It would be really petty for any political analyst in Venezuela to avoid analyzing the proposal made by María Corina Machado, in view of what happened last November 21 with the regional elections undertaken by the regime and its opposition. Her proposal is summarized in something that all Venezuela knew but nobody wanted to face: the political leadership of the opposition must be changed as a matter of urgency. It could be said that Venezuelans are formally left without political referents after the overwhelming refusal to vote in that spurious electoral act.
But if it is true that MCM's proposal reveals a truth as big as a cathedral, it is no less true that by the very fact of formulating it, many did not focus their criticism on what she proposed but on who proposed it, leaving out the possibility of delving into the importance of what she said and its technical-electoral feasibility. All of them immediately fell upon her, accusing her of opportunistically taking advantage of the moment, trying to look for formulas to lead that more than 75% that some attribute to the abstention of 21N. I will not enter into this unimportant discussion because in addition to being faithful to the jurists' maxim that good faith is presumed and bad faith must be proven, I believe that this is a proposal that should be seriously considered by Venezuelans, regardless of who made it. Maybe that is why some people say that I will be buried in a white urn...
And yes, Maria Corina is right. We urgently need to change the political leadership, not only because of what happened on 21N but because the whole political system collapsed and has reached a point of unviability. I remember now that old saying that politicians are like disposable diapers, they have to be changed permanently for obvious reasons. But in Venezuela it seems that this maxim does not apply, and hence the intolerable smell of excrement that is impossible to bear.
It is not the first time in recent years that I have addressed the issue of opposition leadership from a scientific perspective in this modest blog. I have presented the researches of Simon Sinek and Derek Sivers (see in Spanish Three Dimensions of 16D in http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2012/12/tres-dimensiones-del-16d.html and Leadership Lessons from a Madman Who Left, in http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2014/02/lecciones-de-liderazgo-de-un-loco-que.html) to understand how a leader inspires action and how leadership starts a movement, as well as the corporate experience of Rosalinde Torres (see in Spanish Leadership questionnaire in http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2015/10/cuestionario-de-liderazgo.html) to understand what requirements a person must have to fit the very high responsibility of leading groups.
I have also touched on the subject from my own experience and perspective (see in Spanish The search for lost leadership, in http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2012/11/la-busqueda-del-liderazgo-perdido.html, Worthwhile leadership, in http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2016/04/un-liderazgo-que-valga-la-pena.html, Reflections on the conuco, in http://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2013/06/reflexiones-del-conuco.html). In all these references I have somehow come to the same conclusion, repeated once again now, that in Venezuela we have done as a people the opposite of what the whole world does: the leaders reach the highest responsibilities in our country without the necessary ethics, morals or experience, and hence the grotesque tragedy in which we are now involved with the leadership of the opposition.
For years and years we have been tolerating political leaders who repeatedly make the same mistakes, with or without intention, in their own interests, at the expense of the lives of Venezuelans, and more than 20 years go by and they are still there as if nothing had happened. They block the possibilities for the new generations, they do not hold elections in their parties, they make transcendental decisions for us when the legitimate representation of Venezuelans has already expired. And nothing happens. MCM only said what Venezuelans already knew with a difference: the whole world saw it live and direct on November 21 as a reality impossible to ignore. Venezuelans expressed with their absence and rejection of spurious elections the following sentence that we all heard loudly: we do not want them!
In the absence of the political institution par excellence, which is none other than a legitimate elected Parliament, Venezuelans must embark on a path that implies a change in political representation. We cannot advance in a firm struggle against the regime without a legitimate political representation, even if we have to build it ourselves from the civil society, as indicated by MCM in her proposal. Another "renewal" of the 2015 National Assembly is not tolerable, not only for legal reasons but also for ethical and moral reasons, but also for Political reasons, with a capital "P".
The National Assembly of 2015 failed the Venezuelans with all its letters, despite the trust and the avalanche of votes delivered to them at the time. The only tangible product that that Assembly can present was the Government in Charge of Juan Guaidó that never assumed the responsibility of the Executive Power as it was governed by an unconstitutional Transitional Statute, which turned its presidency into an illegal and completely useless parliamentary government. The Deputies distributed positions abroad in the old fashioned way, which revealed to Venezuelans that their political leadership learned absolutely nothing from this tragedy.
But the MCM proposal will be incomplete if it does not include a "with whom", a "for what" and a "how". It is not enough to say that a new political leadership must be chosen. What would we choose? It is clear that many organizations, political and civil society, will be required to accompany the idea (with whom), and with these to establish the technical-electoral mechanism (the how) that will allow us to elect with the greatest possible transparency those who will represent their States, Municipalities and Parishes, as well as the international representation of the Venezuelan Diaspora.
In this sense, this proposal could be connected with an ANCO initiative, prior to the 21N electoral mess (see in Spanish ANCO Communiqué, Regroup to Re-found the Nation, Regroup to Re-found the Nation, in https://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2021/11/comunicado-anco-reagruparnos-para.html) which we have called the CITIZEN'S CONGRESS, an instance designed to serve as "a tool for organized, social and political participation, bringing together the various sectors of citizen expression to be used in the materialization of the great effort of REFUNDING THE NATION, offering itself as a republican instance to gather the necessary contingent to deploy the tasks of the democratic struggle with agility and success, inside and outside the country..." (see in Spanish ANCO Communiqué: The National Refoundation, in https://ancoficial.blogspot.com/2021/11/comunicado-anco-la-refundacion-nacional.html). In this way, the idea of electing the renewal of political representation throughout the country would be put into practice. Under this concept, we would elect legitimate representatives from all over Venezuela. What for? To make policy decisions that would make a common front of unified and true opposition to the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros.
Although leaderships are not decreed or elected, because the situation itself generates them, Venezuelans must find new channels and scope for the opposition struggle over and above what has happened to us through an updated and legitimate representation. If an agreement can be reached that brings together as many organizations as possible around the idea proposed, it would be possible to form a Citizen Congress to make up for the lack of a political institution to give direction to the opposition struggle, until we can elect a legitimate Parliament in Venezuela.
In a note that I published in 2012, referenced above, The search for lost leadership, I emphasized that we should choose to represent us only those people with knowledge, tradition and experience, not only in politics but also in the development of their lives. That we should verify their personal and professional trajectory and contributions to their communities. Do not choose newcomers without experience in their own fields of activity. Ask for references, investigate them well. Do not give a blank check to someone unknown. Be more in-depth and critical in your assessments. Listen to their interventions and try to weigh the sincerity of their speech and their love for this country. We are playing Venezuela!
For a long time now, we have been in an era of definitions. It is time for a new breed of leaders to emerge to lead a new era of progress and welfare. I am not worried that the emerging leaders have not yet entered the political scene because I am sure they will appear if there is a sincere initiative of a call to serve the country such as the one that would be given at this precise and opportune moment in the life of the country with these proposals.
A Citizen’s Congress that gathers the most representative of a true opposition throughout the country, could weigh with due rigor and transparency, without mediating interests, ANCO's proposal for the Refoundation of the Nation and assume it as the political development that must necessarily take place for a peaceful and constitutional solution to the crisis plaguing Venezuela. The regime and its opposition have already decided on a revocatory course that will lead us to a ravine that will continue with the suffering of Venezuelans until beyond 2024. But we also see that there are already ideas and proposals to stop them. I am hopeful that now there is enough good sense to make them a reality...
Caracas, November 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