By Luis Manuel Aguana
This will not be the only or last time I turn to Venezuela's political history to highlight the difficult times we are living through and the fragility of memory, a fragility that those seeking the support of the majority to govern the country should not suffer from.
The phrase "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" is attributed to the Spanish-born American philosopher and writer George Santayana, later slightly modified to "Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it." However, in the Venezuelan case, the situation is almost pathological. It's not just that we have forgotten our history and are condemned to repeat it, but that, despite knowing it well, we deliberately fail to learn from it, even when we know the experience was successful and it is part of our own republican history. And as a consequence, we stubbornly continue stumbling aimlessly, from one mistake to another.
The Venezuelan political context changed drastically after January 3rd, and what was politically valid before that date ceased to be so. However, much of the political leadership, both inside and outside the country, continued their lives “as usual,” acting against the Delcy Rodríguez regime in the same way they had previously acted against Maduro. Astonished, I delved deeper into this fact in an article published the following month (see Political Challenges of a Tutelary Venezuela, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/political-challenges-of-tutelary.html).
And why do I believe it's crucial to warn the public about this mistake? Because Venezuela has lost its guiding lights. The sources of sound judgment and seriousness have gradually dried up. This is not the Venezuela of the late 20th century, where figures like Arturo Uslar Pietri and Ramón J. Velásquez still lived—unparalleled experts and key players in Venezuela's contemporary history—who could appear publicly on nationally broadcast programs to warn against any deviation from the political path being taken. Today, we only have the memory of how they acted. And the best we can do to honor the memory of these intellectual giants is to try to do the same, however small our efforts may seem, because the void they left is enormous.
Faced with the serious question we all ask ourselves of what to do about the current political situation in the country, we are being led without thinking by those who lead the factions, because, according to most, "they know what they're doing," without debate, without discussion. There's only the polarized expression, "If you're not with me, you're against me." Or worse: "If you're not with me, you're with the regime," with no shades of gray, only black and white. And that was the same reasoning of original Chavismo that led to the complete destruction of what was built during Venezuela's last democratic experiment. And that is unacceptable…
On this long road that has led us time and again to propose that the Venezuelan people decide what to do with the country, we have encountered numerous obstacles, but in my opinion, one of the greatest has been the political actors' clinging to pre-established models for solving the country's problems, overlooking the fact that these models no longer fit the changing political context. And one of those models, the main one, is the electoral model.
An electoral solution must be fully contextualized to the political moment. And that is precisely what happened in 1958, after the overthrow of the Marcos Pérez Jiménez dictatorship. The political actors of that time understood their moment and realized that it was not possible to use the electoral framework of the old regime, so they proceeded to create a completely new one. Let's see:
“In Venezuela, in 1958, the Constitutive Act of the government, established on January 23, maintained the previous constitutional regime, that of the 1953 Constitution, with any modifications the Governing Junta might adopt, without convening a Constituent Assembly. This decision was undoubtedly motivated by practical reasons: calling elections for a Constituent Assembly, drafting a Constitution, and then calling elections to establish the new branches of government according to the new Constitution would have entailed a process that could have shattered the very unity they sought to establish, the political truce, and the depersonalization of the debate, perhaps even leading to a maximum inter-party struggle. Therefore, the 1953 constitutional regime remained in effect, despite the opinion that the Governing Junta should have repealed the 1953 Constitution and reinstated the 1947 Constitution, carrying out the entire political process under its provisions. However, this did not happen: as we have noted, The 1953 Constitution remained in effect, and the country proceeded directly to an electoral process, in accordance with the Electoral Law enacted in May of that same year, 1958, by the Governing Junta, for the purpose of electing the President of the Republic and an Assembly-Congress that was to draft the new Constitution. Therefore, the first commitment of the Punto Fijo Pact was the defense of constitutionality, and this was that established in the 1953 Constitution, with the modifications established by the de facto government. (see in Spanish, Allan R. Brewer-Carías, Constitution of 1961, Amendments No. 1 and 2, pp. 14-15, in https://allanbrewercarias.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/47.-CONSTITUC-1961-ENMIENTS-1-y-2.pdf) (highlighted by our).
As will be seen, the path ultimately chosen in 1958 was not to first convene the Constituent Assembly through the Governing Junta, since, according to the fully structured political factors of that time, that path could shatter the fragile unity and truce they were seeking, thus avoiding inter-party conflict. They preferred to let the old 1953 Constitution remain in effect and call for general elections under a new Electoral Statute to elect a new President and a new Assembly-Congress that would draft a new Constitution.
And that path would work exactly the same today if there were well-structured and organized political forces capable of forging a pact of coexistence like the Punto Fijo Pact, given the political stature of the parties that existed in 1958. Those parties have disappeared in the last almost 30 years, becoming empty shells at the service of a tyranny. All the parties, without exception, were corrupted and destroyed by the regime. The population is deeply disappointed with political parties and distrusts the party system as an institution, which must undergo a profound overhaul in a National Constituent Assembly.
The fact that this destruction has resulted in the consolidation of the opposition around a single figure of political leadership does not diminish, but rather reinforces, the need for a paradigm shift. Otherwise, we would be repeating the political phenomenon of Hugo Chávez Frías in 1998, which led to a Constitution under the aegis of a single political faction, ultimately resulting in the 1999 Constitution tailored to the whims of the current strongman.
The political regression of the last almost 30 years has set us back more than a century. Therefore, we conclude that the appropriate path now must be the one that has always been followed in the country: “to call elections for a Constituent Assembly, draft a Constitution, and then call elections to establish the new branches of government in accordance with the new Constitution.”
This is the path most suited to the current situation of the country's political ruin and corresponds to the proposal that ANCO published in its last statement of April 19, with the corresponding variations, which contextualize the current Venezuelan political reality (see in Spanish, ANCO Statement, April 19, 2026). https://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2026/04/comunicado-anco-al-pueblo-venezolano-y.html).
First, and with the help of the country's regent, the United States, the opposition political movement must organize an Extraordinary Popular Consultation so that the people can expressly declare the illegitimacy of the current authorities, who usurped the mandate of Nicolás Maduro Moros, imprisoned by U.S. justice, and simultaneously approve the appointment of a Governing Board to lead a transition. This consultation is guaranteed by the power of popular participation established in the 1999 Constitution.
Second, based on our republican tradition, a Governing Board with a strong technocratic bent should be formed, mandated by the Venezuelan people themselves through the Popular Consultation, and "composed of Venezuelans of recognized capacity and proven expertise in public administration, selected based on their honesty and technical competence, and not according to quotas or partisan or economic commitments," as stated in the ANCO communiqué. This is precisely what should follow Maduro's removal from power by the United States.
In 1958, this extraction was carried out by Armed Forces committed to the country's institutions. However, the US intervention produced the same effects. What happened on January 3, 2026, has, in essence, the same political consequences as what happened on January 23, 1958.
From then on, this Governing Junta must guarantee the same as the one in 1958, with the difference that its mandate would not conclude with general elections, but rather with a constituent assembly initiated by the people. That is, it must establish a new Ad Hoc Electoral Statute, which addresses two things: the technical and operational reorganization of the Electoral Authority to guarantee fair, free, and authentic elections; and the organization of constituent elections as soon as possible, maintaining the 1999 Constitution as the framework for political action until the promulgation of a new Constitution.
If the current opposition leadership persists in the error of participating in an electoral process with what remains of Nicolás Maduro Moros's regime and its existing electoral structures, without first following a path like the one described above, instead of resolving the problem, they will deepen and prolong the suffering of Venezuelans. For the first time, we have the support of a guiding force, a mentor, to guide us along a safe path that guarantees the restoration of constitutional order in the country.
That is why ANCO's message to the international community, and to the United States in particular, given its tutelage over Venezuela, is as follows: “ANCO makes a formal and urgent appeal to the international community, and especially to the United States of America, in its capacity as a power with recognized tutelage over the Venezuelan process since January 3, to deploy all its influence in the relevant spheres so that the Venezuelan people may exercise their popular sovereignty and lead their process of democratic and republican restoration, as outlined.” Perhaps this is the last opportunity to recover common sense and seriousness…
Caracas, April 21, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email:
luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario