By Luis Manuel Aguana
The article by Venezuelan historian Jorge Olavarría and the accompanying Historical Memoir, entitled “The Right to Rebellion”, published a few days after the events of April 11, 2002, could be considered a conceptual guide for any forced change of government written especially for Venezuela, taking into account the turbulent political history of our country (see in Spanish, Jorge Olavarría, El derecho a la rebelión, 19 de febrero de 2002, in https://tinyurl.com/32vm9uas)
Olavarría takes as his frame of reference the Organic Decree of El Libertador of 1828, which followed the failure of the Convention of Ocaña—which was essentially a Constituent Convention—to establish a new Constitution for Gran Colombia.
This Organic Decree of El Libertador, also known as the Organic Decree of the Dictatorship of Bolívar, gave the Liberator full powers to govern Gran Colombia until the convening of the national representation, formed in a Constituent Congress on January 2, 1830, as mandated in the last article of the decree (see in Spanish, Decreto Orgánico del Libertador de 27 de agosto de 1828, por medio del cual asume el Poder Supremo, in https://tinyurl.com/44r2k92y).
Once the Constituent Assembly was installed on January 20, 1830, as the Admirable Congress, under the presidency of Antonio José de Sucre, El Libertador handed over power to the Constituent Congress on April 27, 1830, thus ending Bolívar's dictatorship (see in Spanish, UNEFA, La dictadura de Bolívar, en http://catedrab-unefa.blogspot.com/2012/01/la-dictadura-de-bolivar.html).
Olavarría's historical sequence is accurate: “A comparison of the Organic Decree of 1828 with the model of constitutive acts of the de facto governments in our history, of which Joaquín Crespo's Decree of ”Reorganization of the Republic" of October 1892 is the archetype, illustrates what I mean. In 1892, Crespo decreed that all laws and decrees would remain in force “as long as they did not oppose the principles and aims of the revolution.” And he ‘guaranteed’ individual, civil, and political rights “as long as they were compatible with the aims of the revolution.” Castro did the same in 1899, Gómez in 1914, the Revolutionary Government Junta in 1945, and the Military Junta and the Military High Command in 1948, 1950, 1952, and 1958. It would be desirable for the government that must be formed after the necessary overthrow of Hugo Chávez to learn the lessons of our history and to see in Bolívar's admirable Organic Decree of 1828 a precedent worthy of consideration”.
No one could deny that we could find ourselves on the brink of such a situation, which has occurred every time in history since 1892, just after a de facto change of government. More than a century of coups d'état should have taught the institutions that generally end up being involved in such events a lesson, so that social peace in the Republic can be restored.
The opinions of international experts with a certain degree of seriousness and credibility suggest that the US and its president will not initiate armed intervention in our country, and all agree that their fundamental intention is to take action to ensure that those sought by their judicial authorities as leaders of a narco-terrorist cartel relinquish power in Venezuela. To this end, I invite you to review the international analyses of the Eurasia Group (see GZERO, Riley Callagan, Is Trump aiming for regime change in Venezuela? 10-29-2025, in https://www.gzeromedia.com/news/analysis/is-trump-aiming-for-regime-change-in-venezuela), Elliott Abrams y R. Evan Ellis (see in Spanish, Oppenheimer Presenta, ¿PROPONDRÁ TRUMP UN “CAMBIO DE RÉGIMEN” EN VENEZUELA?, in https://youtu.be/Rh0aOLaGMmQ?si=YlZaUP7sdH8Gzasb).
The dual status of those indicted by the US authorities, as leaders of a drug cartel and at the same time as de facto rulers of a country, has complicated the situation immensely. It is impossible to exert pressure to resolve a criminal problem without causing another problem of a political nature. That is why I have always been amazed by opinions that suggest we only have a criminal problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.
For the purposes of this analysis, I will not refer to whatever outcome the US decides upon to resolve the situation it has provoked with the presence of its armed fleet in the vicinity of Venezuela's maritime space. What I do think is important to point out is the political situation that would unfold in the event of a sudden absence of the country's current rulers.
It is not so simple to assume that, after an abrupt absence from power of those who currently hold it, things will flow smoothly from that moment on, as most people imagine. The least that would happen would be what Risa Grais-Targow, an expert on Latin America at the Eurasia Group, mentions: “Grais-Targow cautions that any post-Maduro transition would be “chaotic.” “The ruling party and armed forces control all relevant institutions,” she says, “and any eventual competitive elections or handover of power would require difficult negotiations around power-sharing, along with economic and amnesty guarantees” (the aforementioned analysis by Eurasia Group).
Now, what the US hopes to achieve after announcing the CIA's “on-the-ground” operations in Venezuela, and the opinions expressed by Abrams and Ellis in the interview with Oppenheimer, is to bring about the fall of the regime through pressure that undermines its support base. “Maduro is going to fall, do you want to fall with him?” That would be the message directed at those who support the regime, as Abrams, a diplomat with extensive experience with Venezuela, rightly pointed out.
But the development of this strategy is slow, which explains why it has taken so long for what everyone believes should happen immediately, despite the military and political pressure exerted from abroad by the US. And it is clear that this does not require armed ships off our coasts, if what they really want now is for the regime to implode due to internal betrayals, in order to avoid a military presence in our country.
So, under that premise, what would now seem clear is that we would be facing the same historical situation of a shift in power from the current ruling group to another, as has already happened more than 100 times in Venezuela, but this time due to indirect intervention by the US, backed by force. That would be the new strategy.
This situation opens up a range of possibilities, from the proposal made by the regime to the US via Qatar, handing over power to the Vice President on the basis of Maduro's constitutional succession (which was rejected), to a military movement similar to that of April 11, 2002.
In the latter case, there would never be any guarantee that this power vacuum would be filled by the legitimate winner of the July 28, 2024, presidential election, much less by the political force that accompanied him, as we have been led to believe. In that case, anyone could replace Maduro as ruler if the new US strategy proves successful. But wouldn't that be more of the same as what they have already done, only with a big stick in the Caribbean that, with each passing minute, looks like they will not use for all the reasons that experts have pointed out? We must not forget that President Trump does not own those ships, but rather the institutional power of the US, which will be wondering whether a war with Venezuela is worth it for them.
And what should be the next steps for a hypothetical new transitional government that takes office just as such a strategy succeeds, filling a power vacuum? Those suggested by Jorge Olavarría in 2002: follow in the footsteps of the Liberator in 1828. Assume power, establish a structure similar to the Organic Decree of 1828 to govern and stabilize the country, and convene a Constituent Convention to hand over power as soon as possible. But hand it over for real, as Bolívar effectively did before the Constituent Assembly. It's that clear, that simple. May God and the spirit of the political greatness of the Genius of America be with us...
Caracas, October 31, 2025
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario