In light of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro’s most recent dubious election victory claims, it is time for bioethicists to rethink our complicity in the current regime’s rise to power. In particular, we must reassess our silence in not calling out Maduro’s tendency to co-opt activist language and use that language to gain national and international support. This trend is particularly true of disability rights language. Building off of the regime of his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, Maduro has consistently utilized disability rights language to spread a guise of morality over the substantial human rights violations that have occurred under his administration. In doing so, Maduro both cheapens and diminishes the efficacy of legitimate activist work. Effective disability rights advocacy requires two things. Primarily, it calls for clear and persuasive messaging that leads to action. Secondarily, however, effective advocacy requires us to protect disability rights language from figures who seek to use it to gain public recognition and personal power. That authoritarians such as Maduro have so successfully utilized disability language for their own ends is a blight on the global bioethics community, one that deserves remedy.
Disability Rights in Venezuela
Although support for Maduro’s administration has waned, one area where it remains strong is within the disabled community. A supporter of Maduro in the recent election makes this precise point in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), arguing that “There are many things—the benefits, help for people like me with disabilities—there are many things that we have to take advantage of that no other government has given. President Chravez, Maduro, and nobody else.”
On the surface, the supporter’s claim seems justified. Disability rights have been at the forefront of Maduro’s regime since he assumed power in 2013. In 2014, just a year after taking office, Maduro created the Presidential Council for People with Disabilities, designed to “strengthen the participation of disabled persons in state and societal affairs, as well as increase awareness and eliminate discrimination towards disabled individuals across the country.” This appointment was paired with a host of pro-disability legislation, such as the creation of municipal committees for people with disabilities as well as the continuation of a Chavez-era law requiring all companies, public and private, to allocate at least 5% of their total payroll to people with disabilities. These acts have been punctuated by a stream of statements from the Maduro regime professing support for disabled citizens. As a result, Venezuela currently boasts some of the most progressive disability rights laws in the world.
Despite these lofty declarations, the Maduro regime has consistently failed to live up to its campaign promises. A 2022 report by the U.S. Department of State on human rights practices in Venezuela concluded that, despite laws prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities, “no efforts were made to implement the law, inform the public of it, or combat societal prejudice against persons with disabilities.” The report goes on to document widespread disregard for the law. Persons with disabilities had “minimal access” to public transportation, and ramps were “almost nonexistent.” A 2023 report adds to this assessment, noting that the 5% quota was “generally not followed or enforced.”
Disability, in short, exists as a frequent talking point for the Maduro administration, but this talk has led to little tangible action. Despite progressive legislation, Venezuela remains fraught, both politically and personally, for individuals with disabilities.
Protecting Disability Rights Language
This gap between words and action highlights a potential flaw of activist language. Without a vigilant community to hold individuals accountable, it is far too easy for authoritarian governments to utilize activist language to stretch a veneer of moral credibility over their regime, even as their actions contradict the positions they forward. This, in turn, discredits the important work of disability rights advocates. If we claim to care about disability justice globally, we cannot let this happen.
Indeed, the co-option of activist language by authoritarian leaders has a long and varied history. For example, obscured behind the shadow of World War II and the horror of the Jewish Holocaust is the reality that Adolf Hitler’s initial ascent to power was bolstered, in part, by his advocating for workers rights. Similarly, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro initially rose to power as a champion of racial equality and Maduro, upon casting his vote for the recent contested election, is reported to have said ““Viva Palestina Libre!” — “Long live a free Palestine.” The irony of such a statement—one that professes support for freedom abroad while denying it domestically—should not be lost. For authoritarian figures, advocacy language has long been a tool for self-promotion.
If we hope to continue driving toward disability justice in the world, we cannot allow authoritarian figures to co-opt disability rights language as a means for administrative legitimation. No amount of lip service toward disability justice rights justifies denying one’s citizens a free, fair, and transparent election. As a bioethics community, we must be unified in rejecting this rhetoric. By calling out the exploitation of disability activist language, we protect the legitimacy of disability rights advocacy globally.
Dominic Robin is a Ph.D. student with the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics at Saint Louis University.