Jorge Barragán is running as the lead candidate in Caracas with the Alianza del Lápiz (Alliance of the Pencil), an independent opposition party. Photo: Guacamaya / Shailee Rondón.
Guacamaya, May 21, 2025. Jorge Barragán is a young activist from the Alianza del Lápiz, emerging from student leadership at the Central University of Venezuela (UCV). We interviewed him at his party’s headquarters in the El Recreo parish of Caracas.
He is running as the lead candidate in the Capital District, with a major opportunity: in 2021, Lápiz became the leading opposition force in Caracas, surpassing the traditional Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD), which had more resources and national recognition.
Born in San Cristóbal, Táchira, he has lived in Caracas since enrolling at UCV at 17. Now a graduate in International Studies, in 2017—like many classmates—he joined that year’s protests as a student leader. In 2019, he witnessed the beginning of Juan Guaidó’s “interim government” up close.
At 27, he is one of the youngest candidates, but he sees this as an advantage. He criticizes his opponents for representing 27 years of failed policies, stating that “this is the only country where politicians’ failures are rewarded, not punished.”
Question: Why vote in Venezuela after July 28? And why run and campaign in this May 25 election
Answer: When a country fights for democracy, the only peaceful way to demand respect for it is through voting. Voting is an expression and a right of Venezuelans. Even though it was violated and abused on July 28, May 25 is about defending that right so it continues to exist in Venezuelans’ lives.
The recovery of democracy doesn’t happen on its own. It comes through people’s mobilization and organization. And the only way to organize and mobilize is through voting. It’s the only tool we have to express the discontent every Venezuelan feels about the current situation, what’s happening.
We’ve seen, in many undemocratic contexts, that the path to democracy has been through voting. Securing that right took a long time in history, many battles were fought. And it hasn’t been lost yet. I was recently speaking with the European Union ambassador. She told me, “You still have the right to vote. That doesn’t exist in many countries. That right is being lost every day.”
Here, we’re fighting for that right. We can’t take it away from ourselves by staying home. Even if the rules are unfair, we still have a playing field—even if it’s tilted, even if the referee isn’t fair or independent, and even if the ball is square. But the field and the game still exist. We’re betting that in this game, a small democratic window will open.
Q: Why is Lápiz running alone? Haven’t you tried building bridges? We recently interviewed Eric Ondarroa, your candidate for Miranda governor, who said he had no interest. But doesn’t this risk handing Maduro a victory by splitting the opposition vote?
A: Look, July 28 also showed that Venezuelans connect with a specific figure. There’s no vote splitting. Venezuelans connect with the best ideas that make them feel represented. They mobilize based on that, based on who they connect with.
This idea that more options and vote dispersion hurt us—we believe Venezuelans don’t buy that anymore. Venezuelans look at the electoral landscape and decide. This is a real opportunity for independents, like Lápiz, to position new national leaders who can win over their region’s hearts.
For example, in Carabobo, we have teacher César Oviol, a new leader for the state. He represents something different from the traditional politicians who’ve dominated Carabobo. In Aragua, we have Gonzalo Díaz, a 31-year-old who can refresh Aragua’s politics—something unseen there in 40 years. We’re betting on renewal because we believe it’s appealing to mobilize Venezuelans disillusioned with traditional politics.
And in Miranda, we’re backing Eric Ondarroa, a young leader who’s done tremendous work there with a fresh message. So, elections are a great chance to refresh political leadership. That’s why Lápiz promotes independent politics.
We’ve had talks with many people, especially before the elections. But now, it’s up to Venezuelans to decide through their votes who truly represents them.
Q: In short, what’s Lápiz’s proposal to stand out as independent?
A: We don’t represent traditional political leaders. We represent new leaders, young people, those not from other parties—people whose first political involvement is with Lápiz, like me. I’m 27, from UCV’s student movement, and Lápiz is my first political affiliation.
We believe education is the foundation for Venezuela to escape poverty and achieve development. We focus on different ideas.
Recently, an interviewer asked me about our differences with an opposition that calls for protests or polarization. We come from a depolarized leadership. For many of us, this is our first election—we’re young professionals who want to bring freshness and renewal to politics. These ideas make us completely different from other electoral options.
Also, we promote—as our president Antonio Ecarri has long advocated—the idea that the only way to development and escaping poverty is education. That makes us completely different and independent from other options.
“We aspire to that: entering the National Assembly to renew the political class, to create a democratic window with a voice that leads to votes, reforms, and eventually power alternation.”
Q: Back to the July 28 presidential election. Why did Lápiz run alone then, especially when polls clearly showed it was between Maduro and María Corina Machado’s backed candidate?
A: Because we believed an election isn’t just about winning. You gain other things beyond the election.
Campaigns let you showcase an idea, a leadership. There’s no better opportunity than using that small window to show Venezuelans the importance of education—that teachers should be the best-paid professionals. If we neglect our education system, we’re facing a crisis of the future and of the nation.
That’s what our campaign was about, led by Antonio Ecarri, promoting the renewal of Venezuela’s political leadership.
The country became polarized, and unfortunately, what we didn’t want happened: an election without political agreements enabling real power alternation.
The political leaders at the time, who had majority support, failed to seek agreements with the government—and the government failed too. The election didn’t resolve the country’s political crisis; it worsened it. After July 28, the country lost.
This was the fault and responsibility of both the government and the opposition leaders in charge then. We didn’t know what would happen—there were rumors some candidates might not make it to election day, so we submitted our candidacy until the last moment.
The campaign was important to promote a different, new leadership like Professor Ecarri and to push ideas that have been left behind. The focus is always on removing the government at all costs, but we’ve stopped worrying about people’s real, everyday problems—especially deep issues like education.
Q: If you become a deputy, you’ll likely be in the minority, both as a Lápiz representative and as part of the opposition. What can you do in the National Assembly?
A: A lot. It’s a window to democracy. A political scientist who studies global democracy talks about how Mexico’s democracy developed—how PAN gained a voice within the system, and that voice eventually turned into votes.
That created institutional openings within the Mexican state, enabling power alternation. We aspire to that: entering the National Assembly to renew the political class, to create a democratic window with a voice that leads to votes, reforms, and eventually power alternation.
We bet on entering the Assembly as a minority but with a strong voice to move and change things within the system. The goal is to achieve political change and alternation—what most Venezuelans want—so policies work. The Assembly is the most important space for that.
Also, the National Assembly is a plural space. But it must represent most Venezuelans’ voices. We want all voices representing the majority to be there, addressing daily issues. That’s our message on the streets.
Today, no one in the Assembly speaks up about wages, pensions, healthcare, or education. No one talks about how much oil sales bring in. If oil belongs to Venezuelans, we should know. There’s no transparency in public funds. These issues must be discussed in the Assembly because public funds concern everyone—that’s what we’ll bring to parliament.
Even as one voice, we can raise these issues and oversee how public resources are used.
Q: You say the National Assembly represents the majority. But if there is 70% or 80% abstention, the majority is not expressing itself, right?
A: There is a democracy deficit. It is a major problem for democracy when, unfortunately, people do not express themselves because they distrust their institutions, they distrust others.
It is the duty of politics to restore people’s trust in institutions and to make them believe their voice must be heard. That is what we are betting on and fighting for.
It is a medium- to long-term path, but a country with a healthy democracy is one where people go out to vote, where people can express themselves freely, and where they feel their expression and vote will matter and serve a purpose. This is an uphill battle, clearly, but we are betting now on having that country.
We envision that country where people can express themselves freely regardless of their ideas or beliefs. I strongly believe in a phrase: “We can be different without being enemies,” right?
We have many differences with the government. We do not share the idea of socialism that has led to 27 years of bad public policies. But our differences are about ideas, right? And we bet that in the National Assembly, despite those differences, you can reach political consensus—because that is what parliament is for.
We bet on moving toward that, on people being able to express themselves. That if today we have 30% participation, tomorrow we have 50%, 60%, 70%. That we truly have a healthy democracy where people can be heard.
“[In 2017] we demanded accountability from the political class that led us to the streets as a tool to achieve change and a solution to the country’s problems. We did not achieve change or a solution to the country’s problems—quite the opposite. The problems worsened. And the main victims were the young people who were sent out as cannon fodder.”
Q: You were a student leader at the Central University of Venezuela. From there, you were part of the toughest protests against the government and then the beginning of Juan Guaidó’s interim government. What lessons do you take from that time?
A: I think there is a very important reflection. It is how proposing an “all or nothing” tactic, a rupture, has led us to failure and people’s frustration.
Not only that, but it has led to Venezuelans being victims of repression, proposing strategies and tactics where our adversary clearly has the force. Unfortunately, I have lost many friends on the streets, they were killed by repression.
So, we demanded accountability from the political class that led us to the streets as a tool to achieve change and a solution to the country’s problems. And none of that happened, we did not achieve change or a solution to the country’s problems—quite the opposite. The problems worsened. And the main victims were the young people who put our chests out as cannon fodder.
The political leaders did not account to the country for why that tactic did not work and instead had more costs. They undoubtedly knew what we were up against.
So, I began studying processes of change in these contexts. I understood that rupture is not the solution, because what we aspire to is power alternation. To achieve peaceful power alternation, transition mechanisms must be built, and that starts with dialogue, with politics functioning, and with institutions starting to work.
The only alternative we have left is politics, dialogue, and voting. Because voting is the main tool of any democrat. If we truly want to build democracy and not resemble our adversary, we must be completely different from them, right?
We must not propose confrontation scenarios where we know the vast majority will lose. And those who truly want democracy will lose, because those who do not want democracy have the capacity and force to impose themselves. We must be smarter in these contexts.
That is why I believe that was the greatest lesson from university. That sometimes, because you are young, some politicians take advantage to propose completely wrong tactics that are not the way forward—quite the opposite. They only worsen the problem.
I believe UCV and student leadership were a great school to understand many things, to understand how the Venezuelan political model and system work, which has brought us to this point.
We believe that to change things in the system, we must get inside and make reforms from within. Because we understand it is the least traumatic way and historically has yielded the most results in many parts of the world. Even in Venezuela itself, to achieve the change that is the main desire of the vast majority of Venezuelans.
Q: Why is someone from Táchira, an Andean state, running to represent Caracas?
A: Well, because Tachirenses do well in politics when they reach the capital. I joke that the best presidents have been Andeans, always Tachirenses. They arrive in the capital, thrive, and never leave.
Personally, I’m adopted by this city. I came at 17, studied at UCV, and graduated in International Studies. Nothing is more Caracas than UCV. This city opened its doors to me, and I’m in love with it. I want to give back by dedicating myself to public service and politics. That’s why I’m running here.
My only affiliation has been Lápiz—I’ve been with this movement for eight years, with deep conviction. Many young people switch parties for political gain, but I’ve stayed true to my beliefs. Politics should be about ideas, not opportunism.
I’m a member of this beautiful party, the leading opposition force in Caracas. As a young Tachirense who’s lived here for years, I aim to represent all Caracas residents in the National Assembly—to refresh the political class and make a difference.
“Nicolás Maduro Guerra sells himself as new, but he’s been in the Assembly for five years. Their slogan is ‘people who solve problems,’ yet in five years, he hasn’t proposed a single law addressing people’s immediate problems.”
Q: What’s your message to your opponents in the Assembly? On one side, Chúo Torrealba, with 20 years of experience and his program “El Radar de los Barrios.” On the other, Nicolás Maduro Guerra, the president’s son, also long in politics. Then there’s you—without their experience or recognition.
A: I often say I’m competing with the 2015 and 2020 National Assemblies. Neither worked for the country or the youth.
Chúo Torrealba was the opposition’s political chief in 2015. I was 17 then; now I’m 27. Too much has happened in this country to keep trusting the same people.
They sell their “resistance” as a path to victory, but no—their many failures in politics will only lead to more. This is the only country where politicians’ failures are rewarded, not punished.
In other countries, like Spain, politicians step aside after electoral failures. But in Venezuela, traditional opposition leaders haven’t—and they should have long ago.
As for Nicolás Maduro Guerra, he sells himself as new, but he’s been in the Assembly for five years. Their slogan is “people who solve problems,” yet in five years, he hasn’t proposed a single law addressing people’s immediate problems.
Take the Exclusive Economic Zones law—he was its main promoter. It hasn’t brought needed investments or jobs for Caracas’ working-class youth. It’s outdated policy.
The law tells companies they’ll get tax refunds after five years of payments. But no one believes that—there’s institutional distrust. To attract investment, we should exempt those taxes so capital brings jobs and opportunities.
That law needs reform—it hasn’t met its goals. But reformed, it could succeed and bring major investments.
We don’t know Maduro Guerra’s ideas on private property or youth employment. He uses family ties to gain electoral advantage, but that’s not the Assembly’s role. How can he, as a deputy, oversee the executive with those family ties?
How can he ensure public funds solve water, healthcare, and education problems—not turn a blind eye? The Assembly must check the executive. How can someone in his position truly be a counterweight?
