Inside Venezuela's uncertain path to freedom | Leopoldo López

Host Whitney Pennington Rogers begins by asking Leopoldo López how it felt to see his earlier TED talk again. López says it was strange and painful to revisit seven years of imprisonment, not only for him but for millions of Venezuelans, yet he is optimistic because Venezuela is in transition. He compares the rapid change in Venezuela with the rapid spread of “agentic AI,” then returns to questions raised in his talk: who controls the keys to money, communications, connectivity, content and AI—the individual or someone else? López argues that technology is neutral. It can expand autonomy, including during internet shutdowns and financial restrictions, but autocrats also use it for surveillance, self-control, deepfakes and censorship. He calls internet access one of the most important human rights, while warning that access alone is not enough: China has extensive connectivity but not free internet. Freedom therefore exists in both a physical and a digital dimension, and democratic as well as autocratic societies must ask whether corporations or governments can unilaterally remove access to essential tools.

Asked whether technology is the primary way to resist authoritarianism, López says it is one important avenue, especially because it can give people autonomy inside autocratic countries. His organization is working with developers and activists and plans a San Francisco meeting focused on freedom and technology. He says activists increasingly see technology both as a tool used against them and as a possible way out: AI can create deepfakes, internet shutdowns can block access, and infrastructure itself may need alternatives such as Starlink or other connectivity systems. Since his April TED talk, López says the strongest new focus has been “sovereign AI.” Freedom fighters have sometimes had their AI conversations exposed and used in trials, so he wants movement leaders to have AI systems running on servers they control. They would choose the model and retain the underlying data rather than handing sensitive information to a corporation. He repeatedly favors open-source systems because they reduce dependence on gatekeepers. His example of Starlink being unavailable in Uganda and Iran illustrates the danger: even if the decision was not politically intended, a single entity could determine whether millions had connectivity. López says people in stable democracies face the same privacy and control questions.

López explains that the World Liberty Congress, which he founded with Iranian activist Masih Alinejad and Russian dissident Garry Kasparov, is intended to overcome the fragmentation of pro-democracy movements. He says autocrats cooperate pragmatically rather than ideologically: China’s Communist Party, Russia’s nationalists, Iran’s theocrats and Venezuela’s kleptocrats share the goal of staying in power, protecting corrupt networks and opposing democracy. He points to a document signed by Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin ten days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It identified the “color revolutions”—popular uprisings against autocratic governments—as a shared enemy. López says similar movements have emerged in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Nepal and Madagascar. Democracy activists, by contrast, often treated each country’s struggle as an isolated problem. The World Liberty Congress began in 2022 in Vilnius, Lithuania, with representatives from 40 countries, grew to nearly 60 the following year and now includes leaders from 65 countries. López says the need is growing: he cites estimates that the share of the world’s population living under some form of autocracy rose from 42 percent 15 years ago to 75 percent today. He also criticizes governments for prioritizing geopolitical and economic interests over values, and philanthropy for directing only 1 percent of roughly $400 billion in annual US giving to democracy-related issues.

Asked about the most urgent threats, López says the central danger is already visible: democracy is losing ground, including in countries that remain formally democratic. He expects future Freedom House and Economist Intelligence Unit assessments to show further deterioration. He is especially concerned that people in democracies—and young people in particular—may trade democratic rights for perceived effectiveness. His conclusion is that democracy has to deliver materially. It must provide economic opportunity, justice and basic security for large majorities; otherwise people will not defend it. Social media adds difficulty because it enables rapid manipulation of public opinion, a problem López has experienced in autocratic countries but says is also present in democracies. He presents regulation as one possible response to dangerous technologies, but prefers a complementary strategy: build systems whose users control the keys instead of depending entirely on technologies controlled by gatekeepers. López’s hope comes from people rather than institutions. He says more than 80 percent of people worldwide, when asked how they would like to live, choose democratic conditions and freedom. He is encouraged by activists across Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America who are willing to take risks, train, organize and learn from one another. Technology now lets them communicate across time zones every day, revealing common patterns even though each freedom struggle remains unique.

López says Venezuela is substantially better off than it was after January 3, when Nicolás Maduro was captured by the US, but it has not reached the desired destination. He describes the transition as multilayered. Geopolitically, Venezuela has shifted from the influence of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Mexican and Colombian narcos, and other organized crime toward dominant US influence. He says this is not full sovereignty, but he would prefer US influence to the previous network. The economic layer is beginning to open the oil sector and attract investment. López reduces the immediate priorities to “megawatts, dollars and barrels,” but says most commitments have not yet become investment felt by ordinary Venezuelans, making people impatient. A military transition is also necessary: Venezuela’s armed forces were shaped by Cuban and Russian influence and became deeply involved in the kleptocratic economy. López cites Nicaragua as a warning that a political opening can fail when the military is not included in the transition. The democratic layer is proceeding through negotiations between the opposition-controlled 2015 National Assembly and the regime. López expects a new Supreme Court and electoral board, potentially by the end of the year, followed by a timetable for local, regional, National Assembly and presidential elections. He says elections must produce respected results, not merely provide a vote, and that the repressive state—its institutions, laws and culture of impunity—must be dismantled.

In response to a question about a realistic path forward, López says a new Supreme Court and electoral board should establish clear electoral milestones, ideally allowing 2027 to begin with a defined schedule. He warns that economic recovery cannot benefit only oil companies, state insiders or the United States; Venezuelans must feel the change in their own pockets. Otherwise economic disappointment could derail the political transition. The population must also participate in legitimizing the new democratic institutions, while repression by courts, prosecutors, police and military structures is dismantled. He describes transitions as fragile and says most fail. He cites his recent visit to Bolivia, where an election produced a transition but protests, instability and frustration followed because people did not yet feel that the economy was delivering. Venezuela’s first step—removing Maduro and starting the transition—has happened, but López says strong foundations and public involvement are still essential. He also discusses the double earthquake on June 24, which he says caused more than 10,000 victims, displaced over 20,000 families and affected millions directly or indirectly. The state was absent during the crucial first 72 hours, while volunteers and organizations from Mexico, the US, El Salvador and elsewhere responded. López estimates recovery at about $30 billion, compared with an $80 billion GDP and national debt somewhere between $150 billion and $250 billion. He says the diaspora’s aid and Venezuelans’ collective response were the tragedy’s main sources of pride.

López says people in stable democracies often cannot learn freedom through someone else’s experience. Early in Hugo Chávez’s rule, Venezuelans warned that the country was heading toward Cuba, but he and others dismissed the comparison because Venezuela had decades of democracy, universities, civil society and Western ties. Twenty years into Chávez’s “socialism of the 21st century,” López says Venezuela was worse than Cuba in important respects: roughly one-third of the population—nearly 10 million people—had left, including many young people, professionals and entrepreneurs, and almost every family had a close relative abroad. His own understanding of freedom came in solitary confinement, when prison authorities controlled whether he ate, when he ate, saw sunlight, or spoke to another person. Freedom became concrete through its absence rather than through books or political theory. He hopes Venezuela’s experience helps democratic societies understand that freedom is the combination of many everyday choices and that democracy is fragile, not guaranteed. Asked how people in free countries can help, López recommends first becoming informed, then finding leaders and movements with which to connect. He invites people to engage with the World Liberty Congress through knowledge, ideas, networks or funding. Most importantly, he asks for compassion—not pity, but the effort to stand in another person’s shoes and understand the world from their perspective.