Lila Vega: “The National Assembly is also for discussing the results of July 28”

Pediatrician Lila Vega is a candidate for the National Assembly with Unión y Cambio from the state of Miranda. Photo: Social media.

Guacamaya, May 22, 2025. Lila Vega is a pediatrician, and on social media, many know her as “the grandmother pediatrician.” In 2000, when then-President Hugo Chávez enacted the controversial Decree 1011 to reform the education system, Lila decided to join other parents and representatives in Caracas to oppose it, becoming part of one of the first citizen movements in opposition to Chavismo.

In the early 2000s, Venezuela entered a period of intense political conflict and social polarization. Events such as the April 11, 2002 coup d’état and the oil strike took place. In that context, Lila remained active as part of organized civil society, focusing especially on health and education issues—two areas she knows well due to her profession and vocation.

More than two decades later, Lila has decided to take a further step and formally enter Venezuelan politics, at a time when a sector of the opposition is calling for abstention and electoral conditions are marked by irregularities. Today, she presents her candidacy for the National Assembly in one of the most opposition-leaning districts in the country, backed by the alliance between the party Un Nuevo Tiempo (UNT) and the movement Unión y Cambio, known by its acronym ÚNICA.

She receives us in her office in the final week of the campaign for the May 25 elections. Since accepting her candidacy, she wakes up early to distribute flyers in different sectors of her district while wearing a Unión y Cambio party shirt.


Question: Lila, you were an important part of one of the first civil society movements that opposed Hugo Chávez in his early years of government. Let’s talk about Decree 1011, promoted by then-President Chávez in 2000, which partially modified the Regulations for the Teaching Profession by creating a new administrative figure: the itinerant supervisors. For people like me, this episode sounds distant because it happened before I was born, but it has been part of the entire Venezuelan conflict, which spans more than two decades. The decree was very controversial and sparked the first strong opposition movement against the measure in 2000 and 2001. You were part of organized civil society at that time. What can you tell younger generations about that? What lessons from that moment do you bring to the current context?

Answer: Decree 1011 happened at the peak of Hugo Chávez’s popularity. Let’s remember that Hugo Chávez won through elections. When he finally chose the electoral path, that’s how Chávez came to power. Chávez attempted a coup in ’92, then called for abstention in Caldera’s elections, and finally decided that the electoral route was the right one—and that was the message Venezuelans bought. By 2000, Chávez’s popularity was significant.

Until things started happening in the educational world that raised alarm bells. The attempted ideological indoctrination through modifications to textbooks. Professor Leonardo Carvajal was key in that because he identified what was happening. And then came the enactment of a decree that opened the doors to the regime’s ideological police in schools: Decree 1011. This decree introduced handpicked supervisors—not chosen for their professional background—who would visit schools and, if they didn’t like what was happening, could remove the principal and “resolve” the problem.

I’m a doctor, and doctors usually have too many commitments with our practice to focus on other things. It’s not common to see activist doctors. I had two daughters, had just taken on debt, they were 10 and 7 years old, and you don’t just say, “What’s going on here?” as a joke. And I believe in civil disobedience, I believe in peaceful resistance. I believe change is achieved effectively and foreshadows what will happen based on the tools of struggle you choose. So, what did we choose? A group of parents, who didn’t even know each other before.

We came together around Decree 1011 and got to work. The first thing we had to do was request the annulment of the decree. And we did. A question they always asked us in the press conferences we organized: “Well, do you really think that Supreme Court, which is bought by Chávez, will rule in your favor? Will they say it’s annulled?” Look, I don’t know, I don’t have a crystal ball. And the truth is, they weren’t wrong: they didn’t annul the decree, but they did correct the president. All the illegal and unconstitutional aspects were removed. That was achieved by collecting signatures. There were just a handful of us in front of the Supreme Court.

Then we held a rally in Plaza Chacaíto on March 31, which brought people from all over the country. That is, via telephone—one of the resources we had—people sent information about their local meetings. This was a sign of activism. There weren’t 10,000 people in Plaza Chacaíto. It was something never before seen in Venezuela. It broke paradigms. And from there, we kept going, and going, and going… until December of that year—in 2001, if I remember correctly—it was annulled, and a new resolution replaced the old one. It was over. We won the first one.

And we won the first one when everyone thought we would lose them all. The fight didn’t end there. That is, we resolved this, but we learned a method of citizen activism. How we can influence, how we can make things change peacefully within the framework of the law, trying to understand each other.

We transitioned into an organization called—because our purpose was Decree 1011—the “Network of Mothers, Fathers, and Representatives,” and we sought to influence educational policies. There was a resolution that was modified, which was the way participation in schools was organized. We, as parents, had structured ourselves since the Education Law of the 80s: it was through parent associations, and we had our way of organizing. The government decided no, that now it had to be through educational councils, without consulting anyone, without following legal procedures. We were a registered organization for that. And they didn’t call us. We went to the Ministry, knocked on the door.

That time, we didn’t win. What did we do? Well, look, how can you turn this method—which seeks to discourage participation—into an effective way to participate?

Then came the issue of eliminating parents’ right to choose the budget. You’re really young, but surely at some point your parents decided the school’s budget. They were given the numbers and told: “Look, this is what needs to be spent here, teacher.” And they said: “Yes, okay, that’s the budget we want to spend.”

And then Aristóbulo Istúriz came and said no, that he would decide, sitting in his office in Altagracia, how much tuition should increase—if there should be any—and what the school’s budget should be.

We objected, and we objected for almost eight or nine years, until finally we got Héctor Rodríguez to issue a resolution that wasn’t perfect but restored parents’ right to decide in the Budget Assembly.

We’ve won many, we’ve lost some, but we keep working, we keep working. I come from that world.

The fights aren’t easy. This has to be worked on. Our action with the Supreme Court was absolutely peaceful, within the law. We didn’t hit anyone, we didn’t yell at anyone, we didn’t insult anyone. We simply presented our arguments. And those on the other side understood us because they were reasonable.

When we achieved the restoration of parents’ rights, we had been fighting for eight years. It had been extremely hard for schools, extremely hard, because they had an executive oversight body telling them: “No, you can’t spend that amount, you have to spend this.” “Hey, but my children have special needs, I need special reading materials, that costs more.” Very, very arbitrary.

The Ministry of Education called us for the consultation on educational quality, led by Soraya Lacchkar, a person I respect enormously. We sat at a table with different sectors. We were heavily criticized for sitting at a table with the Ministry of Education. Can’t the Ministry of Education listen to me when I tell them what we need?

And at that table, in a somewhat more relaxed environment, with representatives from different sectors, was Héctor Rodríguez. And between coffees, we told him: “Look, Minister, don’t you think parents should be able to decide their schools’ budgets?” And the man, who at the time had children in the private education system, must have thought: “Look, it seems so, I want my school to be a certain way, I want to be able to decide that.” And he issued Resolution 114. You can say whatever you want about the economic aspects of the resolution, but the final decision lies with the parents.

So, what I’ve learned is that not all battles are won, but all must be fought.

“We came together around Decree 101. The first thing we had to do was request the annulment of the decree. And we did.”

Q: What motivates you to run for the National Assembly at this moment, when a sector of the opposition is calling for non-participation?

A: Several things. The first is that I don’t come from the political world. That is, I never had any aspiration or expectation of running as a candidate in an election. It wasn’t my idea. I’m in another world.

But, in a casual setting, having lunch with my brother, his wife, my daughter, and her husband, someone said: “There are elections coming up, we’ll have to vote.” My brother jumped: “What do you mean we have to vote?” I said: “Yes, we have to vote. Abstention has never given us anything good.” And my daughter tells me: “Mom, people are afraid. There are no witnesses, maybe not even candidates.”

And I tell her, from the pit of my stomach and because I truly believe it: “Well, if someone proposes it to me, I’ll say yes.”

“Oh, Mom! How can you say that?”

I say: “Sweetheart, if someone proposes it to me, I’ll say yes.”

But there was no one there who had the ability to propose me for any elected position. That is, I had already made that decision when they called me at midnight, the Saturday before Palm Sunday, to ask if I was willing to be a candidate. Of course. I had already made that decision. I didn’t think it would happen, but I had already made it.

“The people who need it most, who are in the most urgent situations, are the ones most willing to vote because they can’t wait. Hopefully, those people will give us their vote and we can reach the National Assembly.”

Q: The NGO Alimenta Solidaridad announced this Thursday the end of its operations in Venezuela after more than nine years fighting malnutrition in vulnerable areas of the country. According to the organization’s figures, by 2023 they had 240 soup kitchens in 13 states of the country. A total of 12,000 children who benefited from the soup kitchens and received daily meals in vulnerable areas will be affected. The organization states this is due to the new Law on Oversight, Regulation, Action, and Financing of NGOs. What is your opinion on the situation, and how do you plan to address this kind of issue from the National Assembly?

A: I believe that precisely because we are in such a complex situation, people will go out to vote. And I reiterate what I told you informally: the people who need it most, who are in the most urgent situations, are the ones most willing to vote because they can’t wait. Hopefully, those people will give us their vote and we can reach the National Assembly.

And from the National Assembly, we have to start working. Also, I’m sure that in the National Assembly, the same thing will happen to us as with Héctor Rodríguez in that Ministry of Education room: if you sit down with someone for coffee, you can’t just call them “green belly” right away. That is, you’re able to connect and be reasonable. I’m sure the other people in the National Assembly also want to see the towns they represent, the cities they represent, the districts they represent, reflected as well.

I have hope. I have hope. I believe we can build a future.

“I believe we have to shake off things that political conflict has planted in us—and it’s been on purpose, deliberate. You achieve control when society is divided, and that’s the government’s agenda: to divide us.”

Lila Vega (far left) appears alongside Giulio Celini (center-right) in the Miranda district of Chacao, Baruta, El Hatillo, and Leoncio Martínez. Photo: Social media.

Q: During the conflict in the Basque Country, the organization Lokarri—which in Basque means “what serves to unite”—was a pacifist social movement focused on supporting a peace process centered on reconciliation, plural agreement, and popular consultation through social mediation and nonviolence. Its actions created a favorable environment for political negotiations between the Spanish government and ETA, and the organization participated as a facilitator in peace efforts. Much of this work was coordinated with sectors of the Basque Parliament through forums and commissions involving civil organizations and lawmakers interested in a peaceful resolution. In that context, I ask you: What role can Venezuelan civil society, from which you come, play in resolving the political conflict and building sustainable peace? What role can the National Assembly and the sectors that may compose it play in such efforts?

A: Without a doubt, there are important examples in the world, and that conflict was particularly harsh. I believe we must shake off the things that political conflict has planted in us—and it’s been on purpose, deliberate. You achieve control when society is divided, and that’s the government’s agenda: to divide us. The government’s agenda is to sow conflict among us so we don’t look at the real adversary but instead fight among ourselves. That’s the reality.

And I believe we need to go vote, to centralize that discourse. We must start sitting down to talk with everyone. That is, what we do on May 25, with the expectation of success, must serve those who didn’t vote and those who voted for other options.

Mariano Herrera reminded me of this in a conversation we had about education. He asked me how I envisioned my role in the National Assembly—what did I think I should do there? And he told me: “Parlay. Talk. We must talk.” When people speak with others and are willing to listen, you can reach an understanding.

I believe that role is fundamental for the National Assembly because, after all, that is its inspiration: in Parliament, we debate, we reach agreements. So yes, I believe we can play a role there in starting to understand each other.

The government’s strategy has been effective in atomizing us, in making us focus on what divides us rather than what unites us, what we have in common. We must start looking at what unites us.

This Unión y Cambio (ÚNICA) platform deserves credit for that because it managed to unite—and it must be said—people with different visions. What do we have in common? What do we want to do together? Well, there are completely different people working together for the same purpose.

I think it’s a good experience.

“I don’t believe all authorities are the same. What I believe is that at all levels of power, there are people who share ethical and professional values. With those people, you can talk. But I also believe that even with those in power who don’t share those values, we must speak.”

Q: Let’s talk about education. The results report from the UCAB’s Online Knowledge Assessment System (SECEL) indicates that students from the last grade of primary school to the last year of high school in the country “lack minimum competencies in vital areas of knowledge, such as mathematics and verbal skills.” What can be done about this situation from the National Assembly?

A: This is an issue that cannot wait. Children have an optimal time to learn certain things, like reading. Because reading is what opens the door to learning other things. That is: you learn to read so you can then read and learn. Learning to read is fundamental, and the later you do it, the harder it becomes.

And this test you mentioned has shown that, indeed, there are major deficiencies. That’s no surprise. People learn the more time they dedicate to it. If you spend two days in school, it’s impossible to know or learn as much as a child who spends five days in school.

And why are our children only going two days instead of five? Because there are no teachers to attend to them due to the miserable salaries they receive. So, look: I love education, but if I work two days, it’s because I have to do whatever else to survive. My day is teaching you and then doing everything else: baking cakes, fixing cars, whatever keeps me afloat.

What must be done is improve teacher salaries and also train them in these basics. Forget big curriculum changes or cutting-edge technology: we need well-paid teachers who are properly trained to teach thinking, reasoning. Advanced math, big physics projects, and everything else will come later. But first comes the foundation.

And that can be done. It’s urgent. And it can be done from the National Assembly.

Q: How do you expect dialogue with the ruling party to unfold, considering your past experiences?

A: I don’t believe all authorities are the same. What I believe is that at all levels of power, there are people who share ethical and professional values. With those people, you can talk. But I also believe that even with those in power who don’t share those values, we must speak. Because perhaps, in that exchange, something can be reached. Sometimes they understand other things, sometimes they listen. And there are issues, like the ones you mentioned that must be debated in the National Assembly, that are matters of right. For example: we must demand that the electoral records be presented. That’s non-negotiable. That must be done. Millions of people participated in an election, and the CNE still hasn’t published the records. That’s unacceptable.

But demanding that doesn’t conflict with talking to others. That’s the CNE’s responsibility, yes, but we must also talk to them, demand from them, argue with them, understand what’s happening. Why haven’t these people in power done what they should have done for years? Maybe they don’t have the tools, or don’t know how, or simply haven’t had the capacity or will to resolve it.

But the first step is to listen. Listening doesn’t mean justifying. Listening is necessary to act intelligently.

There are things that must be resolved. July 28 is one of those key moments. The records must come out. We must press for that. And at the same time, we must start solving the country’s urgent problems, the ones that can’t wait. Because that’s what the people are saying. Those are the people who will vote: the ones with urgent needs, out there waiting for answers. We must speak to them.

“There are things that must be resolved. July 28 is one of those key moments. The records must come out. We must press for that. And at the same time, we must start solving the country’s urgent problems, the ones that can’t wait.”

Q: María Corina Machado has called those participating in these elections, like you, “traitors.” How do you respond to those accusations? On the other hand, some have called for personal sanctions against candidates like you who are running in the May 25 election. Aren’t you afraid they’ll sanction you?

A: Look, I understand this phenomenon well because I come from that world. I’m a pediatrician, I’ve worked on gender issues, I know about bullying. In schools, often, children relate to each other the way abusive men do with women, or like someone who’s been abused: they go home and take out their rage on whoever’s next to them, not the boss who’s mistreating them. Because power is frightening.

In the case of children, if you’re bitter at home, you go to school and take it out on the kid two years younger than you: you beat them up. It’s a natural phenomenon, though that doesn’t make it acceptable. What’s happening is that if they’re now calling for sanctions against us, it’s because they forgot who’s really in power. Or they’re afraid of the government. And since they can’t do anything to the government, they take it out on us.

I deeply regret it. It shows how tangled up we are, how affected we are by this situation. I understand that attitude, but it’s not a good response. It’s a response that only harms. We must look at the real cause of our problems: Maduro and his government. Not us, the ones next to each other trying to fight for a country, to resolve urgent needs, to demand respect for others—even if they’re just two years younger than you.

Candidate Lila Vega gained prominence during the campaign against Decree 1011, which sought to reform the education system. Photo: Social media.

Q: Let’s talk about the constitutional reform proposed by the government. What’s your take on that situation?

A: About the constitutional reform. You’re very young again, but yes. When we lived in the 80s, state governors were appointed by the president. They didn’t respond to the state’s needs or what local people required. It was a citizen who pushed for the reform so we could have direct elections for governors and mayors. That’s when the figure of the elected mayor appeared. We changed our representation system because the people wanted it.

But this reform they’re proposing now doesn’t come from the people. No one on the street is asking for it. No one really knows what it’s about. If we understand the messages the government has sent—and repeated by other spokespeople, like Jorge Rodríguez himself—this is a reform that takes us away from democracy, from direct voting.

We must fight that. And for that, we must also vote.

“What we need here is more unity, more generosity, more courage to speak and act amid difficulty.”

Q: Frederik de Klerk, former South African president and Nobel Peace laureate, a key figure in the transition alongside Nelson Mandela, said in a 2019 interview with El País regarding the Venezuelan conflict: “Venezuela’s leaders need to negotiate without too many preconditions.” He recommended dialogue without excessive conditions to prevent tragedy from becoming catastrophe. Do you think preconditions have been, among other factors, an obstacle to reaching sustainable agreements respected by all?

A: Absolutely yes: we must start talking. Conditions, preconditions, have become a trap. It’s what they tell you to avoid moving forward: “Well, until we have the right conditions to vote, we can’t act.” But gentlemen, these are the conditions we have today. And we must vote. Because this is the only way we have to express ourselves. If we wait for ideal conditions—which, moreover, depend on the other side—we’ll get nowhere.

Preconditions must disappear. What must appear is the will to start talking.

The situation in South Africa was terrible. And yet, everyone who was willing to talk played their part. Even De Klerk, who was a leader of that apartheid regime—and who was no saint, who promoted that discourse and system for years—was capable of sitting down with Mandela, talking to him, negotiating a way out. I’m sure we need something like that. I believe in it.

And it worries me that amid this conversation about elections, there are people calling for sanctions against opposition candidates who are participating. That doesn’t help. It only divides and weakens. What we need here is more unity, more generosity, more courage to speak and act amid difficulty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *