The impact of the article published by the Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, on July 29th, among those of us who continue to resist the open and criminal tyranny of Nicolás Maduro Moros in Venezuela, could perhaps be considered on a scale that should be studied and treated as it was at the time the study of grief (see in Spanish, Chronicles, Luis Almagro, El infierno del sendero que jamás se bifurca, July 29, 2022, in https://www.cronicas.com.uy/contratapa/el-infierno-del-sendero-que-jamas-se-bifurca/).
Indeed, in 1969 the Swiss-American psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, revolutionized the treatment of grief for the loss of something or someone dear to us by presenting in her book "On Death and Dying", a general 5-stage model of grief to explain the behavior of people in processing a bereavement in the face of bereavement and loss. The famous denial-ira-negotiation-depression-acceptance model is now in common use among mental health professionals.
And make no mistake in the interpretation. It is not that we have lost a friend like Luis Almagro and we are going to interpret his note as the loss of someone dear to us. Quite the contrary. I wish to use the model as a conceptual construction to analyze why the best international friend we have had in our struggle against the regime ends up concluding as he does in that note.
When I first read the article (because I had to read it several times to understand Almagro's point) my first reaction was the same reaction someone has when he tells a friend that he does not behave as he usually does, asking him: "And who are you and what did you do with Almagro? This phase we could call the Shock Stage or initial impact.
At this stage, the first reaction is always the same: Almagro was convinced by the forces of the official opposition, convinced that a cohabitation with the regime is what is best for Venezuelans, making do with the leftovers that Maduro or whoever takes his place, throws them in order to survive. Sad end to a struggle where many dead and tortured have been left along the way.
Of course, in the middle of this stage, we must think that if this is what the most hardened of our international advocates for a free country believes, what is left for the rest of us? Let's leave it at that and accept the next phase, which we could well call the Bodegon Stage, where there is a feigned peace of normality while the majorities die of starvation.
What comes after that at that stage? The meeting of hunger with the desire to eat. A country surrendered to a destructive regime, associated with its complicit opposition, as corrupt as they are. Generations of malnourished slaves will come, who will never be able to raise their heads, as unfortunately Cubans still are, protagonists of the slavery of the 21st century, traded as doctors to whoever wants to buy them. To some extent we are already there.
But as in everything Almagro writes, there is a great truth there: if the objective of a dialogue with them is to remove Maduro, from his own conception the objective is destined to failure, because as he rightly points out "...as a strategic objective it would probably not be the most viable, feasible or realistic". Nobody would accept to go to a clean process if the result is that they are excluded from power. That does not exist for them and he is right.
And indeed, "The objective of Maduro's exit transformed every negotiation into a zero-sum game that ended up being impossible: neither Maduro's exit in a negotiation nor an election that could mean his exit". And why? Because THE RIGHT THING IS NOT BEING NEGOTIATED! And that is where Almagro's argument hits the mark, but at the same time misses the mark. The objective CANNOT BE TO REMOVE MADURO. But neither can it be one that ends up cohabiting with his regime. That would go against everything that Almagro himself has fought for -and everyone with him- during so many years of uninterrupted suffering.
Almagro proposes a cohabitation WITH counterweights to prevent complicity with the regime. In a context of differences between politicians, I would agree with him. But in the context of a negotiation with criminals who have hijacked the country's institutions for their own benefit, things are completely different.
Almagro, as guarantor of the OAS Democratic Letter, cannot propose cohabitation with criminals, even with the lofty and sublime purpose of protecting the future of Venezuelans. I would call this phase the Stage of Desperation. The nobility of someone who, faced with the closing of all the exits, prefers the lesser evil. However, it would be a lesser evil among politicians, but an infinitely greater evil among criminals, both from the opposition and the regime.
So, if not elections, what should be negotiated with them? It is not the first time I answer that question, and my answer remains the same: a process in which ALL Venezuelans participate outside the perimeter of the corrupt institutionality of the regime and that gives both parties exactly the same participation, not to remove Maduro, but to restart the institutionality of Venezuela. That is in our Constitution and it is called the NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY.
And
some will ask me, including Almagro, but wouldn't that be the same as
elections? And my answer would still be the same: NO. In an election there is a
dispute of "take you out to put me in", generating the same zero-sum
game mentioned by Almagro. In the Constituent context, Maduro would remain in
office until the Constituents -participants and non-participants of the regime-
DECIDE what to do with his government, and then proceed to repair the
institutionalism of the country, because they would be the maximum legitimate
representation of Venezuelans, in the most advanced expression of
Self-Determination of the Peoples.
The bases for such Constituent election (electoral rules) would also be negotiated and what would happen afterwards would be a matter of the legitimate representation of Venezuelans. It is not a matter of negotiating elections for a position that no longer represents anything for Venezuelans and even less if Maduro remains in power during such electoral process. In short, it would be negotiating that the Venezuelan people be allowed to decide what to do with their future; and whether or not Maduro leaves power as a consequence of that decision.
The International Community, such as the OAS, would collaborate in this context to provide sufficient electoral guarantees for the popular mandate of the Venezuelan people to materialize, through an Ad-Hoc Electoral Tribunal where all parties would participate, the countries interested in supporting the Venezuelan people, the official opposition, the regime and the civil society. Likewise, it would provide the necessary force to make the regime accept this negotiation (increasing pressure of sanctions) and guarantee that what the people decide is fulfilled. I would call this phase the Stage of international support, which we have not yet reached. In 2020, more than 300 personalities of the Venezuelan Civil Society addressed to Dr. Almagro an open letter dated June 16, 2020, where we described this electoral formula as a Humanitarian Solution of Electoral Character. (see ANCO Communiqué, 25-06-2020, en https://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2020/06/comunicado-anco-nuevas-adhesiones-la.html).
It is at that stage of international support where the international community, including the Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, fully understand that this serious matter, which involves all the peoples of the American continent, is not a solution between politicians or criminals. The solution lies with the people of Venezuela and what must be achieved is to put into operation the ideal mechanism so that the people can express themselves cleanly through their legitimate representation. We only have to give the people the opportunity to be the ones to finally decide their destiny, so that it will be the people, and not another without representation, the one that will manage to fork the path towards their freedom.
Caracas, July 31, 2022
Blog: https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
Instagram: @laguana01
Telegram: https://t.me/TICsDDHH
Linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/luis-manuel-aguana-bb9231
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TICs-Derechos-Humanos-102169239041065
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario