By Luis Manuel Aguana
For years, the National Constituent Alliance (ANCO) has unsuccessfully attempted to explain the scope and benefits to the country of an original constituent process in different political contexts that Venezuela has experienced since the creation of the constituent norm in the current Constitution.
But a transparent, clean, and genuine constituent process, with the legitimate representation of all sectors of national life, not just politicians. And that they, gathered together, make the necessary decisions, above the constituted public powers, because it would be the people and only the people, the legitimate owners of the popular sovereignty of Venezuelans, who can decide what to do with the country.
This has been the honest appeal of a group of Venezuelans who, throughout the country, without hidden interests, have lent their support to convince the nation of this concept, that it is the people who should decide their future. Not the opposition, not the government, not the parties, but only the ordinary Venezuelan people of all political and social persuasions. It is not so difficult to understand.
But this Assembly, the mother of all political gatherings, would have the highest power over any of the public powers, capable of making them disappear and rebuilding them with a different functioning, and establishing a new balance of power within the country.
A group of people with such power is feared by many, especially those who have benefited from the current status quo, both those in power and those who seek it from the opposition, especially when both have colluded to benefit from Venezuelans.
At ANCO, we decided to embark on the difficult path of convincing citizens directly of what Bolívar was very clear about, and which we deliberately place at the end of every communiqué we publish, and which he expressed in his own words in a letter to General Santander in 1826: “In a word, my dear general, I know of no healthier course than to restore to the people their original sovereignty so that they may remake their social pact. You will say that this is not legitimate, and I, in truth, do not understand what crime is committed in turning to the source of the laws to remedy an evil that belongs to the people and that only the people know”.
In other words, let the people themselves quickly rebuild what they destroyed starting in 1999 and renew their social contract. Bolívar asked himself, and rightly so, the same question we ask ourselves: what crime can be committed by turning to the source of the laws, the people, to remedy the evil that they themselves know? In October, it will be 200 years since this basic lesson from the Father of the Nation, and we Venezuelans have still not learned it, when we need it most, especially since we have destroyed all known institutions as a society, breaking our own social contract.
Understanding that there is an urgent need to build a new social contract to replace the current deformed and useless one, how could it be possible to hold new elections within the framework of that demolished contract, precisely with those who were responsible for that action for almost 30 years? It would be like helping to paint a dilapidated house to deceive its occupants, making them believe, along with those responsible for its destruction, that they will be safe. How much longer could the house hold out before killing us all?
In light of the new political situation in the country following the forced absence of Nicolás Maduro Moros and the United States' three-phase plan, ANCO is once again raising the same issue, but within the country's new political context (see in Spanish, ANCO Statement: Open Letter to President Donald J. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (Spanish/English) - January 23, 2026, in https://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2026/01/comunicado-anco-carta-publica-al.html). But now there is a very big difference in the approach. It is no longer just about Venezuela.
The US has been very diligent on the international stage in what could well be described as territorial conquest, with a policy of intervention that includes Greenland, Canada, and Venezuela (see in Spanis, Map of the United States published by Trump adds Canada, Venezuela, and Greenland, in www.bloomberglinea.com/actualidad/mapa-de-estados-unidos-publicado-por-trump-anade-a-canada-venezuela-y-groenlandia/).
And helping Venezuela get rid of those who have destroyed the country is not only about freeing Venezuelans from tyranny, but also about taking advantage of our political and institutional disadvantage, the result of 27 years of massive and continuous destruction, controlling oil and other wealth that even Venezuelans are unaware of in our country.
I do not deny that many Venezuelans might agree with this “takeover” by the US president. In fact, many might be happy to become part of a new Western order, part of the North American Union. I will not be the one to argue that. But what I would argue is that it should not be subject to the sovereign discussion of the Venezuelan people, through the mechanisms provided for by our institutions.
If the US, under the presidency of Donald J. Trump, wants to get its hands on Venezuela's government and wealth, let it be under a regime of mutual agreement and benefit, approved by a legitimate representation of the Venezuelan people—once again—through an Original National Constituent Assembly, and not through any government managed from afar, especially when there is no legitimacy whatsoever in those who are leading the country after Nicolás Maduro Moros. And much less should the opposition participate in elections with them, without resolving the serious issue of the legitimacy of all public powers. Do they realize that it is no longer just a problem of “a Constituent Assembly”? It is time for the opposition political leadership to begin to see this issue as a problem of state.
In the public letter that ANCO addressed to President Trump and his Secretary of State Rubio, special emphasis is placed on the fact that a Constituent Assembly is the ideal and most convenient way to preserve the interests and sovereignty of both States, and that there is absolutely no problem in accepting joint collaboration with the US. It is in President Trump's best interest for the success of his three-step plan that Venezuela recover, after the “Stabilization” phase and before the second phase of “Recovery,” all of its political institutions through the Original Constituent Assembly process, and that both phases be carried out by a government appointed by a legitimate representation of the Venezuelan people.
A Constituent Assembly is the way for his three-phase plan to succeed because only through it can an entire institutional framework capable of generating the confidence required by all external and internal factors be built once the “Stabilization” phase of the plan is completed. His second phase of “Recovery” will never succeed without a new political institutional framework that only the Constituent Assembly can establish. This would be impossible with elections that change only one of the branches of government, held within the framework of all the corrupt and illegitimate branches of the regime.
I believe that Venezuela should belong to the sphere of Western countries in terms of freedom and self-determination. It should be free to decide with whom to establish long-term alliances and on what terms. We have done this in the past, being one of the most reliable oil suppliers to the US during its conflicts, but as a decision of our own, not someone else's, even if that someone else is the president of the US.
In the words of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the Davos Forum: “Let me be blunt: we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition” (see in Spanish the full text of the speech that shook Davos, at https://www.lanacion.com.ar/ideas/el-discurso-que-sacudio-el-foro-de-davos-nid22012026/). The United States has broken the established world order and will do as it pleases in Venezuela, with or without our approval. But I am sure that its diplomacy would agree that it would be much more convenient for both parties, in the interests of a better relationship, for this to be done with the approval of our legitimate authorities, and for our side to be represented by a legitimate government with fully restored institutions.
I am aware that Venezuela, at this particular moment in its history as a nation, is not in the best position to resist the claims that the US is imposing on our resources, whether with what remains of the regime or with a possible new government. Twenty-seven years of ignominy have allowed this to happen.
The problem lies in what type of government will underpin this relationship with the US: a democratic and pluralistic government, the product of the decisions of the people after refounding the nation, or the remnants of a regime whose leader is facing trial in a US court. If it is the latter, nothing will change for Venezuelans, except for the imminent collapse of the mirage of economic improvement. Paradoxically, this will be decided by the first democracy in the Western world. I hope, for the benefit of future generations, that the imprint and principles of its Founding Fathers will prevail in its decision...
Caracas, January 25, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario