By Luis Manuel Aguana
If someone had told me a month ago that I would see Dr. Blanca Rosa Marmol de León calling for a national oil strike, I would have laughed myself silly. But Venezuelan politics today is so unstable that anything, even something like that, can happen, as indeed it did (see in Spanish Dr. Blanca Rosa Marmol de León's public manifesto in https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbRvbioIEgA/).
Before proceeding, I must first clarify that I fully and firmly endorse the statements made by Dr. Mármol de León regarding her call for a Transitional Governing Board and her rejection of negotiations between two completely illegitimate entities—the National Assembly presided over by Jorge Rodríguez and the expired 2015 Assembly presided over by Dinorah Figuera—neither of which represents the Venezuelan people in any way or has the authority to reach agreements on our behalf.
Dr. Mármol’s legal interpretation of the country's situation is absolutely clear and grounded in the Constitution—a view I have personally expressed to her. Indeed, this is the interpretation any jurist like her should hold. However, politics places matters in a different perspective. The law, as interpreted by judges like Dr. Mármol, offers only one solution: immediate elections in the absence of a head of state—even an illegitimate one. Yet, this concept is open to multiple interpretations.
Nevertheless, laws are written by human beings and, as such, are not infallible. Reality overtook us; there was no way to foresee what would happen in Venezuela over the last 27 years. No one could have predicted—nor did anyone imagine—that from the very beginning of Hugo Chávez Frías’s regime, the Venezuelan electoral system would be subverted to ensure the regime remained in power, to the point where holding any election became impossible without first resolving that underlying issue. Yet, the law does not explicitly state this. Hence the clear judgment of my dear friend and impeccable judge, Dr. Mármol de León.
The question is: should we apply the law or wisdom? If we start from the fact that the law and the Constitution ceased to be applied in Venezuela so long ago that we have all forgotten what that even means, then Dr. Mármol’s call to uphold the law appears entirely coherent and beyond reproach.
The most emblematic case illustrating the relationship between law and wisdom is recounted in the Bible itself, through the story of King Solomon:
“According to the biblical account in 1 Kings 3:16–28, two women appeared before King Solomon, both claiming to be the mother of a living child while accusing the other of having swapped her deceased son. Solomon resolved the dispute by ordering the living child to be split in two with a sword; this revealed the true mother—who preferred to give up her son rather than see him die—thereby demonstrating Solomon's wisdom”.
What gave the two women the right to each claim the child as her own?
“In the context of the biblical story, the women’s right to legally claim the baby was based on the complete lack of physical evidence and the absence of witnesses who could either refute or confirm their word. The narrative details several specific conditions that placed them both on equal footing before the law:
Simultaneous maternity: Both women gave birth just three days apart. Physically, both were lactating and had the biological capacity to breastfeed and raise the newborn.
Total isolation: They lived alone in the same house. The passage in 1 Kings 3:18 explicitly states: “no stranger was in the house except the two of us.” There were no neighbors or midwives who could have witnessed the nighttime exchange.
Identical physical features: Since the two babies were only a few days old, it was impossible for the judges or the court to identify definitive physical features that would determine which of the living children the living child resembled.
Marginal social status: The Bible clarifies that both were prostitutes. In ancient times, people of this status did not have the support of respectable husbands or families to serve as legal guarantors of their word.
Since it was one person's word against another's without any material evidence, the case was legally a dead end. For this reason, the conflict escalated directly to the king's court, requiring a higher level of discernment to resolve” (see chat with AI Gemini in https://share.google/aimode/ahuw6rYC2bOZy2Uwv).
And what did Solomon do? He decided on an extreme measure: to split the child in two with a sword—one part for each claimant. Was that in the law? Obviously NOT. But it brought to light the true mother, who valued the child's life over possession of him. Wisdom prevailing over the letter of the law.
If only we had a Solomon to decide how to handle this case. What gives Delcy Rodríguez the right to remain at Miraflores after July 3rd? Clearly, the right she relies on is the backing of US military force—given their military intervention in the country since January 3rd—the same backing we at ANCO cite as grounds to replace her with a technocratic junta, since no other law currently exists in Venezuela.
Yet Dr. Mármol insists on immediate, constitutionally valid elections—which are practically impossible to hold, regardless of arguments for manual voting, due to the complex technical issues that must be resolved first. And while that is being sorted out, who governs? Delcy Rodríguez and the very people who destroyed Venezuela alongside Maduro? That is unacceptable to the Venezuelan people. And this is the practical issue that must be resolved.
Hence, the request made by Dr. Blanca Rosa Mármol de León to speak with the US delegation in the country is entirely reasonable. However, coupling that request with threats of strikes and an oil industry shutdown diminishes the chances of it happening—even though such a shutdown would be practically impossible to carry out anyway. PDVSA is a far cry from what it was back in 2002, and the little oil production remaining in the country is entirely in the hands of foreign companies. The United States should speak with Dr. Mármol de León—not only as a legitimate representative of Venezuelan civil society but also as a woman of integrity with deep knowledge of Venezuelan law and the Constitution—to seek a Solomonic solution to the problem, even though they have already decided to begin talks starting August 1st that are patently invalid.
I do not believe there is another Venezuelan with greater legitimacy to do this than Dr. Blanca Rosa Mármol de León. She cuts across all sectors—even though, regrettably, some radicalized opposition politicians have come to view her as a “competitor” in the macabre game of power, funding campaigns to insult and discredit her. Such behavior shames and degrades the opposition and does nothing to move toward a solution to the problem.
I call it a "Solomonic" solution because it requires a compromise between Venezuelan constitutional legality, the country's reality, and the forces they represent. I believe it serves the stated aims of the United States far better to navigate this situation peacefully with the country—bringing all parties into accord—and it falls to them to play the difficult role of King Solomon.
So-called Chavismo—or whatever it is called now—is already dead. What remains is to bury it. Yet achieving this requires the wisdom to find the right way forward without disregarding the country's laws; after all, it was the Trump administration that argued before Congress that they had not militarily invaded Venezuela, but rather carried out a police operation. Well, if that was the case—and if they are not propping up Delcy Rodríguez through sheer force—then let them produce a legal and legitimate solution that works for all parties, without resorting to actually cutting the child in two. If they resolve that, we will be on the right path toward recovering our sovereignty.
Caracas, July 30, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario