There is no better way to evaluate a situation, whatever it may be, than by reviewing what has happened before in Venezuela, trying to find a pattern that systematically occurs within a framework of events, in order to at least decide what to do in the face of a completely new and unprecedented one. The only referential thread present for this case has been the very behavior of the Venezuelan people.
In none of the years of the twentieth century and those that have elapsed in the twenty-first century since elections have taken place in this country, has what is happening in Venezuela occurred. An opposition presidential campaign directed and carried out, not by the official opposition candidate, but by the one who should have been, because the regime in power arbitrarily prevented it, provoking a natural state of exaltation of the people against those in power.
The Venezuelan people throughout the country have unusually taken to the streets of the country to support the peaceful and electoral exit of those who rule Venezuela, channeled through the almost mystical and unique leadership of María Corina Machado (MCM). What is happening in Venezuela is not an electoral campaign, it is a crusade that, applied in a peaceful manner, can only have one result: the displacement from power of those who have destroyed our country.
But that will not be that simple, nor is it being fully understood by those who still, after all that has happened in Venezuela, refuse to admit that we are in a tyranny. Surprisingly, it is thought that the forces against the change of power will only step aside because we have, in practice, in the candidacy of Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia (EGU) and the leadership of MCM, more votes than the candidate of the regime, Nicolas Maduro Moros. Nothing could be further from reality. That would reduce this problem to an incomprehensible electoral simplism at this point in time in Venezuela.
El régimen tiene 20 años refinando en cada elección un fraude multifactorial, no solo para evitar a discreción que la oposición gane elecciones en Venezuela, sino que se garantiza que las cuentas cuadren al final de cada elección a través de un sofisticado mecanismo tecnológico protegido por una legislación electoral inconstitucional. Aunque tengamos los testigos, el régimen deja solo contar, o “verificar” como lo llaman en su ley electoral, un máximo del 54% de los votos emitidos en cada elección para contrastarlos con el resultado de sus máquinas. El resultado del 46% restante queda cerrado y bajo el control electrónico del régimen. Ese 46% de votos puede y se ha volteado electrónicamente a voluntad a favor de quien controla las máquinas y los resultados, al no poder verificarse por ley a la vista de todo el mundo, y siempre cuadrarán con la totalización.
That is why this trap was invented in 2004 by changing the manual system of counting all Venezuelan votes, giving the machines the ability to "count" them by law, without the opposition ever opposing this aberration. The denunciations of Commissioner Iván Simonovis and commented in my last note (see Necessary accomplices, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/necessary-accomplices.html) corroborated years of public denunciations made by qualified professionals, showing technical and statistical indications that demonstrated that changes had occurred in the CNE's electoral results, produced by the machines of the "best electoral system in the world". And why change the system with so much technology? Precisely so that no one can question the published results of each election, thus avoiding legally counting all the votes of Venezuelans.
How can we prevent the regime from doing to us now what it has been doing for 20 years? The answer is that it can no longer be avoided. The only way is to go beyond that illegitimate electoral legislation that tramples on the Popular Sovereignty, which grants the CNE, through its electoral regulations, the power to prohibit Venezuelans from counting all the votes cast during an election. The way to combat this is by not accepting any result that does not correspond to what we are seeing in the streets of Venezuela, thus forming a civic-electoral rebellion to demand that each and every one of the votes cast in all the polling stations of the country be counted.
In effect, Article 439 of the Regulations of the Organic Law of Electoral Processes establishes that "The National Electoral Council shall determine by resolution the number of Polling Stations that will be subject to Citizen Verification for each electoral process". And I ask myself, is the CNE above the Venezuelan people, legitimate owner of the Popular Sovereignty and owner of those votes? Constitutional Article 5 states: "Sovereignty resides non-transferably in the people who exercise it directly in the manner provided for in this constitution and the law...". And we have not ceded that sovereignty to the CNE through a third level regulation.
Lo anterior es corroborado por el Magistrado Rommel Gil, ex Presidente de la Sala Electoral del TSJ en el exilio, quien en el Capítulo 8 de la serie "Venezuela Elecciones y Apartheid", de la periodista Maibort Petit, sugirió a los venezolanos aplicar lo siguiente el 28J:
"Make a copy of Article 5 of the Constitution. If you see that in any of the tables where one tendency inevitably wins and they are giving the profit to another, ask them to open all the boxes. Article 5 protects you over any law, moreover, rigged by them. Ask for that direct control of all those votes with the authority given by Article 5 of the Constitution where sovereignty resides in the Venezuelan people..." (see in Spanish statements by Magistrate Rommel Gil, El Gran Acuerdo, Maduro vs. the Venezuelans, in https://youtu.be/CRelEZQdf28?t=1123, min 18:44).
If the regime decides to change the results that we already perceive throughout Venezuela, in favor of the option represented by MCM and the candidate EGU, we will most probably find ourselves in front of a popular rebellion. But this would not be the first time that Venezuelans rebel peacefully against a situation that we consider harmful to our interests and the Constitution.
Without detriment to the fact that what happened on April 11, 2002 was later considered by some as a coup d'état, in the words of the late historian Jorge Olavarría, what initially happened that day was a popular rebellion:
"In the first place, I believe that it was a popular rebellion, which was created with great pressure, which basically started with the PDVSA management strike, which grew and became more radical, and the positions became more radical until the general strike announced by the CTV, as a sort of pressure measure for the government, for what? For Chávez to resign! Let us not fool ourselves, that was what the people were asking for: He is leaving! He is leaving! He is leaving! Resign, resign, resign! That is not a coup d'état! That is not an uprising! That is not an instigation for an uprising. That is the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. And the resignation is one of the ways of definitive absence of the President of the Republic, according to the Constitution in force..." (see in Spanish Olavarría y el 11 de abril, Pastillas de Memoria, Interview by José Israel González to Jorge Olavarría, Historia Viva, in https://youtu.be/68JadxKJMzQ?t=268).
My interpretation of this thesis, in this case, is that a civic-electoral rebellion, such as the one raised in the face of a fraudulent theft of the elections of July 28, would exercise a constitutionally protected right established in Article 5 of the Constitution, as occurred on April 11, 2002. And, of course, it would not be exempt from any pronouncement subsequently made by the Armed Forces, protecting precisely those rights, and accompanying the Venezuelan people to verify whether the result issued by the CNE corresponds to all the votes cast by Venezuelans. That would be protecting the right of the owner of the Sovereignty to Authentic Elections, avoiding the loss of lives and preserving the peace and tranquility of the Nation.
But in addition to all of the above, there is historically the right to rebellion: "The right to rebellion, like the right to legitimate self-defense, can be exercised when a series of serious events, fully proven, constitute a state of imminent and extreme danger for the preservation of freedom, life and property of citizens. This becomes an inevitable path when the citizens are in a state of defenselessness because the aggressions to their most sacred rights -life, liberty and property- come by omission to fulfill their constitutional function, of those who should protect them and thus become accomplices or co-authors of the aggression..." (see in Spanish Jorge Olavarría, El derecho a la rebelión, Jorge Olavarría, February 19, 2002, at https://goo.su/CUV7).
Any resemblance to the current reality is NOT pure coincidence. On July 28, the people will find themselves facing the dangers mentioned therein and the only thing they can count on to defend themselves against a power that surpasses them is a civic-electoral rebellion against any result that does not correspond to the reality that we have all perceived in the streets of Venezuela. And if those who should protect the electoral rights of citizens violate them and become accomplices and co-authors of this aggression, Venezuelans must close ranks peacefully, as on April 11, 2002, to demand that Popular Sovereignty be counted, exercising our constitutional right to political participation. No one can deny us the right to rebel that was born from our founders, on a day like today, July 5, 1811. That is the essence of our nationality…
Caracas, July 5, 2024
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario