Caracas Chronicles

Editor’s note: We are at a historical moment in which much of the mainstream discussion about Venezuela centers on two extremes: countering MAGA narratives, often riddled with lies and half-truths, and warning about the dangers of military intervention; or, conversely, leaning into the idea that the US will not back down from Maduro & Co., and that military intervention is imminent. Writing in absolutes and taking the words of figures like Diosdado Cabello, Stephen Miller, or even María Corina Machado at face value—within a context where they are in constant dialogue with allies and supporters—can seriously mislead audiences. Especially when framed as professional analysis. Which is not the same as opinion (as a former lady editor of this prestigious blog used to say: opinions are like assholes, everybody has one). And that’s fine. We have nothing against opinion, these pages are riddled with it.

But, again, professional analysis is something different, which is why the writing in our Political Risk Report doesn’t look at all like what we post on the webpage. Some actors posing as serious analysts and rational players are, of course, capable of generating strong headlines and plenty of material for meaty feature stories. But now, more than ever, focus should be on avoiding simplistic narratives and to bridge political discourse with on-the-ground realities, voices, and data obscured by chavismo’s censorship regime. Intelligence analyst Daniel Blanco here offers advice on how to help you identify (and/or write) credible analysis.

1) Don’t play into politics, stick to facts

Your role as an analyst, whether you are a political consultant advising a senior leader or an economic analyst with corporate clients, is to provide informed judgments to your consumers to support decision-making. It does not matter if the assumptions presented are an ugly truth; they need to be as accurate as possible. Shaping ugly truths into pleasing narratives to score points with political factions or escalate positions as a pleasing analyst can lead to policy failures or operational setbacks. Furthermore, such behaviour may end up damaging trust between analysts and consumers, as well as weakening the public credibility of your persona.  

2) Use estimative language to communicate nuance

Estimative language—using terms like likely, probable, possible, or unlikely—signals that your conclusions are based on judgments under uncertainty and prevents giving the false impression that you have absolute certainty. Consumers often come from non-technical backgrounds and may interpret analytical conclusions as statements of guarantees. Communicating the likelihood and percentages of different outcomes allows your consumers (including readers from the public in some cases) to understand that you are not presenting a black-and-white fact.

3) Keep up with the domestic context 

Context refers to the broad framework within which a foreign decision-maker operates, or within which an event or process unfolds. It is both temporal and spatial in nature. Venezuela, in particular, has a context dynamic that shifts constantly, variables that could act as an indicator yesterday could be a nothingburger tomorrow. Keeping up with the context can be the difference between interpreting data as a critical bullet point or an outdated pattern. Take for example, the power outages or connectivity blackouts that some junior analysts assessed as a major alert, while in reality, it is a common occurrence in Venezuela over the last seven years. 

4) Never assume actors are rational or cohesive 

Venezuelan actors are not always rational, and this includes decision makers in the government and the opposition. Some may act based on emotion or ideology, while others could throw personal ambition into their calculations. Assuming rationality may cause analysts to overlook actions that appear illogical but are nonetheless likely or meaningful within the actor’s perspective. Second, any organisation of human beings will produce factions. Before you assess the statement of a single actor as the current intent of a whole side, you need to take into account whether it represents a faction’s interest or if it’s part of a wider trend. 

5) Human contacts will always beat open source

Don’t get me wrong on this one, publicly available information can help you collect observable patterns or supporting evidence, but will only get you so far once you get knee-deep in assessing intentions. Venezuela runs heavily on informal power structures that are not visible on social media or tracking applications. Additionally, the civilian population, from community leaders to corporate figures, do not express their opinions or knowledge in public space due to the increasing internal repression. Developing ground contacts in different organisations is critical to collect and process information that will never be open to the public. 

6) Never stop challenging your local sources 

Speaking from experience, sources can have motives that shape their reporting. They may exaggerate their access level or withhold critical information for a variety of reasons that can range from pursuing personal agendas to avoiding political conflicts. Your responsibility to the consumer is to ensure that firsthand observation is distinguished from hearsay or speculation. Also, you need to clarify the collection method. Ask your source if they heard this in a meeting or if it is indirect information coming from a family member or a party friend. This needs to be presented in the most honest way possible in the body of your analysis.

7) Write disclaimers/statements on your analysis

Writing a statement of analysis forces the analyst to evaluate the quality of sources and identify analytical uncertainties. Often, we have to make calls on incomplete information, and the whole purpose of a statement on analysis is to let the report consumer know that there are some potholes along the road and things may turn out differently. Communicating your own level of confidence (low-medium-high) on a written report may be the difference between your decision maker acting with caution, knowing that we don’t have as much information as we like, or committing to a decision that will become a failure down the road.