Leopoldo López published an op-ed in the New York Times. Of course his targeted audience is the United States, and even more specifically Congress, but in many ways his message inside or outside Venezuela is the same. With both audiences, he makes clear that he has no understanding of why Chavismo came to exist in the first place, which is poverty and inequality. They go unmentioned, which makes the last paragraph a very poor conclusion:
For Venezuelans, a change in leadership can be accomplished entirely within a constitutional and legal framework. We must advocate for human rights; freedom of expression; the right to property, housing, health and education; equality within the judicial system, and, of course, the right of protest. These are not radical goals. They are the basic building blocks of society.
The "basic building blocks" for a majority of Venezuelans, as evidenced in elections and polls, are not those things, or at least not in the sense of "health and education" being lumped together with the right to property. It is safe to say that López's vision of health and education bear little to no resemblance to what poor Venezuelans receive now. It is also safe to say that poor Venezuelans want the state to protect and help them, not simply to establish a framework for market forces.
If you do not recognize these realities, and it's not clear the Venezuelan opposition does, then leadership really cannot be changed to your satisfaction within a constitutional and legal framework because you'll never get the necessary votes. Venezuelans just don't agree with you and won't vote for you.