
> and it's also that the the US is doing everything they can to prevent Venezuela from monetizing their natural resources, oil in particular
This is not at all true. A large share of Venezuelan oil is refined in Texas by Citgo for PDVSA. The US could easily stop that but doesn’t. The sanctions are on regime ghouls, the military, and some state companies run by the security apparatus. None of which existed before the 3rd time the Chavistas stole an election and jailed their opposition.
> Without US sanctions Venezuela, and Venezuelans, would be in a dramatically better place today.
No. They wouldn't. The Venezuelan government has proven extremely incompetent to produce oil.
What the Trump's tariffs have shown to the world is that, in the scale globalization is today, trade with the US doesn't matter that much anymore. Case in point: Brazil. After Trump stuck 50% tariffs on them, their exports to other countries grew much more than enough to offset the loss to the U.S.
The US embargo on Venezuela is a lot like its embargo in Cuba, Iran and North Korea: it is not the cause of people suffering but is an excuse by those corrupt and incompetent regimes to hide their failures.
And look, what a coincidence that this so called neo-liberal "opposition" leader of Venezuela plans to privatise her countries oil companies (and other industries) again, and return it to their original owners (again, just another remarkable co-incidence that her father was the President of such a private company that was nationalised):
> Machado defines herself — and her party, Vente Venezuela — as “liberal” (or neoliberal, depending on how you look at it), both politically and economically. Her political vision revolves around reducing the size of the state as a provider of public policies, supporting entrepreneurship and promoting the free market, as a means of creating wealth and jobs in a devastated economy. Her vision of government is similar to what Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan had in mind ... The presidential candidate has proposed privatizing the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) — a taboo in local politics — and returning all the companies that have been expropriated by the Chavista regime to their rightful owners. This also includes Siderúrgica Venezolana — a company that her father (who died this year) was the president of, before it was seized ... Her vision on the distribution of social funds is somewhat more American than European, as is her deeply anti-communist discourse.
Sure, I am maybe ignorant about local Venezuelan politics, but I am quite tuned to what is happening to it internationally. And I can confidently state that Trump or the US don't have the best interests of Venezuela when it tries to bring "democracy" there through war (internal or external). We all know that it is rubbish to call Venezuela a "narco-state". And we all know how much the Trump administration truly cares about "democracy", whether in the US or in Venezuela. The simple fact is that, along with Cuba, Venezuela remains a persistent thorn for the Americans in South America (their "backyard") because of their inability to dominate them politically. To make matters worse (for Venezuela), Venezuela has the world's largest proven reserves – roughly 18% of the global total – in the vast Orinoco Belt. (That’s more than Saudi Arabia and Canada, though Venezuelan crude is harder to process). Russia and China have invested in Venezuelan oil industry and that has further rattled the US as it brings both the Russians and the Chinese to their "backyard".
(I'll believe the west's "concerns" on Venezuela's "democracy" and "human rights" when they overthrow the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE - where western companies are allowed to profit from oil resources in these regions - and bring "democracy" there).
Don’t make everything about yourself. We are in a big trouble just as it is and we could use all the help we can, even from the US regardless of who is at WH at the moment.
> Sure, I am maybe ignorant about local Venezuelan politics
You should have stopped right there.
The reason western countries care about Venezuela’s democracy is twofold it was prior to the Chavez coup the oldest democracy in South America, and Maduro helps other anti-democratic leaders in Latin America rig elections and suppress opposition. He’s a regional destabilizing force.
If you think this is about oil it shows how little you know, please read a bit more before spouting off here, this isn’t Reddit.
That personal risk includes having yourself or loved ones thrown in prison without any contact to the outside world for however long the dictatorship sees fit.
It’s a very sad history of oppression and corruption that has forced many Venezuelans to pull up their roots and risk their lives leaving their own country. It would be a dream come true to see this dictatorship overthrown and replaced by a democratic system of government that serves the people.
Not to diminish her valor and heroism. Mad respect. But how is that actually about peace?
A dictatorship can be peaceful, and a democracy can be warlike. Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently as far as I know. Of course people who fight for democracy deserve being praised and supported, but to me it looks odd to do so with a peace prize.
The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Is this the case here?
There is something called "democratic peace theory" which argues that democracies are less likely to attack other democracies, compared to other forms.
So I guess you could also claim that democracy helps maintain peace from that point of view, and a person who successfully proved that a "democratic election" really wasn't democratic at all feels like the right thing to award, as it'll further international peace.
edit: the submission article also talks briefly about how peace and democracy is linked (in their eyes):
> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.
Op's comment was about how this is not a given. Though tbf I can't recall any "peaceful" dictatorships, while I can recall a few war-happy democracies.
In my own country, Spain, the Francoist dictatorship (1939–1975) never attacked other countries or participated in any foreign wars (beyond sending a division of volunteers to WWII). Its domestic policy was highly repressive with common execution of political dissidents, etc., but in the sense of "no war" it was peaceful. The same goes for Salazar's Portugal, Hoxha’s Albania or Tito's Yugoslavia.
>Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently, as far as I know.
While the point you're trying to make may or may not be valid, Venezuela is not a good example. Go read up on the Venezuela-Guyana crisis. The Maduro regime has been pushing the region closer to war in recent years. Renewing its claims to Guyanan territory, and preparing its military for war. For now, all out invasion has been prevented partially by significant support for Guyana and pressure against Venezuela from neighbouring countries and the west, and distraction from its own internal problems.
A dictatorship cannot be peaceful. Peace is not merely “the absence of international war.” Peace is rooted in individual rights and freedoms.
If you walk around all day on metaphorical eggshells, surrounded by armed people who will beat you, torture you, disappear you, kill you and your family if you say the wrong thing, that is not a peaceful existence!
It sounds like repression —which if extreme enough approaches (civil) war. I’ll give you that but then we’d include Cuba, North Korea and a few other countries as well.
Sure. Now name people who are more deserving of the Nobel peace prize as this woman and explain their accomplishments and why it should make them a better pick. I'll wait.
I don't really understand what you're arguing for or against. That this woman doesn't deserve the prize because there are places worse than Venezuela? What does that have to do with the Nobel peace prize? This isn't a "pick the worst place on earth" contest.
I honestly don't understand any of the complaints in these comments. Is it because she's a woman? Or what? I've not seen anybody make any substantial arguments as to why she shouldn't be eligible.
Every country should be rooting for our situation to be solved. We have way too many people abroad enduring bad situations that would be better back at home with a decent government and democracy restored.
There are people that have WALKED all over the continent to flee, all the way to the US and Canada or Argentina, Chile, etc.
I mean sure. Winning a war is also sometimes seemingly necessary to achieve peace. And violence is sometimes seemingly necessary to replace a dictatorship with democracy. In this case, it looks like they're awarding her the prize for her efforts to peacefully oppose dictatorship.
> The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
That's the one-liner from Nobel's will. It obviously leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and historically has often been awarded for civil rights advocacy.
I suppose Venezuela has hope because it is a weak country with nominal US pressure agaisnt the current regime. Russia is self sufficient and has WMD (nuclear)
On top of that, if I am not mistaken, Russia doesn't know what Democracy is. (Yeltsin and Medvedev up for discussion) As a result, for starters, Maduro can't make radical changes in the army.
come on folks, no need to make everything about the US. The situation and evolution of Venezuela is vastly different. There are a lot of parallels, like with any other authoritarian government, and probably lessons the US opposition can learn, but don't equate the two as it overshadows the struggles Venezuelans have endured for 25+ years. Let them have their moment
Ok, I guess we'll see in 20 years (you did read the "20 years" part I hope?) if my assessment is correct. It was maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I don't have any doubts that Trump would like to be an "actual dictator" and is actively testing how far he can expand the limits of his power. Democracy in the US is more established than in other countries that have had authoritarian takeovers in recent years (Hungary, Turkey, Russia etc.), but we'll see if it's resilient enough.
It was more than tongue in cheek, it is a mix of anxiety and overreaction. None of this is happening except for the far left's mind. I see this constantly on reddit, it's a shame it gets posted here. You are trying to be over dramatic to get your point across and maybe try to get someone to see your viewpoint? It does the exact opposite.
huh, overreaction? As an outsider looking in, the US is looking more autocratic and totalitarian every week. I have 0 doubts Trump would like to become a "strong man" a la Putin, if he can.
I'm not saying that she isn't a good politician or that what she is doing is not a step in the right direction. I personally like her. All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize.
That's like giving the Nobel in physics to someone that has worked all their life publishing papers but they all have been refuted and proven wrong.
I don't think "prize" for the merit of being relentless in their fight for publishing physics papers is merited, maybe a different honor, but Peace Nobels should be given to - and i quote -:
"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
> All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize
I know it's frowned upon, but did you actually read the submission article? They're highlighting exactly why they've chosen her, including what meaningful work she has already done:
> The efforts of the collective opposition, both before and during the election, were innovative and brave, peaceful and democratic. The opposition received international support when its leaders publicised the vote counts that had been collected from the country’s election districts, showing that the opposition had won by a clear margin. But the regime refused to accept the election result, and clung to power.
Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
> Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
I think if there are no suitable candidates the award should be skipped. Like it has been skipped many years for the same reasons. This would send a more powerful message about how fucked up the state of the world is rather than giving it to someone just for the sake of it.
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses
Go to her Wikipedia article, do a quick skim/read and then tell me how she doesn't fit with those conditions already?
Why skip the prize when there are individuals that fit the conditions for the prize? Working for democracy and peace in a peaceful and democratic manner shouldn't be rewarded?
They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards. And I do agree Nobel Peace prizes are purely performative, but this one alongside Barack Obama has been one of the most performative ones I can remember.
I think they're older than that, Nobel apparently left a will that included three conditions for what we today call the Nobel Peace Prize:
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.
I have no idea. I wasn’t involved in their decision process. But it seems easy for some people to forget that the Nobel is awarded by a completely private foundation whose sole purpose is to pursue one man’s vision for a better world. Pretty sure neither of our opinions matter on this, but certainly not your disagreement with their execution of their own responsibilities.
Of course my opinions matter, because I hold it. I don’t particularly care about your
view on your opinion mattering, maybe you can have a heart to heart with someone about that.
The Nobel committee is supposed to follow certain guidelines that were set up by Alfred Nobel, and ideally their decisions should make sense because it’s a prestigious prize. The committee consists of regular people who absolutely can be criticized for their stupid decisions, whether their stupid decisions match Nobel’s vision, how their stupid decisions affect the wider world because of the prestige of the prize, or whatever else I or anyone else feel like.
> They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards.
So you're saying that the Nobel Peace committee has not been following their standards? I find this pretty hard to prove... it's like if you were telling me that even if I say that my favourite color is green, it probably isn't because green is not that special a colour.
We can only hope that she will not behave like the previous career politicians that got the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years.
Abiy Ahmed (2019), from Ethiopia, ended the cold war with Eritrea. Then he launched a war against the region of Tigray, with mass rapes and mass civilian killings. He harassed the free press, and turned the country into an autocracy.
Juan Manuel Santos (2016) from Colombia and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2011) from Liberia later appeared in Paradise Papers because they had secret offshore companies in Panama and Barbades. Their political activity was more tame after the prize than before. Both ended their presidential tenures with plummeting approval rates, especially because of corruption allegations.
Barack Obama (2009) received the Prize for his generous discourses on foreign policy, just after being elected. Then he lead the USA to more war in Afghanistan, and a new war in Libya. He helped Saudi Arabia invade Yemen (UN states this war killed 300,000 people). He helped the Egyptian army with its coup, that killed thousands of opponents and sent 60,000 in jails (including the elected president who died there).
In my opinion, this prize is, most of the time, a dark and heavily political joke.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but people are awarded the prize based on what they've done, not based on what they might do in the future.
I'm not sure you could claim the award is a joke because of people did after being awarded it, especially when most people awarded didn't launch new wars or helped coups.
Obamas was explicitly given as a hope for the future
The committee "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this
effect", Lundestad told the Associated Press, though he fell short of calling
the award a mistake.[145] "In hindsight, we could say that the argument of
giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct", Lundestad wrote.
Ideally, we would accept the recipients as being of “certified good character”. But the stability of this pattern shows chronic lack of basic insight into the awardees, IMO.
No, ideally you'd understand under what basis the prize is handed out, and then draw your conclusions from that (or avoid thinking something specific will happen in the future based on the prize itself).
Nothing in the criteria for the handing out the prize has anything about the reception having any sort of specific character, good or bad. This is all of the conditions for the award:
> Fraternity between nations; abolition or reduction of standing armies; and the holding and promotion of peace congresses
So every year they look at candidates and what they've done within those things, then make an judgement.
Obama didn’t actually do anything but get elected and said nice things. When he got the Peace Prize, people all over the world were confused and thought it was a joke.
He then went on to become the longest-serving war president [1]:
> On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.
It wasn't all inherited conflicts. He also oversaw the 2011 intervention in Libya, the 2014 involvement in Syria, and the 2014 re-intervention in Iraq after having withdrawn troops in 2011.
He mananged to convince the most powerful country on earth to vote for international cooperation rather than a guy who sang a parody song with the lyrics "bomb Iran". Obama notably worked out a denuclearization deal with them so there's that.
It's okay if a non-voting member of the Nobel org 'regrets' other peoples' decision because Obama didn't immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and pardon Bin Laden. Maybe he can take some solace in the fact that he let Putin take Crimea and shoot down MH17, trading peace in 2014 for war in 2022.
At least they had fun with it, remember "Terror Tuesday's"? And once he even apologized when they accidentally bombed a hospital full of white people. Cheney's situation room was probably like Dr.Evils lair. Obama and Hillary Clinton was more like https://youtu.be/dDJa1_fLVeA vibes.
Baraka Obama won the prize for not being George W Bush and for being the first black President of a country with a terrible history of enslaving and mistreating black people.
Side note: Democracy will not work in Egypt until the Muslim Brotherhood loses popularity and/or Islam in the region becomes more moderate. Until then, you're just going to end up with the same situation as Ethiopia and Tigray with a Brotherhood-dominated government and the Copts.
It makes your statement apply more to almost every other country on the planet more than the US. Its like complaining to Luxembourg about poverty. And I will mock ignorance (especially about history) wherever I find it.
Yip, when reading his post I thought this would be the most obvious example. She was given the award for protesting a government that was cracking down hard on protest. She then took power and, at the minimum, was complicit in a literal genocide. In many ways I think this award should not be granted to 'resistance' types because they have a recurring habit of becoming even worse than that what they were resisting. And it obviously should not be given to political leaders based on words instead of actions. Actually maybe this prize shouldn't even exist - it's quite a joke, especially relative to the prize for the sciences.
The peace prize is often given to people still working on something, not having achieved something. In that way it is different from the science prizes.
I think that is a understandable approach (providing support), though it can lead to giving the prize to people who never achieve any of their goals. Whether that’s a worthy trade off I do not know.
Being the opposition leader there is already something extraordinary. While other opposition figures have ended up coziying up with the regime she hasn’t relented. All while important members of her party have been imprisoned or murdered.
She’s also in hiding since the last elections, likely on an embassy but undetermined.
In a dictatorship, running against the leader involves more personal risk than in a country that is already democratic. Also, democracies tend to be more peaceful than dictatorships; my understanding is that efforts to transition from dictatorship to democracy may be regarded as a contribution to peace.
She also received the Sakharov Prize not long ago; if she had to receive only one, the latter would be easier to explain.
What exactly do you mean by "career politician?" Being a member of the opposition in a dictatorship means giving up material wealth and putting your life & liberty on the line.
People imagine political movements as something to accomplish in their lifetime. When the real movements are multi-generational and involve planting trees you'll never enjoy the shade of.
I get frustrated in the US we are always thinking in terms of the next election. Movements that effect lasting change: civil rights, national independence movements, ending slavery, heck even the current conservative regime in the US, are all multigenerational efforts with clear principles and goals that get passed down.
That reminds me a bit of former winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who got the prize in 1991, while not having done or said that much at the time of the award, other than be a political prisoner.
I respect that she opposed the Burmese military junta most of her life, but then a year after coming to power in 2015, she defended the military against charges of complicity in the Rohingya genocide to preserve her fragile government.
Personally, I think the Peace Prize shouldn't go to politicians at all.
Aung San Suu Kyi was just another "compliant native" similar to those the British installed prior to leaving the colonies.
The roadmap was laid out by Cecil Rhodes in his letters and will and extensively documented in "The Secret Society" by Robin Brown.
It's quite fascinating to see their networks with the benefit of hindsight. For example, Mountbatten installed Nehru as the first unelected PM of India.
Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in New Delhi India and during that time, she lived in Nehru's home.
Calling Nehru "installed" by Mountbatten misses the crucial context of the time. Nehru was the undisputed leader of the Indian National Congress, which had been the primary force behind the independence movement for decades and had overwhelming popular support. Mountbatten's appointment was more of a constitutional formality in the transfer of power, not an act of kingmaking. It's like saying the Chief Justice "installs" a newly elected president.
The same goes for the Aung San Suu Kyi connection. Labeling her a "compliant native" seems to ignore the 15 years she spent under house arrest actively fighting against a military junta. That's a pretty high price to pay for being a supposed puppet.
Not if that might bring the anger of the Empire down on them in full. There's a reason even totalitarian regimes don't apply the same amount of force to all of their political enemies.
Gandhi is the one who made Patel step aside in favour of Nehru, despite the latter losing the April 1946 election for the role Congress president; the understanding with the British was that the President of the Congress would be the first PM.
Gandhi had a history of appeasement and compliance (see "The South African Gandhi" by Vahed and Desai) to the British, so Patel could be considered compromised indirectly. Personally I don't believe Patel was a stooge, just a victim of the personality cult around Gandhi.
As for "Azad" - real name Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin - I have not looked into his history.
It's so disappointing to see many folks engaging with the troll you are. You made this account just to post this garbage. Why didn't you post with your regular account? You can't even face folks on the internet. Do you think you have what it takes to face a dictator in the real world?
Yes but this is a way for them to give it to someone who supports Trump’s worldview so that they can try to dodge the controversy and pressure being put on them to give it to Trump
She managed to convince a people of a country that has been entrenched in authoritarianism that the vote was rigged without using violence.
Imagine one day we wake up after the usual yawn-inducing sham elections in Russia and Putin won as usual but a large chunk of the country, probably a plurality of it, is utterly convinced that it was completely fake and that Navalny won.
Without anybody using violence to do it.
Those who think there is nothing to be done but to counter authoritarianism without another authoritarian, or violence, or just to give up and suffer it - might be inspired by this.
I'm not the NNC but that seems like a "meaningful accomplishment".
You could ask: "Sure, allright, the populace was convinced that election was a sham. But... Maduro is still in power so she still hasn't done much". Let me flip it around, perhaps: What did Gandi ever actually accomplish? Isn't it the same thing: Show that violence is not a necessary element, get the people to reframe the situation a bit?
Can we prove Gandi sped up the UK's exit? Even if we can, one of those holocaust level holy heck humanity can get extremely dark moments in history that is rarely talked about is the absolute terror that occurred during the split of the Raj into India and Pakistan.
My point is: Judging the eligibility of a person for a peace prize on the basis of 'measurable meaningful accomplishment' is not how it works and probably shouldn't be how it works. It's either a bullshit prize (kissinger got one...) or it is like making a statue of somebody: It takes a person, turns them into a principle or ideal. Even though humans are much more complex than that.
The notion of "one is capable of being in opposition in an autocratic regime and get stuff done without resorting to violence" got a peace prize, but as per the dictat of Alfred Nobel, only people can get it, so, they stuck the label "Maria Corina Machado" on it. And that wasn't a bad labelling: She really did accomplish 'meaningfully' that goal, at least, I'd gather according to most folks' definition of the word 'capable'.
> Imagine one day we wake up after the usual yawn-inducing sham elections in Russia and Putin won as usual but a large chunk of the country, probably a plurality of it, is utterly convinced that it was completely fake and that Navalny won. Without anybody using violence to do it.
Exactly this happened in Belarus in 2020. Government wasn't shy of using its power though, many people got long prison sentences, many people had to run, nothing changed wrt to dictatorship. I don't see anything inspiring in this story honestly.
lol. Speaking of careers, leave it to HN to get a bunch of careerists whose main priority is their own pockets to engage in some armchair debate about how people who have likely done significantly more for the world than they will ever do don't deserve a peace prize.
The amount of presumption, ignorance, and lack of reflection in your comment is astounding. It shows that you don't take life seriously and/or don't understand what risks being an opposition party in a dictatorship actually entails.
The prize is a joke. Its almost an anti-prize at this point. Look at the company you would be with. I definitively would not want to be included in that group.
