There is nothing more aberrant in a political argument than the misrepresentation of history, especially when it is the history of another country. Making use of a historical fact out of context to deceitfully convince people in Venezuela, can serve perfectly well to put undue weight on the wrong side of the scales of public opinion to decide on matters of national transcendence, taking advantage of people's misinformation. Besides being unethical, it is immoral.
Such is the case of the argument used time and again by the César Pérez Vivas-Nicmer Evans duo of the so-called Venezuelan Movement for the Recall (Mover) in the sense that "It is absolutely legitimate to recall an illegitimate person. Imagine if this had not been thought by the people of the Concertación in Chile with the plebiscite that was held with Pinochet, the plebiscite would never have been held, nor would they have come out of the crisis in that country" (see in Spanish Nicmer Evans “Es absolutamente legítimo revocar a un ilegítimo”, in https://talcualdigital.com/nicmer-evans-es-absolutamente-legitimo-revocar-a-un-ilegitimo/).
This argument that manipulates the historical truth has been repeatedly used in audios and interviews that roll tirelessly through social networks by the main promoters of the recall of Nicolás Maduro Moros in Venezuela. Army General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte was ratified as President of the Republic of Chile in its Fourteenth Transitory Provision: "During the period indicated in the previous provision, the current President, Army General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, will continue as President of the Republic, who will remain in office until the end of said period..." (Page 85). This was ratified with the approval by plebiscite of the Constitution of Chile on September 11, 1980: "The text of the new Constitution was sanctioned by Decree Law No. 3,464 of August 11, 1980 and was submitted for approval by the citizens in a plebiscite called for September 11, 1980, by Decree Law No. 3,465 of August 12 of that year. Approved by absolute majority in said plebiscite, it was promulgated as ' Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, by Supreme Decree No. 1,150 of the Ministries of Interior and Justice dated October 24, 1980" (see the original Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile of 1980, Editorial Jurídica de Chile, Page 96, at https://obtienearchivo.bcn.cl/obtienearchivo?id=documentos/10221.1/60446/3/132632.pdf)
And I go further. In that same 1980 Constitution, the Military Junta reserved the right (approved by the people on September 11 of the same year) to submit to Plebiscite in the eighth year (presidential term approved in the Constitution) the occupant of the Presidency of the Republic established in the same Transitory Provisions: "TWENTY SEVENTH. It shall be incumbent upon the Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the General Director of the Carabineros to propose to the country, by their unanimous vote, subject to ratification by the citizens, the person who shall occupy the office of President of the Republic in the presidential term following the one referred to in the thirteenth transitory provision, who shall comply with the requirements set forth in Article 25, paragraph one of this Constitution, without the prohibition of being reelected set forth in paragraph two of the same Article being applicable to him. For this purpose, they shall meet at least ninety days prior to the date on which the incumbent is to leave office. The designation shall be communicated to the President of the Republic for the purpose of calling a plebiscite...". (Page 92). I also invite you to read the Twenty-eighth and Twenty-ninth transitory provisions to better understand what happened in Chile in 1988.
Therefore, it was the same Pinochet's Government Junta that CONSTITUTIONALLY arranged that Plebiscite, and that established the possibility of a presidential election at the end of his first term after 1980, and that finally Pinochet himself complied with its results in 1988, because he was left with no alternative. To affirm that the case of Pinochet and Maduro are somehow similar in order to repeat it in Venezuela is an aberration that should shame those who insist on "democratically" removing some criminals by means of a recall referendum.
For Chileans, Augusto Pinochet was constitutionally legitimate for 1988, even with his name and surname established in the Constitution in its Transitory Provisions. And if anyone considers that this Constitution was not valid because it was approved during a dictatorship, they only have to look at the fact that the Chileans considered it legitimate for more than 30 years after the Military Junta was deposed, and it is now that they decided to revise it in a Constituent Assembly. So we repeat with more force: MADURO IS ILLEGITIMATE FOR THE VENEZOLANS, AND THAT WAS REAFFIRMED BY THE MANDATE OF THE POPULAR CONSULTATION OF DECEMBER 2020, SO IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE TO REVOKE AN ILLEGITIMATE.
But with all that in mind, I will still leave it to my dear friend Antonio Sanchez Garcia, a Venezuelan of Chilean origin, to better complement the situation raised before that recall proposal, bringing to your memory part of an extraordinary note published in 2015:
"It is worth asking those who consider that what happened in Chile is perfectly repeatable in Venezuela; if between Diosdado Cabello and Nicolás Maduro or between Admiral Meléndez and General Padrino López reign the deep and irreparable differences regarding the fate and destiny of our country that reigned in the Chile of the Military Junta of Government. If El Aissami and Vielma Mora have the same respect and the same consideration regarding the role that democratic parties should play as General Matthei had. And, above all, it is worth asking if the members of the General Staff long to go home to enjoy an honest and discreet retirement. If they do not have heavy and burdensome faults to settle with national and international justice as to favor a democratic change in Venezuela, does anyone with two fingers in front and a minimum moral sobriety believe that the satrapy wishes and favors a transition to a democracy? Does anyone believe that the Venezuelan armed forces have the patriotism, honesty and moral integrity that the high command of the Chilean armed forces had? I have the most serious doubts". (see in Spanish Pinochet y la transición: el plebiscito de 1988, por Antonio Sánchez García, in https://www.analitica.com/opinion/pinochet-y-la-transicion-el-plebiscito-de-1988/).
From this article by Antonio Sánchez García it is clear, however harsh it may seem to some, that in the composition of that Military Government Junta presided over by Pinochet there were individuals who were perfectly willing to abide by and enforce the Constitution they had approved in 1980, among them General Fernando Matthei, whose influence was decisive for Pinochet to accept defeat in that 1988 plebiscite. Do you believe that this would happen in the Venezuela of Maduro and his countless thieves, especially the electoral ones? As well stated by Sánchez García: "The fate of Pinochet, of the Junta and of the dictatorship had been sealed by the dictatorship itself. Without external pressures". And that is very, very far from happening in Venezuela. What is it then that those who wish to deceive us with a recall from the opposition, using the supposed "illegitimacy" of Pinochet as an excuse?
From all of the above it is proven that the conditions that prevailed in Chile in 1988 cannot be compared to those prevailing in the Venezuela of the regime that governs us in the 21st century, not only because Pinochet went to a plebiscite that the same Chileans approved 8 years before its execution, including the exercise of his presidency, but also because the Junta itself separated from power when it lost it, subsequently convening a presidential electoral process under the tutelage of the same military.
Maduro IS ILLEGITIMATE and to concur to a recall referendum assumes him as a Constitutional President in office, leaving aside his condition of usurper. This is what those promoting a recall referendum refuse to accept, a process that is convenient for the regime itself, and would even be willing to finance it with the parties of the bought opposition. If the opposition "loses" that recall -which will happen irremediably- nothing will prevent the regime from claiming legitimacy before the International Community, fading away the constitutional figure of President-in-Charge Juan Guaidó Márquez, because the process was endorsed by the opposition parties that accepted the Dialogue in Mexico. Could that be what the official opposition that no longer tolerates Guaidó is really looking for? It could be...
While it is true that the figure of the Recall Referendum is in the Constitution in Article 72, so is the figure of the call for a National Constituent Assembly in Article 348. If the political opposition truly and legitimately wished to leave the regime electorally, would it not be more consistent with the extremely serious situation of the country to call for a Constituent Assembly than a Recall Referendum? The former would REFUND THE NATION, reconstructing all the Public Powers, including the Presidency, and would only require the approval of 15% of the Civil and Electoral Registry, as opposed to the 20% required for a recall referendum. Does this not seem strange to you?
A National Constituent Assembly would decide the fate of Nicolás Maduro Moros and the rest of the Public Powers, and may appoint a Transitional Government until the approval of a new constitutional text with the changes that the country really needs, and would call for Parliamentary and Presidential elections, based on the new constitutional text. Is that so hard to understand? Not really. But the problem is that we could not go to a constituent process without the minimum electoral guarantees and much less with a regime headed by a usurper who will end up counting the votes in his favor with his rigged machines. From ANCO we demand the call of the people to the REFOUNDATION OF THE COUNTRY, to a Constituent process of original character arbitrated by the International Community, as a solution to the Venezuelan crisis, as opposed to this absurd recall process with traps proposed by the "opposition" parties under the umbrella of the regime.
However, the official opposition does not seem to care about going to a recall process under these conditions, as stated by the Rector of the CNE of the official opposition, Roberto Picón, appointed by the illegitimate National Assembly of 6D-2020, stating that "As of January 10, the papers to initiate the recall process can be introduced" (see news in Tal Cual, at https://talcualdigital.com/roberto-picon-a-partir-del-10ene-se-puede-introducir-papeles-para-iniciar-el-revocatorio/). The regime and its opposition seem to be in agreement in the negotiation of this recall for 2022.
With my apologies in advance to those who have gotten this far reading this long note: We Venezuelans must look very carefully at the trap they are setting for us with that Revocatory Referendum, and what the opposition parties of the G4/FA+Mesita in combination with the Maduro regime are really looking for. They are already telling us to go and vote on November 21 "to better organize ourselves to go to the Referendum" as if evoking a self-fulfilling prophecy, and they even put the so-called "opposition" Rector to testify in favor of it. Be careful with that! This trap will consolidate Maduro, but it will also give survival spaces to those who are worse than the regime, because they prefer to settle for the leftovers thrown by the tyranny to continue to prosper by prolonging this tragedy, rather than defending a people who are dying of poverty. They do not deserve the vote of any Venezuelan! With such narrow-mindedness they will never be able to fight for what is truly important: the freedom of Venezuela.
Caracas, October 29, 2021
Blog: https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
Instagram: @laguana01
Telegram: https://t.me/TICsDDHH
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario