The electronic media on the web headlines and social networks talk about the “inevitable transition in Venezuela”. And it is not that this is not perceived in the environment. People “feel” that something will happen that will somehow change what has been happening during years of destruction. The unstoppable María Corina Machado (MCM) has given a lot of work to the regime and the whole current of opinion goes in the direction of a change in Venezuela.
And it would seem that as a self-fulfilling prophecy, on July 28th there will be what we all wish for, a peaceful and democratic political change. But -always the nagging but- is that what we have had in the last 25 years? Some of us were very sure in 2004 that we would win the recall referendum by a landslide, and there are still people from the same opposition who are convinced that Chávez won in that opportunity, and that we overestimated our expectations. But Chávez did not win, the CNE of Jorge Rodríguez did fraud with the SmartMatic machines in that Referendum, as later technical studies proved. And in spite of the opposition triumphalism, Chávez was left with the consequent frustration of all.
And some of you will say, “and how dare this guy discourage Venezuelans, promoting abstention, remembering these episodes? I would be sorry if you think this way. Everyone should do what he/she thinks is most convenient because voting is a very personal decision. My role here is not to follow the current of what everyone says nor to recommend anyone what to do with their vote, but what I believe will happen based on the objective facts that have been presented to everyone, and that some prefer to ignore, each one for their own reason and interests. I will only mention 3 of them:
First objective fact: the regime decided to trample on the Agreement signed in Barbados, on October 17, 2023, refusing to accept the candidate freely chosen by the opposition: “First: The Parties recognize and respect the right of each political actor to select its candidate for the presidential elections in a free manner and according to its internal mechanisms, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the law”.
Second objective fact: MCM was denied the right to political participation (not counting the violation of that same right to the 2.4 million Venezuelans who voted for her in the primaries). The regime decided for Venezuelans who would be its opposition candidates for the elections of July 28;
Third objective fact: the electoral conditions of 28J are worse than those faced for the Capriles-Maduro election of April 2013, based on the following: (a) the diaspora of almost 8 million Venezuelans did not exist as now, of which more than half will not vote, because that is what the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros decided, (b) the regime's automated electoral system remains the same, despite the multiple complaints made and which the official opposition has consistently ignored; (c) the overflowing creation of centers of 1 and 2 tables by the CNE, totaling, preliminarily, 9. 624,709 voters throughout the country, in order to concentrate them in places controlled by the regime's party. In a universe of 21,402,220 voters for June 28, we are talking about almost 45% of the electorate without discounting the figures of abstention and external and internal migration. If we discount external and internal migrants in an abstention scenario of 24%, with a calculated total of 11,961,058 voters, practically the whole country would vote in centers of 1 and 2 tables (see in Spanish ANCO Communiqué to Venezuelans, 05-11-2024, in https://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2024/05/comunicado-anco-un-llamado-de-anco-los.html).
The logical inference of these concrete facts, not biased by my desire for the opposition to be victorious in this electoral encounter, points to the prevention of a fair vote count and the application of a massive fraud by the regime in the presidential elections of June 28.
But this conclusion is not the reason for this note, nor am I giving a “tubazo” with this information. In fact, this has already been said by MCM and former President Duque of Colombia, as I pointed out in my previous note (see Beyond an existential struggle, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/p/beyond-existential-struggle.html). The regime will attempt a fraud because that is what these facts point to from the beginning, when they decided to get out of the Barbados agreement, and sign another one with the “alacrán” opposition. According to the above, THE FRAUD IS ALREADY BEING PERPETRATED BY MCM NOT BEING THE CANDIDATE.
Taking into account these facts that will crystallize in the palpable realities that we will face on July 28, the clear and concrete question of the 64 thousand lochas, as the entertainer Efraín de La Cerda used to say in his RCTV program more than 60 years ago, is what will the opposition do when Elvis Amoroso officially says, with his face like a board, that Maduro won the election by a “small” percentage of votes? Or worse, will they wait for that to happen? All this, of course, if the regime does not decide to indefinitely suspend the elections for any reason or to invalidate Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia's card by decision of the TSJ, which would not be at all far-fetched in view of the series of electoral iniquities committed from the beginning. But let us assume for purposes of this analysis that the elections will not be cancelled.
In this scenario, a sort of meeting of the kind that the military holds when confrontation is inevitable, to “count the rifles”, should necessarily take place. My father, the first Dr. Aguana, as I used to call him (he used to say that lawyers could not call themselves doctors without a doctorate), was more military than civilian. He spent most of his professional life teaching law in military schools (former EFOFAC and Military Academy) and knew them like no one else. He used to say that before a certain confrontation, the chiefs would meet to “count rifles”. He would say: “Let's see, how many rifles do you have, how many tanks do I have, how many planes do you have”. Whoever had the best balance of fire won before firing a single shot, period. And the one who lost the count retired with all the corresponding safeties.
Well, I call that “negotiating the victory” before the confrontation. The regime could well proceed with the fraud and take the election, but at what cost? None of our neighbors are interested in another migratory wave and may not be willing to endorse such fraud, hence the interventions of Lula Da Silva and Petro for a plebiscite. But this consultation is already happening live and direct with the massive mobilizations in favor of MCM throughout the country. A civil revolt for a robbery in the open field of the election would be a stupidity of the regime.
So, that “gun count”, as my father used to say, should be happening now because otherwise both sides would incur such a huge loss that no one would know who ended up winning in the end. And the regime knows that it has already lost by “counting rifles”, even more so than Padrino López and his Armed Forces. The “rifles”, in this case, would be the correlation of forces, support and credibility resulting globally from that election.
And on that count, the regime has already lost and must recognize it before the election takes place. Hence, by admitting that they lost, they must have negotiated before their honorable exit, where the NEC would announce that Maduro lost by “a narrow margin” against Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia. What would be the cost? I do not know, but whatever it is, it is not worth one more minute of the permanence of millions of Venezuelans far from their families, and not one more second of imprisonment of political, civilian and military prisoners.
The application of a fraud on July 28 would constitute a “Pyrrhic victory” for the regime. The term comes from King Pyrrhus of Epirus, Greece, who defeated the Roman army twice, but at a very high cost of lives and resources. A “Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Such a victory negates any true sense of achievement or damages long-term progress.” (see Wikipedia, Pyrrhic victory, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory).
Hence, it is necessary to “negotiate victory”, which would mean for the regime to save what is left, and for the opposition to move on to a new stage of reconciliation in the life of the country. Let's hope that this is also understood by the sides involved in this conflict, which Venezuelans need to end right now...
Caracas, May 16, 2024
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario