Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza para decir que no en esa época. - I wish I had had more confidence to say no in that period.

It’s stronger and more emotional than a neutral I hope; it often implies that reality was (or is) different from what you want.
It does not change form: it’s always ojalá, regardless of tense or person.
Historically it comes from Arabic inshallah (“God willing”), but in modern Spanish it’s just a normal word for wishes.

So Ojalá hubiera tenido… = I wish I had had… / If only I had had…

Why is there no yo in Ojalá hubiera tenido?

Spanish usually drops subject pronouns because the verb form already shows the subject.

Hubiera tenido can mean I had had or he/she had had, depending on context.
In this sentence, context makes it clear we’re talking about yo (I).

You can say:

Ojalá yo hubiera tenido más confianza…

but adding yo is only for emphasis or contrast (e.g. comparing with someone else). Normally, it’s omitted.

What tense is hubiera tenido, and why is it used here?

Hubiera tenido is the pluperfect (past perfect) subjunctive of tener.

Form:

hubiera (imperfect subjunctive of haber) + tenido (past participle)
→ hubiera tenido

It’s used because:

Ojalá triggers the subjunctive (it expresses a wish, not a fact).
We’re talking about something in the past that did not happen: a regret about a completed past situation.

So:

Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza…
= “I wish I had had more confidence…” (but I didn’t)

This tense clearly marks it as an unreal, hypothetical situation in the past.

What’s the difference between Ojalá hubiera tenido and Ojalá tuviera?

Both use the subjunctive, but they refer to different time frames.

Ojalá tuviera más confianza.
- Imperfect subjunctive.
- Usually refers to a wish about the present or a general state:
  - “I wish I had more confidence (now/in general).”
Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza.
- Pluperfect subjunctive.
- Refers to a wish about a specific past situation that’s already over:
  - “I wish I had had more confidence (back then in that period).”

In your sentence, en esa época (in that time/period) clearly points to the past, so hubiera tenido is the natural choice.

Can I say Ojalá habría tenido más confianza instead of Ojalá hubiera tenido?

No, that sounds wrong to native speakers in this context.

Habría tenido is the conditional perfect (“would have had”).
Hubiera tenido is the pluperfect subjunctive (“had had” in an unreal sense).

Compare:

Si hubiera tenido más confianza, habría dicho que no.
If I had had more confidence, I would have said no.
- hubiera tenido → condition (subjunctive)
- habría dicho → consequence (conditional)

With ojalá, you want the wish form, which is the subjunctive:

Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza ✅
Ojalá habría tenido más confianza ❌ (ungrammatical or at least very odd)

What about hubiese tenido? Is Ojalá hubiese tenido also correct?

Yes, it’s correct and has the same meaning:

Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza…
Ojalá hubiese tenido más confianza…

In modern Spanish:

hubiera and hubiese are normally interchangeable in this kind of sentence.
Some regions or speakers slightly prefer one form, but it’s a matter of style, not meaning.
In Latin America, hubiera is generally more common in everyday speech.

Do I need to say ojalá que or is ojalá alone enough?

Both are possible:

Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza… ✅
Ojalá que hubiera tenido más confianza… ✅

Differences:

Ojalá alone is very common and completely natural in both speech and writing.
Ojalá que also sounds natural, especially in Latin America, and some speakers feel it’s a bit more emphatic or colloquial.

There’s no change in meaning. Use whichever feels more comfortable to you; just remember that ojalá + subjunctive is required.

Why is it para decir and not a conjugated form like para decía?

In Spanish, para expressing purpose is followed by an infinitive, not a conjugated verb:

para decir = to say / in order to say
para estudiar = to study / in order to study
para entender = to understand / in order to understand

So:

más confianza para decir que no
= “more confidence to say no”

Forms like para decía, para digo, etc., are incorrect in this structure. You always use para + infinitive for purpose.

Why is it decir que no instead of just decir no?

In Spanish, the usual way to say “to say no (to something)” is:

decir que no

Examples:

Le dije que no.
I said no to him/her.
No supe decir que no.
I didn’t know how to say no.

You can say decir no, but that usually focuses more on the word no itself (e.g. “to pronounce the word no”), and it sounds less natural in this context.

So:

más confianza para decir que no
is the normal, idiomatic way to express “more confidence to say no (to people / to things).”

Does más confianza here mean “more trust” or “more self-confidence”?

In this sentence, más confianza means more self-confidence, not “more trust in someone else.”

Context clues:

para decir que no suggests difficulty setting boundaries or refusing things.
That fits naturally with lacking confidence in oneself.

If you want to be very explicit about self-confidence, you can say:

Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza en mí mismo / en mí misma para decir que no en esa época.
- en mí mismo (speaker male or generic)
- en mí misma (speaker female)

But without the extra phrase, más confianza is perfectly understood as more self-confidence in this context.

Why en esa época and not en ese momento or entonces?

All are possible, but they have slightly different nuances:

en esa época
- Refers to a longer period of time (a phase, era, stage).
- “in that period / back in those days”
entonces
- Very general; can mean then / at that time.
- Can refer to a moment or a period, depending on context.
en ese momento
- Refers to a specific point in time.
- “at that (exact) moment.”

Your sentence uses en esa época, which suggests:

It wasn’t just one situation, but a whole period of your life when you lacked confidence to say no.

Can I move the phrase en esa época to another place in the sentence?

Yes. Spanish word order is fairly flexible. For example:

Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza para decir que no en esa época.
Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza en esa época para decir que no.
En esa época, ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza para decir que no.

All are grammatically correct. Differences are slight and mostly about emphasis or rhythm:

Putting en esa época at the end is very natural and common.
Moving it earlier can highlight the time period a bit more, but the meaning doesn’t really change.

Would it be more natural to say para poder decir que no instead of para decir que no?

Both are natural and common:

para decir que no
= to say no / in order to say no
para poder decir que no
= to be able to say no / in order to be able to say no

Nuance:

para decir que no focuses directly on the action of saying no.
para poder decir que no adds a sense of ability or capacity.

In practice, they often overlap in meaning. Your original sentence is completely fine as it is, but:

Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza para poder decir que no en esa época.

is also very natural in Latin American Spanish.

How would I say the same thing if I were talking about now instead of the past?

If you’re wishing about your current level of confidence, you’d change the verb:

Ojalá tuviera más confianza para decir que no.
I wish I had more confidence to say no. (now/in general)

Compare:

Ojalá tuviera más confianza… → wish about the present.
Ojalá hubiera tenido más confianza… → regret about the past (as in the original sentence).