Note summary image courtesy of AI Google Gemini
By Luis Manuel Aguana
First of
all, a preliminary clarification so that you do not draw the wrong conclusions
regarding this note: over the years of this unequal struggle, I believe I have
put on record in writing my deepest wish that the Venezuelan tragedy of the
Castro-Chavist-Madurist regime will end as soon as possible -and by the most
expeditious way- so that Venezuelans may resume our life as we once knew it, of
political tolerance, to begin to rebuild the country.
And really, after so many years, I do not know if that is possible anymore. Too many improbable things have happened in the country that point to the panorama changing from one moment to the next, in spite of any favorable prognosis. That has been the experience that all Venezuelans have lived, and that is the reason why no one here is fooled in this.
We lived close moments to put an end to the regime, which I am not going to remember now, but which everyone knows, where with the help -by action, omission or clumsiness- of the opposition, the regime took advantage to screw itself to this day. Those moments caused deaths, persecutions and imprisonments that are still an open and bleeding wound that causes a lot of rage and pain in the families and comrades in struggle of each of its protagonists.
That is the best context where any narrative, message, or promising speech from ANY political leader that points to the fact that this will be over tomorrow, even without saying in what way or how it will be, is positively positioned in people's minds, awakening anyone's hope.
And when someone asks, and on what do they base such hope? That is, beyond the discourse and the measures that are being taken outside the country against the misrule of the regime and its main protagonists. The answer given, words more words, words less, is that “the regime is breaking down and that very soon, the US and internal forces of the country”, in view of the fact that “Maduro is no longer President, but the head of the Cartel of the Suns”, will bring about the fall of the regime, thus returning democracy and freedom to Venezuela. Consequently, what we have to do here is to prepare ourselves to wait for that eventuality.
Unfortunately, I am skeptical of this discourse and, according to the opposing media river, one of the few who do not buy it. However, let's hope so! Any Venezuelan, including myself, would like that to happen. But experience, the years, the little or much I have come to know about Venezuelan politics and politicians, indicate to me that this is nothing more than an aspiration and good wishes of those who now lead the Venezuelan opposition, perhaps based on external promises that may change overnight, just as the mood of the current President of the United States changes. That is how fragile is the promise that the opposition command is clinging to today, generating this expectation in Venezuelans.
And, be careful, this is not pessimism. It is the constant monitoring of the Venezuelan political situation that indicates that although the US now formally considers the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros as terrorist and its members as heads of the Cartel of the Suns, they still respect the forms and negotiate with them when they consider it convenient, as they did in the case of the exchange of prisoners and the restarting of Chevron's oil operations in Venezuela.
But even though those negotiations occurred before the formal declaration of Maduro and his gang as terrorists, clearly the Trump administration was aware of the Venezuelan regime's condition. So why negotiate with them if there is a plan to get out of the regime in the very short term and there will be a new democratic government respectful of the laws? Think about it...
So, based on this assessment of the political moment, I come again to the regrettable conclusion, already expressed in previous notes, that nobody will come to “rescue” us. That is something we have to do ourselves, even though some may find the option of having to “wet our tails to eat cachama”, as they say in Guayana, unpleasant.
But at this point it is inevitable to have to choose the way we want to solve the problem, whether peacefully or violently. Many have said that we cannot do it violently because we do not have the force of arms of the regime, and that is true. Although there have always been military formulas to resolve this disparity of forces, as demonstrated for example by Vietnam, Cyprus, India and Israel at times in their history when they fought and emerged victorious forces at a supposed disadvantage, I am convinced that it is always possible to reach agreements in peace, because the violent option is much more costly for everyone.
Having said the above, I must make a comment on the call to clandestinity made by the opposition leadership. There is no such thing as a peaceful clandestine struggle. If someone goes underground, it is because he expects violence of some nature from those who persecute him. And, in general, the intention is to strike back by resisting, because otherwise, it would not make any sense because the blows would come only from the side of the one who persecutes. And it is not that this is not a valid way to fight against a regime that has persecuted, tortured and murdered people. But the mere decision to do so implies that the struggle ceased to be peaceful and is governed by the rules that this path generates.
It means then that the door to a peaceful solution of the conflict is closed and the strategies will have to be directed to do at least the same damage that the regime has generated, with the consequent consequences, which will not only have repercussions on those who initiated it but also on the rest of the population. This conflict has no established time frame and is only sustainable if the population as a whole so desires.
Internal violence implies changing the perception of security in the country, not only that of the regime, but that of the entire population. That is what it means to enter into a maelstrom of destructive violence. It implies a degree of material destruction in the country that is impossible to quantify, without counting the human losses. That is what happens when a conflict starts, because one side irremediably drives the other towards it.
Violence has no way back, both for the people who undertake it and for the country, and it has, as in the cases mentioned in history, no guarantee of success, nor time to achieve it. In all cases, we must always give peace a chance until the last moment, even if it is remote, but we must propose a clear process to reach it before the conflict becomes inevitable. Because that is what the regime is pushing us to by trying to change with an un-Constitutional Reform the rules of the game that we gave ourselves since the first half of the last century.
By proposing to the country a negotiation between the parties in conflict, with the intermediation of the International Community, where the positions of each party are not discussed but the terms of a Call of the people so that it is the owner of the sovereignty who decides what to do with the country, in a National Constituent Assembly, as it is perfectly foreseen in the Constitution, this Assembly would be acting as the CAUSE that would resolve the conflict peacefully between the parties, who should commit to respect the verdict of the people. This is what we at ANCO call Constituent Negotiation.
This negotiation defines how the impartiality of the electoral mechanism to be applied for the election of Constituents would be achieved, as well as the terms of the people's convocation, and a peaceful transition to an intermediate government until the convocation of new elections after the elaboration of a new Social Pact.
It is clear that in a negotiation the parties give in until they reach agreements. And you may ask me, why would the regime be interested in negotiating such a proposal? Because they are not homogeneous. There are those who wish to live in peace despite what they have done. There are those who wish to continue doing politics after the change in the state of affairs. There are those who also wish to live together in Venezuela without the need to flee. These are the forces that must be summoned, and that would join this initiative so that those who are radicalized agree to a negotiated solution.
But on the opposition side there are many who would say: We do not negotiate with terrorists! And on this side we would have to think very carefully about this argument, because, imagine the terms that Henry Kissinger reached with the communists to end the Vietnam War, which at the time could well be classified as terrorists, starting with swallowing the thousands of American dead from that war and evicting the territory. Or the same U.S. negotiating until yesterday with the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros.
Should we Venezuelans wait for violence to negotiate the political conflict in the country? Or that after they modify the Constitution, to the point of creating the Cuban Communal State, many decide that they do not agree and start a conflict following the violent recipe used by other countries in the last century? That is in the range of possibilities of what could happen if the strategy is to wait for a miracle from abroad.
On the other hand, the so-called Constituent Assembly is being considered as a CONSEQUENCE of the outcome of the regime. In other words, there are those who think that it is evident that it is necessary to rebuild the State in ruins left by the regime after its fall, so we will necessarily have to call the Constituent to rebuild it. This idea is based on the premise of waiting for the regime to fall on its own or in any way, especially in the presence of the immediate offer of the opposition leadership. It is mandatory to remember that the Cuban people have been waiting for 66 years for that. Remember this historical truth: nothing happens if it is not provoked.
The opposition leadership, new and old, has been reluctant to summon the owner of sovereignty because they assume that many would disappear -and rightly so- from the Venezuelan political map in such Constituent Assembly, due to their betrayal of democratic values in their complicity with the regime. Then, should the interests of the politicians or those of the citizens prevail? Draw your own conclusions.
Which of the two proposals would you sign up for: a constituent assembly as a CAUSE, or one as a CONSEQUENCE? Would you be an active or a passive factor in all this plot to achieve a change in the country? And it is not that you are against the Constituent process itself, but whether or not you are in favor of using it as a tool to mobilize the country and generate a change in what is happening. Think it through. Your decision may be the difference between peace and violence, or between freedom and tyranny...
Caracas, August 4, 2025
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario