translated from Spanish: Interview with Elías Jaua, former Minister of Chavez, Maduro: "We were wrong to leave intact the structure of corruption in Venezuela"

Elías Jaua has been almost all in the Venezuela of chavism.
Out with Hugo Chávez or Nicolas Maduro, has always been at the top of the power of the so-called Bolivarian revolution, which joined the first.
It is one of the officials sanctioned by United States that the Government of that country considers the rupture of the democratic order in Venezuela.
Vice President between 2010 and 2012, has also undergone several ministries.
Of the latter, that of education, was relieved by President Maduro in September, shortly after once submit a proposal that demanded more internal democracy in the Congress of the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). Denies having been purged.
20 years after the triumph of Hugo Chávez, when the country suffered a severe economic crisis and there are scandals of corruption in an era in which she starred, BBC World spoke with him in his office in Caracas.
“The triumph of Chávez changed everything”: 3 testimonies of how affected the Venezuelan electoral victory of 20 years was like the Venezuela in which Chavez won 20 years ago (and what seems to the present) is the country better or worse than in 1998?
A linear analysis of these 20 years can not be. There have been various periods. After the death of Commander Chávez, we see that the opposition’s leadership is totally unknown to the rules of the democratic game and starts an economic aggression against the country that, no doubt, has violated the great achievements of the Bolivarian revolution. I prefer that all what he has accomplished the revolution in rights and inclusion had failed never.
Copyright of the imagenGETTY IMAGESImage captionJaua claimed the “achievements of the Bolivarian revolution”. But Chavez also faced much hostility from opposition and heavy international pressure, and however, the economy had never been so bad. What has changed?
The achievements of Chavez came when we guarantee political stability to win the recall referendum of 2004. Venezuelan leaders, opponents and revolutionaries have to work to ensure a political stability that allows you to retrieve what has been lost in these six years that there has been almost a total war between the political factors again and return to the path of economic growth and social inclusion then.
Blames the boycott of the opposition, to external aggressions… is that the Government is not responsible for any of the problems?
Of course, there were mistakes. There is a structural problem of the Venezuelan economy, its oil revenue culture. Having not gone through, and in some cases even have delved into it, is one of them.
International organizations say that more than this economic war of which you speak, the problem of the economy of Venezuela is its poor management. Is the Government gestionandobien economy?
There is always a whole debate on economic management. But there is a reality. Venezuela is today prevents access to the international market and suffers from barriers to free trade, at least in the Western world. It has debts and assets frozen, including its reserves in gold. No one can deny that we suffer an economic aggression from abroad.
Image captionJaua said that it was “a mistake” not to fight corruption more vigorously. Another problem is the corruption that now goes by uncovering.
Corruption has become a serious damage. Returning to your question from our mistakes, one was not having fought since beginning this structural problem.
And why they did not?
I speak with all sincerity of those moments in the year 1999. The Commander Chávez came with an entire array of opinion claiming that it was going to be a dictator. There was up to fake newsas they call them now, about that. In the interior of the Bolivarian project debated then if you had to start a kind of operation clean hands, but considered that that would affect the political stability of the new Government and that our priority in the first stage was to meet the emergency poverty, which had been in the country.
Or is, that they preferred not to get into that?
Chavez said that we stopped acting institutions but we do not put us in front of something that was going to look like a witch-hunt against the leaders of the past in the world…
But Alejandro Andrade, Treasurer of the Republic recently convicted in United States for admitting bribes, was one of their own. It seems that you put in front of the institutions people which was not at all reliable.
I’m talking about 1999, when institutions were still in the hands of the elite of the Covenant of Punto Fijo (prior to chavism system). It was a political decision and I think it was a mistake. Because we leave intact the structure of corruption, especially the private sector, which is the great corrupter in Venezuela.
Alejandro Andrade, the bodyguard of Chavez and Venezuela extesorero convicted of money laundering cases of corruption millionaires at PDVSA, the State oil company, also are fault of the private sector?
Everything is from private sectors. The entire structure of private sector corruption remained intact and their contacts within the State quickly corrupted weak officials. Now we are paying the consequences of these deviations.
Copyright of the imagenGETTY IMAGESImage captionLa justice investigates the diversion of funds from PDVSA, the State oil company. You sit in the Council of Ministers. Were they not aware of that tremendous embezzlement of money from Venezuela was taking place?
In some cases, not. In others, when the President learned and had evidence, he fought them. For the first time Venezuela saw Governors, generals and senior officials processed. If we had had more knowledge, we would have acted, as many times we did. Me many times I had to inform the President of corruption and deviations, and always found in him the provision dismiss officials and leave justice to act. Chavez was always very respectful with the action of Justice. He never wanted to be an Inquisitor.
And what failed? Because today we see that these characters are judging them in the United States, Spain and other countries, not in Venezuela.
They fled the country and were protected by the United States Government, as happened with Andrade, the last case. Spain has also protected others with serious acts of corruption. It would have to wonder about the responsibility of those Governments that have protected the corrupt just because they were declared opponents. I wish I could bring them here and confiscate all assets to create a large fund that allows part of the difficulties facing today our people.
Five years ago Chavez Maduro appointed as his successor. Do I would be satisfied with its management today?
The Commander can answer that only and he is no longer with us. I only can answer it for me, not by the Commander. I do value to Nicolas Maduro.
Copyright of the imagenGETTY IMAGESImage captionJaua says that, when the time comes, the bases must choose the successor of Maduro.Entonces do you think that Chavez was right with it?
I appreciate the effort that has made mature. In January it has succeeded in completing the constitutional mandate for which it was elected in 2013, and will be done against all odds, against all attempts to avoid it.
It is evident that it has managed to stay in power. I ask him if he believes that their management is still beneficial for the country.
Each period has its own conditions. Ask how things would have been if Maduro had not been subjected to the entire process of destabilization in the year 2014, when he held out the hand for a national dialogue and was found as a response of that process of protests called the output, if not violence It had suffered foreign aggression… Governments should evaluate them in their context.
Again they blame others. Do you not think that the Venezuelans have tired of that speech?
I told him some errors that have been committed, not passing the oil revenue culture, deviations from a group of officials that has caused a lot of damage by corruption. Many times we have acted with inexperience in some areas of management. I recognize all that. But the essential problem is that Venezuela has been subjected in the past six years to a major confrontation.
Do you believe in ripe as believe in Chavez?
It is my colleague’s struggle for 25 years.
And also its leader?
Of course. He is the leader and the only political head of the Bolivarian revolution, and I acknowledge it as such. Thus instructed by Chavez and thus popular sovereignty has expressed it twice.
Image captionEl leader blamed for the economic problems of the country to “foreign aggression”. This way of choosing a leader, in which the former appoints finger to his successor, seems it the healthiest?
Chavez had no time and in those circumstances it was the only thing that guaranteed the unity of chavism. But in the future a new leadership would have to arise from the bases.
He chose to mature because it was running out of time?
He made the decision to choose his successor because, against a transaction limit in the operating room, I had to leave a clear message to the revolutionary political force that had built. I don’t know the reasons why he chose Maduro. I can imagine them. As he had been Chancellor it was who had greater international projection and one of the founders of the movement that had good relations with all the political leadership. But it is my interpretation, the Commander never told us why chose it.
Do not choose is now a new leader in a way more democraticAttic?
Right now, no. We have a President-elect in functions and it will soon assume a new constitutional period. Come new situations and then chavism must choose its leadership by the foundations of the movement, not just from the party. But that will be in the future. Mature is now the leader, I want to make it clear.
You proposed unsuccessfully at the last Congress of the PSUV. Why not they did you case?
I proposed, not to President Maduro, but for the rest of the address. It was said that it was not the time and the discussion was not allowed. I respect it, but it has always been an aspiration of the majority of the bases.
Does not seem very tolerant that close the door to the debate, isn’t it?
Our party is in a situation of war and have rules to act on a situation like this.
I hear you and it seems that in Venezuela is suspended democracy because it is at war in Venezuela is not suspended democracy.
In the PSUV?
No, the universal, direct and secret election is suspended. But there is internal debate.
But his proposal was not even discussed were told that we could not go to grassroots elections because we are facing more aggression, and most of the national shared that argument. I am in the PSUV and observe its discipline.
Today even some chavistas claim the Government of Maduro is whittled freedoms. Was that the reason why he launched this proposal?
We do not mix things. In Venezuela there are elections, freedom of the press and expression.
Elections are a both sui generis, so much that the opposition does not accept to participate, and United States and the European Union say that they do not meet the warranties.
The elections are according to the laws of Venezuela, and participated in the latest opposition candidates which were grouped around the candidate Henri Falcon, with a completely contrary to our proposal.
But many opponents are imprisoned or out of the country.
A part of the opposition did not participate because he did not want. Another is brought in lathe to the candidate Henri Falcon with an openly contrary to our project proposal.
It is attention that ceased to be Minister shortly after having presented this proposal in the Congress of the PSUV. Did it have something to do with his departure from the Government?
Absolutely not. The President and I know why it occurred.
Did he explain the reasons?
Let’s just say that it was an agreed decision. There are no breaks. There are moments in which one wants to assume another role. Importantly I’m not, but that the country closing the rift between political factors and build a minimum programme of national unity that restore political stability to be able to begin to recover the economy.
Copyright of the imagenGETTY IMAGESImage captionEn 2017 Venezuela lived a wave of protests demanding the resignation of Maduro. do mature enough to close those fractures with the opposition? Lossuele call “terrorists” and says that they are “far right”.
In the last year has made many efforts to dialogue. I was a member of the Commission which closed in Dominican Republic an agreement that was positive for the country. The President agreed to almost all the points that claimed you the opposition and the answer there was getting up from the table and boycott the elections. Then ripe again called for dialogue and freed many people who had been arrested because of the political violence in 2017. The response this time was a drone loaded with explosive C4.
Why blamed the opposition if even there was a court ruling?
It is public and notorious that an explosive charge exploded at the President front.
Don’t have a judgment about who placed, but Fernando Albán, opposition councillor, died in mysterious circumstances while he was detained for his alleged involvement.
To the President of the Republic broke out a load of explosives at the front. I don’t know what is more serious. They are two human lives and have the same value. Alban was a serious, sad, fact because if something we have endeavored since the revolution has been on flip the history of human rights violations in Venezuela. Were activated mechanisms of inquiry and honest chavism… is there a not honest chavismo?
Chavism is an honest force and we are the most interested that there is absolute clarity.
The Prosecutor of the Republic said a few hours after that Alban had committed suicide. How could you know in so little time?
It will have its elements, we should ask ourselves to it. I speak to you of the feeling of chavism.
And as Chavez it seems that the Government has given a satisfactory explanation?
The Government immediately informed and enabled by the Attorney general’s office.
But the investigation was unable to complete in so few hours?
I do not have the legal elements or evidence, but Attorney Tarek William Saab is a renowned human rights defender and I have to trust him because I know his career.
To what did lack a national constituent Assembly as that President Maduro created? Venezuela already had a National Assembly.
They are two figures provided for in the Constitution. In 2017, the country suffered a strategy seeking to bring him to the civil war and in this strategy were occupied two fundamental public authorities: the National Assembly and the Prosecutor’s Office.
Does occupied? The members of the Assembly were elected by Venezuelans.
It was occupied by a trend that was looking for the civil war, by an exclusive, racist and fascist elite used the majority in the Assembly for trying to overthrow the President aside from the Constitution. The constituent was the only constitutional mechanism that was left to rebuild institutions.
Do you have any activity now? Little news of it are.
It fulfilled its fundamental objective of avoiding to take Venezuela to the civil war.
I thought that a constituent Assembly be formed to make a Constitution. Are not you as well?
You can make a timely reform, ratify the current or make a new Constitution. In any case, it would be submitted to referendum.
Again: there will be a new Constitution?
That is a decision which corresponds to the members of the constituent Assembly.
And you, what plans does for the future?
I will do a post graduate and return to teach. I am a University Professor.
In Venezuela?
I’m not going here. I am also sanctioned everywhere, I don’t have many places where to go (laughs).