Nobel Peace Prize 2025: María Corina Machado

Opposing a dictatorship at great personal risk, being exiled, banned from elections, and still leading a democratic movement isn't "nothing".

I think this prize recognizes her courage and fight for human rights.

Dismissing that as "just being in the opposition" ignores the reality of what it takes to stand up to Maduro's dictatorship.

Moreover, she had been doing that for over 20 years. I am surprised by all her determination, her courage, and her luck to still be alive.

Then the dictatorship can't be as bad as Russia for instance.The opposition dies pretty quickly there. Or fell out of windows.

It’s scary when the reality of the situation settles in, isn’t it?

Scarier when you understand that 20 years is way too long an estimate for this.

Europe is watching.

come on folks, no need to make everything about the US. The situation and evolution of Venezuela is vastly different. There are a lot of parallels, like with any other authoritarian government, and probably lessons the US opposition can learn, but don't equate the two as it overshadows the struggles Venezuelans have endured for 25+ years. Let them have their moment

You think that doesn’t happen in Venezuela?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/fernando-alban...

Wow, ok. Comparing leading the Democratic Party in the US to leading a pro democracy movement under an actual dictatorship is a wild take.

It completely banalizes the risks people like Machado face just for opposing authoritarian power.

Pretending there's any equivalence between the two situations says a lot about your worldview, or lack thereof.

I suppose Venezuela has hope because it is a weak country with nominal US pressure agaisnt the current regime. Russia is self sufficient and has WMD (nuclear)

On top of that, if I am not mistaken, Russia doesn't know what Democracy is. (Yeltsin and Medvedev up for discussion) As a result, for starters, Maduro can't make radical changes in the army.

Ok, I guess we'll see in 20 years (you did read the "20 years" part I hope?) if my assessment is correct. It was maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I don't have any doubts that Trump would like to be an "actual dictator" and is actively testing how far he can expand the limits of his power. Democracy in the US is more established than in other countries that have had authoritarian takeovers in recent years (Hungary, Turkey, Russia etc.), but we'll see if it's resilient enough.

Exactly this. This dismissal itself is a large part of the problem. The audacity, wow.

I'm not saying that she isn't a good politician or that what she is doing is not a step in the right direction. I personally like her. All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize.

That's like giving the Nobel in physics to someone that has worked all their life publishing papers but they all have been refuted and proven wrong.

I don't think "prize" for the merit of being relentless in their fight for publishing physics papers is merited, maybe a different honor, but Peace Nobels should be given to - and i quote -:

"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

if you fight for justice peace and humanity the fight is the thing acomplished.

standing up and risking their lives for the good of humanity merrits more then a nobel price can give!

Can you list which of the recent nobel peace prizes were attributed according to your standards?

They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards. And I do agree Nobel Peace prizes are purely performative, but this one alongside Barack Obama has been one of the most performative ones I can remember.

Not to diminish her valor and heroism. Mad respect. But how is that actually about peace?

A dictatorship can be peaceful, and a democracy can be warlike. Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently as far as I know. Of course people who fight for democracy deserve being praised and supported, but to me it looks odd to do so with a peace prize.

The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Is this the case here?

There is something called "democratic peace theory" which argues that democracies are less likely to attack other democracies, compared to other forms.

So I guess you could also claim that democracy helps maintain peace from that point of view, and a person who successfully proved that a "democratic election" really wasn't democratic at all feels like the right thing to award, as it'll further international peace.

edit: the submission article also talks briefly about how peace and democracy is linked (in their eyes):

> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.

> All I'm saying is that she hasn't accomplished anything meaningful to merit the Nobel prize

I know it's frowned upon, but did you actually read the submission article? They're highlighting exactly why they've chosen her, including what meaningful work she has already done:

> The efforts of the collective opposition, both before and during the election, were innovative and brave, peaceful and democratic. The opposition received international support when its leaders publicised the vote counts that had been collected from the country’s election districts, showing that the opposition had won by a clear margin. But the regime refused to accept the election result, and clung to power.

Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?

> They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards

I think they're older than that, Nobel apparently left a will that included three conditions for what we today call the Nobel Peace Prize:

> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.

https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/full-text-of-alfred-...

> Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?

I think if there are no suitable candidates the award should be skipped. Like it has been skipped many years for the same reasons. This would send a more powerful message about how fucked up the state of the world is rather than giving it to someone just for the sake of it.

Maybe you’d of been satisfied if Dum’old Trump won it?

So the conditions from the will are these:

> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses

Go to her Wikipedia article, do a quick skim/read and then tell me how she doesn't fit with those conditions already?

Why skip the prize when there are individuals that fit the conditions for the prize? Working for democracy and peace in a peaceful and democratic manner shouldn't be rewarded?

> They are not my standards. They are the Nobel Peace committee's standards.

So you're saying that the Nobel Peace committee has not been following their standards? I find this pretty hard to prove... it's like if you were telling me that even if I say that my favourite color is green, it probably isn't because green is not that special a colour.

It was more than tongue in cheek, it is a mix of anxiety and overreaction. None of this is happening except for the far left's mind. I see this constantly on reddit, it's a shame it gets posted here. You are trying to be over dramatic to get your point across and maybe try to get someone to see your viewpoint? It does the exact opposite.

If it is their own standards, then aren’t they implicitly in the better position to make those judgements than you?

A dictatorship cannot be peaceful. Peace is not merely “the absence of international war.” Peace is rooted in individual rights and freedoms.

If you walk around all day on metaphorical eggshells, surrounded by armed people who will beat you, torture you, disappear you, kill you and your family if you say the wrong thing, that is not a peaceful existence!

>Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently, as far as I know.

While the point you're trying to make may or may not be valid, Venezuela is not a good example. Go read up on the Venezuela-Guyana crisis. The Maduro regime has been pushing the region closer to war in recent years. Renewing its claims to Guyanan territory, and preparing its military for war. For now, all out invasion has been prevented partially by significant support for Guyana and pressure against Venezuela from neighbouring countries and the west, and distraction from its own internal problems.

Then I would argue that the current regime is at war with its own population.

That personal risk includes having yourself or loved ones thrown in prison without any contact to the outside world for however long the dictatorship sees fit.

It’s a very sad history of oppression and corruption that has forced many Venezuelans to pull up their roots and risk their lives leaving their own country. It would be a dream come true to see this dictatorship overthrown and replaced by a democratic system of government that serves the people.

Why would they be? They are just regular people who can make mistakes like everyone else. Don’t tell me Obama implicitly deserved it lol.

Is there a civil war with guerrilla warfare? Or do you mean figuratively at war like the war on drugs?

The regime has been constantly committing crimes against the humanity. They created an 8 million people exodus.

They kidnap, torture and kill political prisoners.

Deployed the national guard on the favelas to kill indiscriminately thousands without a fair trial.

You can Google all the UN reports on these matters.

> None of this is happening

I take it you haven't read the news in approximately 6 months?

It sounds like repression —which if extreme enough approaches (civil) war. I’ll give you that but then we’d include Cuba, North Korea and a few other countries as well.

This award gives us hope and recognition as a country struggling to get rid of a dictatorship.

Every Venezuelan that aspires freedom should be proud today.

Every country should be rooting for our situation to be solved. We have way too many people abroad enduring bad situations that would be better back at home with a decent government and democracy restored.

There are people that have WALKED all over the continent to flee, all the way to the US and Canada or Argentina, Chile, etc.

Sure. Now name people who are more deserving of the Nobel peace prize as this woman and explain their accomplishments and why it should make them a better pick. I'll wait.

I don't really understand what you're arguing for or against. That this woman doesn't deserve the prize because there are places worse than Venezuela? What does that have to do with the Nobel peace prize? This isn't a "pick the worst place on earth" contest.

I honestly don't understand any of the complaints in these comments. Is it because she's a woman? Or what? I've not seen anybody make any substantial arguments as to why she shouldn't be eligible.

>As a result, for starters, Maduro can't make radical changes in the army.

So it isn't as bad as Russia. Putin hasn't such boundaries.

huh, overreaction? As an outsider looking in, the US is looking more autocratic and totalitarian every week. I have 0 doubts Trump would like to become a "strong man" a la Putin, if he can.

What makes you think otherwise?

> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace

Op's comment was about how this is not a given. Though tbf I can't recall any "peaceful" dictatorships, while I can recall a few war-happy democracies.

Also, people's tendency to blame the victim. "You did this to yourself, you asked for it" etc.

What is Maria Corina Machado doing is certainly impressive, and worth a reward. That being said.. (based on Wikipedia information about her)

I don't see how wishing a foreign country to militarily overthrow a regime in your country promotes peace.

If we also include democracy to that umbrella, I don't see how support of privatization of natural resources can be considered promotion of democracy.

She's probably not as bad as Milei but.. I would not rule out a similar outcome.

That's moving the goalposts.

I mean sure. Winning a war is also sometimes seemingly necessary to achieve peace. And violence is sometimes seemingly necessary to replace a dictatorship with democracy. In this case, it looks like they're awarding her the prize for her efforts to peacefully oppose dictatorship.

> The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

That's the one-liner from Nobel's will. It obviously leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and historically has often been awarded for civil rights advocacy.

If someone was working to bring elections to North Korea, then they too would deserve a Nobel.