Oh world Venezuela!
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 23/12/2024
Share:
It is unquestionable that humanity has for some time now “not had it all its own way”, an expression that, according to simple linguistics, refers to “certain scenarios in relation to which there is doubt of a good result”. It is read that the phrase Ah world! derives from the luck of the card player when he lacks the cards to win the game. The dilemma involves “transcendental providences”, both internally and internationally. Therefore, we dwell on a “sharpened” scenario. And hence the title of this essay.
In the Latin American context, it must be said that Caracas has been governed since 1958 by a “constitutional democracy,” after a long road typified by the following attempts: 1. First Republic, following the so-called Revolution of April 19, 1810; 2. Second Republic, which began in August 1813 and ended in December 14, a period known as the “War to the Death,” 3. Third Republic, 1817 to December 1819, called “Gran Colombia,” attempts following Venezuela’s separation from Spain, independence agreed upon by the latter on March 30, 1845 as signed by the two countries. Throughout history, and we do not know if since 1845, but until today, when we mention conquering Spain, we are accustomed to calling it the “Mother Country.” To reach the regime of freedoms of January 1958, efforts took time and enormous sacrifices.
Venezuelan historian Jesús Piñero questions the view that democracy has been an exception in our history. He does not deny that caudillismo and militarism have been ghosts that have haunted us, but he points out 1. If we look at history, it is true that we would see “the preeminence of the armed sector over the civilian sector” and 2. However, looking at society as a whole, we will perceive “a citizenry mobilized in pursuit of its rights.” The academic, in support of his thesis, adds that since political independence was declared in July 1811, Venezuelans have tried democracy in different ways. He also highlights “a relentless search for more than two centuries, but one that continues. The 19th century, for Piñero, is not a period marked only by caudillismo. It is also an effort for a nation with its bases in liberalism and federalism. And as far as the 20th century is concerned, the atmosphere for turning a “battered republic” into a democratic one cannot be hidden. The future that began with the Constitution of 1961, after 40 years, faces serious difficulties. Denying this is nothing less than a utopia.
In the Americas, “the restlessness of democracy,” according to Carlos Sánchez Berzaín, Executive Director of the Interamerican Institute for Democracy, also exists in Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia and Nicaragua. If we understand well one of the most prominent figures of the democratic government of the “Plurinational State,” presided by Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, the methodology is nourished by activities that are not entirely orthodox. The political scientist sees Cuba as the cradle of strategies to implement “21st century socialism” (in the opinion of his mentors, “a participatory democracy that replaces the representative one, a way to conceive man as a social being, aim for full human development, create a new economic model and achieve a high degree of decentralization”, Alvaro Hamburger, Journal of International Relations, Strategy and Security, Military University, Bogota, Colombia), whose implementation contradicts a “capitalism” based on the so-called “market economy” (as it is read, “the exchange of goods and services between individuals, who agree on the product or service and price). But, additionally, rooted, including countries, such as China, in essence, “not so communist anymore” (Mao-style socialism, one often hears).
The question concerns what is to be done?, which is revealed with the intelligence that characterizes the former Chilean presidential candidate Ricardo Israel in a pithy essay entitled “Trump, Venezuela and Cuba. How deep will the changes be?” The scenario is not at all simple, as can be inferred from the reasoning of the PhD in Political Science from Essex, who nevertheless ends his column by expressing “The words spoken by Martin Luther King in the 60s still resonate “that to do the right thing, today will always be the right time.” A genius “the colored leader”, who was not lucky enough to perceive the result of his struggles, whose security seemed to have been expressed in his historic expression “I have a dream.”
In our conversations with the academic Israel, we must say that he mentioned Don Andrés Bello, who left his mark both in Caracas and in the “Homeland of Bernardo O'Higgins”. He was a fighter for a republican Venezuela, evidence of which is that the Junta of April 19, 1810, sent him to England with Simón Bolívar, where, perhaps not to his surprise, he learned of the breach of what had been agreed in Caracas in 1812, that is, 2 years after the April decree, concerning the creation of a republic, leaving Don Andrés without a task to fulfill. And from that date on, he began a via crucis that took him to Chile where he stood out in different areas, including the Civil Code. Simón Bolívar, on the other hand, returned to Caracas to join a long struggle for independence, a military and political process that began in 1810 until 1846. After independence, it cannot be denied that, as in most Latin and Central American countries, it has taken us Venezuelans longer than usual to seriously establish a democratic regime. Most of us believe in a higher being, and we look to the sky imploring a better present and future. May “Divine Providence” cooperate, is the cry of many.
This essay would be incomplete if we did not take into account what happened to democracy in Venezuela from January 1958, following the overthrow of the dictatorship, which, as it is written, was overcome by “the joint action of the armed forces and an almost unanimous civil rejection expressed in the streets.” A regime, which in its most personal and aggressive phase, had ruled the country since 1952 and whose origin had been “a coup d’état” against a popularly elected government, but harshly questioned. The promises of the political leaders with respect to popular expectations, including the parties, generated “an environment not favorable to demands,” thus incurring in one of the most annoying shortcomings of “the populist tint.” Of course, taken advantage of by an important part of “the godarria,” the latter, obviously, in defense of its own interests.
These scenarios are what lead us to realize that democracy is required to be efficient, and is therefore compelled to address an abundant diversity of interests, in most cases even contrary to each other and fueled by virtues and the opposite. It is called to manage goodness and evil. But, also, power, authority, resources, generation of individual and general benefits and it is of its essence that this is recognized when it does well, but that it is questioned in the opposite scenario. It governs a heterogeneous world that derives from “influence peddling to ambition for positions and even enrichment, not exempt from illicitness.” There have been Heads of State who a few days after being elected have become disillusioned, thinking that it is more advisable to be governed than to govern. It is, furthermore, a temporary stay in power, except in the case of dictatorship.
Venezuela today is shaken from various angles, including a government that wants to remain, in the face of those who make up “the opposition,” in the opinion of some, a weakened one, but one that does not want to be extinguished (for critics “functional opposition,” for allegedly coming to an understanding with the government”) and another currently “the majority,” which is seen as a locomotive against “Syrians and Trojans.” The latter claims to have emerged victorious in the last electoral process against the government, which claims to have obtained the greatest number of votes. It is a conflict regarding which, as in almost all cases, there is no understanding, but, on the contrary, “an extreme disagreement,” a circumstance that leads the opposition to the governing regime to turn, among other aid, to “the international community,” convinced that the reason for the existence of the latter, among other transcendental tasks, compels it to strive for democratic consolidation. But those who govern also seek support from countries under regimes whose formation is based on ultra-traditional religious philosophies and even fueled by obsolescence, rather than on the will of the people. The media mentions countries such as China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria and others with a similar “strain”, but also with a strong interest in having a presence in the Americas. Cuba is mentioned as the platform from which they operate on the way to America and in displacement of traditional cooperation with the United States. Law professor José Ignacio Hernández emphasizes the interest of the Asian regime, given the geopolitical importance of Caracas and its abundant natural resources. The academic highlights a kind of “bid” between Asian, American and other companies (Secret loans from China and Venezuela: A new strategic relationship?, 09.14.2023).
It must be ruled out that international support could be: 1. From organizations such as the UN, the OAS and similar, whose efficiency depends on the unanimity of the provisions approved by the States that comprise it, whose effects usually remain in the good will of the questioned regimes (in exaggerated terms "salutes to the flag" an expression understood pejoratively as "a gesture devoid of all value and solemnity"), 2. The unilateral or multilateral decision of certain countries, which can be described as an "invasion" (the US invasion of Panama in December 1989), which is exceptional, to be honest, and 3. Indirect provisions by powerful nations executed through the armed forces of the questioned country, under the slogans of establishing supposedly communist regimes, such as the coup d'état in Guatemala, supported by the US, to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz, elected Head of State by popular vote (Hard Times, Mario Vargas Llosa). Reference must also be made to the so-called “sanctions” aimed at restricting business and income from countries with atypical political regimes, which are criticized due to evidence that they are not as effective as they seem. This assessment has been put forward with solid arguments by Francisco Rodríguez (PhD in Economics from Harvard University): “Sanctions, Economic Policy and the Venezuelan Crisis”, Table 6. Venezuelan attitudes towards sanctions, related topics: a) Regarding economic, oil and financial sanctions, do you think they will be: Harmful 63.0%, b) What type of impact do you think the US sanctions have had: Negative 71.2%, and c. How do you evaluate the current situation in the country? Negative 88.4%. The study continues with considerations and questions that seriously question the efficiency of sanctions applied by developed nations, such as the US, in the case of countries affected by “non-democracy or deficient democracy”.
Humanity is not doing well, that is what it provokes to express and this takes us to biblical times in relation to humanity and its disappearance, which leads to ask: Will the world end?, falling, even, into the imagery in order to build a simile of "Noah's Ark" so that the good are saved from the flood, reason to think that the boat must not be very big, because the bad are more numerous. Psychologists speak of "dichotomous thinking" when referring to the maxim "all or nothing" expression with a variety of meanings, but the simplest seems to be "That someone can have everything, but is still nothing." Perhaps, the most acceptable for the purpose of this essay would be "the tendency to consider that things can be black or white, good or bad. Intermediate situations are not admitted." The extreme antagonism that hinders agreements, favoring an absolute discrepancy fueled by the contempt of one side and the other. The only alternative is “it’s you or me.” And there is no possibility of reconciliation.
In search of hope, let us decide to move away from the universal flood and the urgent need for an Ark like Noah's and let us turn to one of the latest articles by a spokesman for God in Venezuela, Father Luis Ugalde, former rector of the prestigious Andrés Bello Catholic University, who advises: 1. Mobilize national potential for the indispensable investments of tens of billions of dollars, 2. Create the conditions to generate an exceptional activation of national and foreign investment and with exceptional support from multilateral organizations and 3. The willingness to open the doors to healthy capitalism, which contributes to providing jobs, generating production and giving a breath of fresh air to society. It is the task of the military and civilians, of universities, of churches, of workers and businessmen, with neighbors standing up and united, because only by joining forces can we make Venezuela a prosperous country. We have no doubt that the beloved priest trusts in the usefulness of political transactions.
From a more formal angle, jurist Allan Brewer Carías estimates that “In 2024, the country is once again in a constituent moment that imposes a radical change to the pre-existing constitutional political order, which has definitively collapsed, which places us Venezuelans, whether we like it or not, on the verge of a constituent process, similar, as has been said, to those we have had in our political history, and which democratic leadership is obliged to identify and assume, as it did in 1945 and even in 1958.” This is the opinion of one of the most prominent professors of public law in Latin America. And one who has lived with the human mass that makes up the constitutional assemblies, since he was an efficient assemblyman of the one that approved the current Magna Carta. The academic and friend, with roots in prestigious European universities, including French ones, has certainly read Woody Allen's book "Without Feathers", a peculiar narrative regarding the storming of the Bastille, a chapter inserted in the history of France. For the filmmaker, the peasants assumed power, changing the locks of the Palace so that the nobles could not enter, throwing a party, but the latter rescued the headquarters, forcing the former to clean it. For the filmmaker, there is always something to rebel about and someone willing to do so, trying to displace the oppressors from power, those who, in order to have a good time, are called to defend the status quo. Those who rebel are the oppressed. Allen's reading generates uncertainty regarding whether that storming was the determining factor for the French Revolution. By way of contrast, Cesar Vidal in his book “The World Changed” refers to the Second Vatican Council and the Reformation that brought with it the idea of the supremacy of the Law and, consequently, social pacts in pursuit of freedoms, limited public power, the election of magistrates and the separation of powers. He makes particular mention of the American Revolution that led to a democracy still in force, whose support is a puritanical people with an objective conviction of the existence of God and the Bible. The Founding Fathers achieved, for Vidal, a democratic pact to last for centuries (Our essay The Constitutional Assemblies, August 2020).
As an illustration of the negativity of the “all or nothing” approach, which is very typical of anarchy, it is said that Juan Rivas in London greeted a lord indiscreetly, who, offended, challenged him to a duel, a challenge to which the countryman agreed, setting a place, time, weapons and even godfathers for the confrontation. The lord showed up punctually and Rivas did not, but half an hour later an 18-year-old grandson of the latter showed up and said: “Mr. Lord, the guy says to consider him dead and go to hell.” The lord died on the spot out of anger. But Rivas lived to be 110 years old. In politics it seems advisable to note that “dichotomous thinking” does not work successfully in all cases, that is, “all or nothing.”
God willing, the near future will provide Caracas with the deck to emerge triumphant from the card game referred to at the beginning of this essay. And may the hand of the Lord prevent the carpenter from being found to build an “Ark like Noah’s.”
Comments welcome.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».