By Luis
Manuel Aguana
When a conceptual model is proposed to try to explain reality, which is of course much more complex, what it is ultimately attempting to do is not only to understand that reality, but also to understand how it could be modified in our favor, not allowing unspecified variables to lead us down dangerous paths that we cannot control.
Having defined the phases of the Displacement-Transition-Refoundation model and put the historical events of 1958 under the microscope, with an emphasis on the Transition phase in my previous note, we were able to see that the model did indeed apply to placing each phase in its proper place, testing the model with Venezuela's latest transition to a democratic system from a dictatorship (see Venezuelan Transition, Lessons from January 23, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/venezuelan-transition-lessons-from.html).
We note that the military presence at that time was indispensable, even without the problems that afflict us today, such as armed groups operating without control by any legitimate authority throughout the territory. Of course, today's military has nothing to do with that of that era. However, it was important to specify the need for internal control of weapons so that these phases could proceed without problems. It is clear that this would be an ideal model, one that should be aimed for if the country is to be guided through the difficult path of transition.
The conclusion of applying the model to 1958 is that the military is needed in phases 1 and 2, and not necessarily foreign troops, but local ones. In my opinion, this has not been resolved given the belief that everything will fall into place after the supposed “extraction” of those who have a “wanted” poster with a reward on their heads. In fact, if this happens, what would follow is the constitutional succession as planned. Or would the Vice President of the Republic and the President of the National Assembly also be taken away? Or will there be an “extraction” involving an invasion, in order to forcibly impose Edmundo González Urrutia (EGU) and necessarily sustain him with foreign troops above our legal system? These are the questions we should be asking ourselves if what the mass media on all sides are predicting in the short term actually materializes.
Seen this way, things don't seem so simple. But let's go back to 1958. When the military coup against Marcos Pérez Jiménez took place, the 1953 Constitution was in force in Venezuela. The dictator fled the country, leaving a power vacuum. However, the military leaders did not follow the 1953 Constitution, which had perfectly anticipated this situation:
"Article 106. In the event of the absolute absence of the President of the Republic after taking the oath of office, the Minister who obtains an absolute majority of votes from the Ministers in the Cabinet, consisting of at least half plus one of its members, shall be in charge of the National Executive Power. The designated Minister shall immediately take the oath of office before the Cabinet and shall act as Head of the National Executive Power..." (see in Spanish. 1953 Constitution, Article 106, at https://cidep.online/files/constituciones/1953.pdf).
The military officers who led the coup d'état in 1958 did not designate as successor the “minister who obtains an absolute majority of votes from the ministers in the Cabinet.” Instead, they created their own legal system and, in a document dated January 23, 1958, they laid out what would happen next. Let us look at the first two articles:
"Article 1. A Military Junta of
Government is hereby constituted, composed of five members, namely: Rear
Admiral Wolfgang Larrazábal, Colonel Abel Romero Villate, Colonel Roberto
Casanova, Colonel Carlos Luis Arague, and Colonel Pedro José Quevedo. Rear
Admiral Wolfgang Larrazábal shall serve as president of the Junta.
Article 2. The Junta thus constituted shall assume all the powers of the State and, therefore, shall exercise the Executive Power of the Nation while the Powers of the Republic are constitutionally organized within the guidelines of Article 3..." (see in Spanish Acta Constitutiva de la Junta Militar de Gobierno de la República de Venezuela de 1958, 23 de enero de 1958, in https://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra-visor/acta-constitutiva-de-la-junta-militar-de-gobierno-de-la-republica-de-venezuela/html/e9f43968-913e-48c4-a2b5-63b638c2f317_2.html) (highlighted ours). That was the first act of the 1958 Transition Phase.
Anything that comes after the Displacement phase should have something like this from the outset and, even more so, the force of arms to sustain it for as long as necessary. Will the US do that? In other words, it is not just a matter of removing the heads of those who govern, or making them flee the country because the US has labeled them as leaders of a drug cartel. No. Because it is not just a “criminal” matter. It is also a political matter that includes all the phases of displacing a regime that governs a country.
Venezuelan historian Jorge Olavarría validated the proposed conceptual model in a way, indicating that throughout Venezuelan history, the same processes were followed in all situations where the constitutional order had been fractured, from April 19, 1810, to January 23, 1958. He indicated that they followed the same pattern of behavior:
“Our history is full of episodes in which delegitimized governments were overthrown through subversive processes that follow a pattern: 1) Manifesto; 2) Constitutive Act of the de facto government; 3) Decrees; 4) Constituent process that restores or aspires to restore the legitimacy of the ritual formalities that enshrine the right to govern” (see in Spanish, Jorge Olavarría, El derecho a la rebelión, Jorge Olavarría, 19 de febrero de 2002, in https://tinyurl.com/32vm9uas) (resaltado nuestro).
In a video that I consider historic, an interview with Olavarría conducted by journalist José Israel González in April 2002, the historian recounts his version of the events of April 11, 2002, specifying the meaning of each of the processes—or fundamental instruments, as he calls them—mentioned above:
"I have carefully studied all the situations in which the constitutional order has been fractured in the history of Venezuela, from April 19, 1810, to January 23, 1958.... The pattern is as follows: there are three fundamental things, three fundamental instruments: one is the Manifesto, which has political prose, sociological prose, historical reasoning, where you say that you have done what you have done for the reasons you give there.
General Joaquín Crespo gave his reasons in the manifesto that sparked the Legalist Revolution in 1892, General Cipriano Castro did the same with the Liberal Restoration Revolution of 1899, Rómulo Betancourt did the same in 1945, the military of '48 made a manifesto that Pérez Jiménez read at one o'clock in the afternoon on November 24, the Manifesto.
The second is the Act. It is written in sober, explicit, and precise legal prose and establishes the constitutional foundations. Because there is one thing about Israel that must be understood very clearly. One thing is the right to rebellion and another thing is the right OF rebellion. When a successful rebellion manages to dismantle a constitutional structure, the legal framework of a state, it must immediately say: “What I am disrespecting and violating, I am going to replace with this.”
Verbo y Gracia, November 24, 1948. “The 1945 Constitution will come into force, and in all progressive aspects, the 1947 Constitution will come into force.” In other words, there is already a structure, a constitutional framework to which the de facto government refers, and it is generally given the tagline that Crespo gave it in 1993, Castro in 1999, Betancourt in 1945, the military in 1948, and so on, right? It says, “in everything that does not contradict the objectives of the victorious revolution, as established in the Manifesto.”
“… The third element is decrees. You have to start decreeing, governing, immediately. You can’t put all the decrees into one big pot because you’ll end up with a terrible mess.
What is the legal structure of a decree, Israel? You have read the decrees, I don't know if you are a lawyer, but you have read the decrees, “whereas, whereas, whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the charter of the revolutionary transitional government, call it what you will, decrees: Article One...”. But each decree is a case in itself. Each decree has to have a political kitchen, a kind of political manipulation to see its viability. Each decree has autonomous recitals that must naturally be in line with the manifesto and the act...." (see in Spanish, Olavarría y el 11 de abril, Pastillas de Memoria, Entrevista de José Israel González a Jorge Olavarría, Historia Viva, in https://youtu.be/68JadxKJMzQ?t=1447).
A masterful and unbeatable explanation of what must happen in a transition. The Manifesto, the founding charter of the new government, the decrees, and the Constituent Assembly fit perfectly within the model outlined. The first three instruments would be part of the transition, and the call for a Constituent Assembly would be part of the refounding phase. Who will govern, how they will govern, and what comes next.
The three fundamental instruments of the Transition and the last one of the Refoundation are unavoidable. They have been so throughout our political history. The current situation is no different, even though it is cloaked in characteristics that make it unique. If we are truly in a Displacement phase, the coming days or weeks will tell us what the rest of the phases and their instruments will be like, but what cannot be possible is for them to be ignored as they have been until now...
Caracas, September 16, 2025
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario