By Luis Manuel Aguana
It was Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, who put a name to the concern I've highlighted for years in this corner of the internet: the fragility of a government born from the votes of Venezuelans, yet unable to sustain itself over time due to a structural weakness resulting from decades of institutional destruction. And our most evident example in Latin America is Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua. Let's see what he's talking about:
"We not only want free and fair elections, but also a lasting republic. What would threaten a enduring republic in Venezuela would be if someone were elected and inherited an absolute economic and social catastrophe" (see in Spanish, Marco Rubio reveals what Trump and Delcy Rodríguez discussed, in https://www.telemundowashingtondc.com/noticias/eeuu/rubio-dice-que-trump-hablo-con-delcy-rodriguez-sobre-transicion-politica-en-venezuela/2399831/).
And just as the United States is now articulating this—through the voice of its Secretary of State—under the name of an "enduring republic," here in Venezuela we have been shouting it for over a decade, and long before they arrived at that concept:
“And so another government will come, and possibly another, and those who manage what little remains will enrich themselves. And in that context, don't be surprised if those we are removing now return to power again, arguing that they were right because “democracy” didn't fix the mess (who could?). After Nicaragua got rid of the communists with Violeta Chamorro, a few years later, because of a corrupt government of “democracy,” Daniel Ortega returned triumphant” (see in Spanish, Resignation and Constituent Assembly, January 2016, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2016/01/renuncia-y-constituyente.html).
“As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, this “negotiation” will produce another government, and possibly another, and those who manage what little remains will enrich themselves. And sooner rather than later, those we are now removing will return to power, arguing that they were right because “democracy” didn’t fix the mess (who could if the necessary fundamental changes aren’t made?). After Nicaragua got rid of the communists with Violeta Chamorro, a few years later, thanks to a corrupt “democratic” government, Daniel Ortega returned triumphant. If Nicaraguan politicians didn’t change anything, what else could be expected?” (see in Spanish, The Siege of Venezuelan Stalingrad, May 2016, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2016/05/el-sitio-de-stalingrado-venezolano.html).
“We will expel Castro-communism. But that will not resolve the profound institutional destruction in which we find ourselves, and whose solution, impossible in the short to medium term, Venezuelans will demand yesterday. Look at Nicaragua as an example. They got rid of the Sandinistas and put Violeta Chamorro in power without making the structural changes the country required, and the communists, hand in hand with Daniel Ortega, returned to stay. That is why we repeat to the country, like elementary school teachers: “Blowing up the current institutional structure, getting rid of the regime, and remaking the Social Pact in a single, original Constituent Assembly—it's all the same thing, done in a controlled way!” (see in Spanish, Controlled Fall, May 2017, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2017/05/caida-controlada.html)
“One cannot transition from a state run by criminals to one run by a discredited leadership of dubious ethical and moral standing without running the risk of reverting to the previous situation in the short term. If this mistake is made, those who would first benefit from a very likely failure due to corruption in the return to democracy would be precisely those who were ousted from power for that same reason. This was the case in Violeta Chamorro's Nicaragua, with the return of Daniel Ortega to the present day” (see The Transition of the Transition, January 2018, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_90.html).
For years, the same point has been made in different words—illustrating the exact concept Marco Rubio articulated: a durable republic must exist before power can be transferred from those who currently hold it illegitimately. Transferring power before achieving that—as happened with Violeta Chamorro—is a recipe for the country’s institutional suicide.
However, Rubio was right to put a name to a situation with deep implications. Where he errs is in the implementation. One cannot support a tyranny that lacks a constitutional basis for exercising power and expect it to cooperate in its own destruction via the ballot box—especially given that it will certainly not alter the very institutional structure that has kept it in power. That is a complete contradiction.
If the U.S. intends to provide resources and support to this new brand of post-Maduro tyranny led by Delcy Rodríguez—characterized by political prisoners and a muzzled press—based on the argument that economic growth will strengthen the country enough to sustain a future democracy born of the Venezuelan vote, they need only look back at the years of the oil boom. When prices topped $100 a barrel, these same criminals siphoned off the wealth, leaving the country in ruins. What would be different this time?
Delcy Rodríguez’s speech at the UN is invalid—not because of its content, but because of who delivered it. It is the kind of speech the U.S. might expect from a trading partner, but it means nothing to Venezuelans, who know exactly who is speaking: a sinister figure willing to say anything to remain in power at the expense of the Venezuelan people.
The United States is making a bad deal with the figures it chose to support in power in Venezuela. The only way for both Venezuelans and Americans to benefit from a long-term alliance—and to secure the enduring republic we both desire—is to guarantee the fundamental institutional changes the country needs to restore constitutional order; such changes will not come from the "Rodríguez regime," and they know it.
We will continue trying to convince the U.S. that the best path forward for both parties is a transitional government—specifically, a Transitional Governing Junta—to replace the "Rodríguez rule." This body would truly dedicate itself to enacting the minimum technical and institutional changes required to call for free, fair, and verifiable elections as soon as possible, in alignment with the plan intended for Venezuela. That is the only way to avert the legacy of absolute economic and social catastrophe.
Caracas, September 28, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email:
luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario