Considering that no apparent reason has been attached to Leopoldo Lopez detention, people have come out for his defence particularly the many countries that embrace freedom and human rights. From a critical perspective, Leopoldo Lopez deserves his freedom; because the charges are not true. This paper will, therefore, present views that oppose Leopoldo Lopez’s release.
On the flip side of this case, Leopoldo Lopez ought to be detained owing a number of reasons. As perceived by those in favour of his detention, he should remain in detention for having spearheaded protests that have since destabilized the country (Latin Times n.p). In addition to the above, he should be detained because he is using protests to accomplish his political ambitions. Though perceived peaceful, Leopoldo Lopez’s way of presenting his grievances is destructive and for this reason he ought to be detained. The government should use him as an example to those that engage in similar activities that is meant to destabilize the country. In essence, he should be detained at the expense of the country’s peace.
In the modern day, cases where governments use their power to suppress the political ambitions of its citizens have been reported (Weisbrot 15). In essence, those leaders perceived to be resolute and challenging are shortlisted and technically alienated from participating in the country’s politics. In Venezuela, the aforementioned issues are on the rise subsequent to the poorly established political framework. Leopoldo Lopez, who is an opposition leader from Venezuela with other 69 people was detained subsequent to the peaceful protests that Leopoldo Lopez spearheaded in February this year that lasted for a month (Ellner 15). Based on the above Leopoldo Lopez should be released since the claims attached to hi detention are flase and groundless.
Leopoldo Lopez should be released from prison because he was protesting for a good course (Weisbrot 15). He was protesting as a way of voicing out concerns of many citizens that have since been affected by the current political and economic state of the country. Essentially, he was detained with 69 other people who engaged in a month-long protest. Over the state of the economy with the subject issues being the ailing economy of the country, profound political divisions, and the increased rate of violence (International Justice Resource Canter n.p). In essence, this establishes that the Venezuelan government has no consideration for its citizens. A government that does things without involving its citizens is dictatorial and ought to be condemned with the strongest words possible. Considering that Leopoldo Lopez stood up to defend his fellow citizens from the ill economy and destructive government, he deserves his freedom.
Secondly, the response of the Venezuelan government to protest is in itself severe (International Justice Resource Canter n.p). The government’s reaction was executed regardless of the reason attached to the protest. Considering that Leopoldo Lopez was protesting for a good course of the country. By articulating concerns regarding the ailing economy of the country and the increase rates of rights violations. The government could have reacted to protest issues in a courteous way by listening to the grievances and acting to resolve the issues brought to the table. Rather than making arrest that stir more protests and destabilizes the country even more (PanAm Post n.p).
`Thirdly, choosing to detain Leopoldo Lopez intervene his freedom of expression. If indeed Venezuela embraces and holds high esteem on human rights, it will have reacted in a manner that suggest the same and not necessarily detain one for having expressed his opinions. As articulated by International Justice Resources Centre, human freedom allows anyone to express his grievances and opinions through non-violent protests. Irrespective of his political stance, choosing to detain him infringes his freedom, for this reason he deserves to be released. Allowing peaceful protests fosters and promotes the process of dialogue; that will solve issues in the long run.
Fourthly, the arrest is not indisputable since in a more insightful way one will realize that his detention worked to suppress his political ambitions (PanAm Post n.p). The need to repress him politically began in 2008 when he was banned from participating in regional politics by the Comptroller General of the Republic (International Justice Resource Canter n.p). Owing his ambitions and loyalty he did not give up, but rather work hard to make his voices heard. In essence, detaining Leopoldo Lopez on grounds not clearly defined can be perceived to be part of the project that work to repress him politically. Owing this reason, he ought to be set free.
Fifthly, holding Leopoldo Lopez in prison will in effect work to prevent Venezuelan citizens from speaking their minds. It is fundamentally because they will be forced by the fear infringed by their leaders. By allowing citizens to speak out, leaders will be held accountable for their actions (de la Torre 34). In essence, allowing citizens to voice their opinions provide a framework where citizens make their leaders effective and responsive. Considering that this is not the case in Venezuela currently, Leopoldo Lopez ought to be released in the shortest time possible. Lastly, being in prison violates his, rights to a fair trial, and rights to participate in government. Being in prison prevents him from executing his political ambitions and desires as he perceives best. Additionally, the government being a factor in his trial impairs fair trials in regards to Leopoldo Lopez.
In conclusion, it is apparent that the need to set free Leopoldo Lopez surpasses the reasons why he should remain in prison. In essence, Leopoldo Lopez ought to be set free. In order to allow him and other citizens express their views, enable him exercise his rights and finally, and enable him pursue his political ambitions to save his country. In essence, he should be set free since the charges are false and unjustified. The motive behind his detention should be investigated owing the fact that people in the government are there to kill his political ambitions irrespective of the fact that Venezuela is a civilized country. In addition to the above, Venezuela should release Lopez because it will in the aftermath embrace democracy and uphold human rights.
Works Cited
De La Torre, Armando Garcia. "The Ongoing Crisis in Venezuela." Caribbean Journal of
International Relations and Diplomacy 2.1. NewsStand. (2014). NewsStand. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Ellner, Steve. "Venezuela: Opposition causing the violence, not," (2014): 15. NewsStand.
Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
"UN Human Rights Bodies Urge Venezuela to Release Opposition Leader Leopoldo Lopez,
Ensure Protesters Are Not Arbitrarily Detained or Prosecuted." International Justice Resource Center. IJRC, 23 Oct. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
“Venezuela News: Government Refuses to Release Opposition Leader Leopoldo
López After UN Plea” . Latin Times, 12 Oct. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
“Venezuela looks set to lock away prominent opposition leader Leopoldo López”.
The Washington Post, 1 Sep. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
"Obama Calls for Release of Leopoldo Lopez from Political Imprisonment." PanAm Post. PanAm Post, 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Weisbrot, Mark. "Venezuela: United States backs regime change." (2014): 15. NewsStand.
Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
