By Luis Manuel Aguana
One of the things that motivated me to open this small space online many years ago was to express ideas about the future of Venezuela within the framework of two fundamental pillars: technology and human rights. Hence the name of this blog, ICTs & Human Rights (some still ask me what ICTs means, which is simply Information and Communication Technologies, confusing it with "tips," which means something else entirely). Over time, I transformed it into a platform for expressing the political struggle we have in Venezuela as we try to recover our freedoms, a struggle closely tied to these two pillars, which are increasingly intertwined.
Technology has progressively become a part of human existence, and in this century, we will see a fusion of the two, especially with the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), making this tool an extension of humankind and inevitably bringing technology closer to politics.
I begin this reflection after listening very seriously to the interview that Elon Musk gave to Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor-in-chief of The Economist, one of the most important and influential magazines in the world economy (see the full interview with Elon Musk in The Economist, July 29, 2016, in https://youtu.be/XuoqKYxDHVc).
Anyone who heard him might think Musk was discussing concepts that could easily be taken for ideas from *Star Wars* or some futuristic movie. I do not see it that way. Many—if not all—of the statements Musk made concern humanity as a whole and will, in some way, influence what happens to us in Venezuela.
And why do I say this? Because the horizon he speaks of is five to ten years—a timeframe Musk himself considers the long term. Let us look at the initial ideas from *The Economist*’s summary:
“The first idea is that Musk considers the arrival of intelligence superior to human intelligence inevitable. He no longer speaks of if it will happen, but of when. His calculation is that AI could surpass all human intelligence combined in approximately five years and dominate the economy alongside robots before 2036. The second is that this transformation would break the known economic rules. In his scenario, work would be optional, universal high income would replace some wages, and a gigantic expansion of supply would make deflation—not inflation—the main problem. It is a huge theoretical gamble: it assumes that production will grow faster than money creation and that abundance can be distributed without destroying the political system during the transition” (see in Spanish, El Economista, Elon Musk anticipated the end of money and work: his 100 most powerful quotes, July 27, 2026). https://eleconomista.com.ar/internacional/elon-musk-the-economist-100-frases-entrevista-inteligencia-artificial-n96966) (emphasis added).
That is why, when I witness that trivial squabble between two groups completely removed from genuine Venezuelan popular representation—groups deciding our near future (a future that, incidentally, lies on the same horizon Elon Musk speaks of)—I imagine how we must look from the outside: like two indigenous tribes bickering over the boundaries of their plots to avoid killing one another, utterly detached from what the world will actually look like in five to ten years—a mere blink of an eye compared to our nearly thirty years of continuous self-destruction. Viewed in that light, it is truly pathetic.
How can we even contemplate integrating ourselves into the world Elon Musk predicts when we cannot govern ourselves? How can we even think about "elections" when whoever takes charge of the country will inherit the scorched earth left by thirty years of destruction? The first task for a new leader in two or three years would simply be figuring out how to feed the population and keep them from wasting away—all in a country lacking even basic sanitation services. And I do not even need to prove it; the people of Vargas state are living through that reality right now. Quite simply, the future has caught up with us, just like in that famous Charlton Heston movie.
These two tribes—for that is how the outside world views us—would need to be guided and steered by a "regent" to return to a civilized way of life and eventually govern themselves. That implies a return to the era of imperial colonialism, where established kingdoms took charge of the law in their colonies. And the nearby "kingdom" that has fallen to our lot is the United States. The tragedy is that we brought this backwardness upon ourselves; no one else did it for us.
Any decision reached at that so-called "negotiating table"—where both tribes are forced to sit together grudgingly—will follow a path previously mapped out by that kingdom. We might disagree with it; we might even try to sabotage it. But is that really in everyone's best interest?
We know all too well the sort of people who sat there and are signing agreements without any representation of the Venezuelan people. We could even propose courses of action that better reflect that civic representation. Yet, precisely because of those who are now being forced by external powers to “negotiate,” we have lost the real capacity to alter the course of events—regardless of any shouting or threats to destabilize the country. That capacity simply vanished due to exhaustion, threats, attrition, violence, the diaspora, or plain hunger; after all, one cannot protest on an empty stomach with a third of the population living abroad.
At this stage, what remains is the power and strength of those charting a new path to bring Venezuela back into the fold of Western civilization. I have previously likened this to trying to get a patient in a coma out of bed; all that remains is to trust in the treatment *others* administer for recovery.
This does not mean we are surrendering forever. It means that—however much we analyze, propose, or act within our current state of debilitation—our efforts must be directed toward the recovery of the nation’s body, letting the doctors do their job, no matter how detestable we might find the situation.
And this is the point where we must ask ourselves: where is this recovery process leading us? Is the idea that, once we can walk again, we will simply return to the same old habits that put us in this sickbed in the first place—with the same criminals playing the lead roles? That seems to be exactly what is being clamored for: an end to US oversight so we can go back to the way things were.
That means presidential elections that grant the next president absolute power to dictate the country's affairs; legislative elections that empower a parliament lacking the equal state representation found in a Senate—a system where Caracas citizens enjoy greater access to services than those in any other state, simply because of the capital's population size and its status as the seat of the branches of government; ...mayoral and city council elections that are merely symbolic—where officials have absolutely no way to do anything for the residents of their municipalities because their finances are not under their control. In other words, a return to a completely backward and failed system of governance—the very system that originally gave rise to the tragedy that consumed us for nearly thirty years.
Don't you think that the first thing we should do upon rising from that bed—aside from thanking those who cared for us—is to completely remake the established order? Shouldn't we realize that a new government would achieve absolutely nothing good or better if it simply uses the same old system for the country's new era? Don't you think the problem isn't the driver, but the bus itself, which no longer runs?
That is why, in a country where institutions have completely collapsed—and which is functioning solely through the brute force of a regime imposing an artificial order amidst the wreckage we created—the first step must be to build an entirely new order. Only then should we call for elections based on that new framework.
I believe it is preferable for both the U.S. and Venezuela as a whole—rather than holding general or presidential elections (as outlined in the three-phase plan) after merely patching up the electoral system while the country is in a coma—to instead convene a National Constituent Assembly. This body would properly overhaul all branches of government and the procedures that were hastily improvised in defiance of the popular will. We need to save the country by building a new development paradigm, allowing Venezuela to align itself with a new era and a new international economic order—the kind Elon Musk envisions for humanity's future. That is the true meaning of what we now call "Refounding the Nation."
I take it for granted that if we get the sequence wrong—that is, holding elections first and hoping a new government will later convene a Constituent Assembly to solve the institutional crisis—Venezuela will remain exactly as it is now, only without a ruler: a collection of tribes that will continue to tear the country apart beyond repair. They would never convene the people's most genuine representatives to discuss the future, for the very same reasons that led to our self-destruction. And we would have squandered the best opportunity to hitch our wagon to a global train—one that humanity will not miss out on, and one that will not stop for us.
The world will keep turning, while we remain locked in our petty tribal squabbles. Hopefully, we Venezuelans can understand what the future holds for us just around the corner. *The Economist* sums it up at the end of its analysis of the interview with Elon Musk:
“Musk does not present himself as someone trying to decide whether the technological revolution should happen. He presents himself as someone who already considers it inevitable and wants to influence the values, infrastructure, and companies that will drive it. The big question is not merely whether his timelines will prove accurate. It is whether societies can navigate that ‘bumpy road’ without becoming trapped between the concentration of power, job losses, political polarization, and a technology that—by Musk’s own admission—will soon be too intelligent for humans to remain in control.”
Our society is already “bumpy” and trapped in the concentration of power, amidst job losses and political polarization. What remains to be decided is whether or not we want to be on the same page regarding what lies ahead for Western civilization and how development will be defined—a realm where technology is already playing a starring role. We do not have much time left to decide whether to be on that path or off it…
Caracas, August 14, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario