Presumptive, virtual, executable?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 30/05/2024
Share:
Analyzing the situation in Venezuela is still risky, since the conflict is acute. Perhaps, it is not one of the most uncertain after the two hundred years colonized by the then thriving Spanish monarchy. But there is no doubt that it is worrying, particularly if we take into account that since 1821 we have sought to establish ourselves in a “State whose highest authority the people elect for a given period.” And it does so directly, through “the citizens” or “indirectly through their representatives.” And that the task has been complicated for us, despite, apparently, "the potable nature of the methodology." In our hands, it is difficult to accept it, subjected to harsh tests like those confronted in the fable of Sisyphus by Albert Camus in “The Rebel Man.” Hope and faith, virtues crying in the face of frustrations.
The crisis, although it is true that it does not escape those that are not understood, not only in the environment of Latin America, but throughout the world, presents some peculiarities: 1. To a relatively stable democracy, since very few, in truth, protected by absolute fixity, it is defeated as a result of a manifestation of an alleged “military arbitration”, nothing strange, since it has accompanied us throughout our existence, 2. The love of those without access to the spheres of power , in rigor, democratic, but hammocked by the human vocation, which raises a flag with giant letters “The well-being that is demanded must be the most homogeneous possible”, 3. Detrimental, therefore, is the government that continues trying to resolve with “ lie" the setbacks of those voters, inducing them to buy messianic slogans, under the imaginary appreciation of the urgency of revoking them, 4. The banner, even, in the parliamentary headquarters, in large and visible letters, that "how long will we demand what we They call “distributive justice”, in reality bushels of offers, but, in addition, decades after decades, and 5. The fable, in the face of the failed offensive to identify why?, presumably, that Satan visited, after summoning, the political parties, federations of businessmen, employees and workers and in their own headquarters, where they were provided with a bed, hammock, food and even hallucinogenic liquids in well-labeled bottles. The least urbanist shouted four weeks later, with an empty stomach, having attended “a troupe”, with the pardon of the words, because it is hard to find others, “a plot”, fueled to turn it into a whirlwind of perverse synonyms, among others, old intrigues, machinations, traumas, maneuvers and entanglements. And the most serious thing, we have not been able to turn our backs on them. The atmosphere, worrying and even sad, many times when we petitioners, today a large majority and persistently, ask ourselves: What to do? And in the other angle, a minority that thinks they have the answer. The trance, to date, shared, for government and opposition. Denying the premise is hiding the truth and this does not lead us to anything good.
In recent days, the prestigious doctor Miguel Rodríguez, in an interview with Emilio Figueredo, once again reminded us of the government program advanced in the second administration of President Carlos Andrés Pérez. The Minister led us to ask ourselves: But what happened to us? Don Miguel expresses that he introduced in Congress the laws for the modernization of the economy, the oil program supported by an increase of 700 thousand barrels and the negotiation of the debt in the best conditions ever seen. The creation of a fund supported by a macroeconomic program, which if executed, we would have accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars, which is why its development would have placed it in one of the most advanced nations in Latin America. But, he adds, “we had nothing clear, sincere and real in our brains regarding what the political system should be.” We do not know whether to state that Miguel answers the question regarding What happened? But there is no doubt that he is quite expressive.
The economist Gumersindo Rodríguez, from The London School of Economics, for his part, testifies, in the book Was Great Venezuela Possible (1988)?”, that “the difference between a civilized democracy and a semi-civilized one is that, for example , the English comply with a constitution that they have not written, we write one that we do not even know exists. And he remembers Andrés Eloy Blanco, “When a constitution is made, the mirror of a people is conceived. When a mirror is made of a people, there must be a people that portrays itself in it.” The former minister in Pérez's first government concludes “it is to the realities of the people and their power that we must turn to penetrate the essence of the problem of our democratic institutions. Otherwise, paper, as the people say, “holds everything.” The analyst also emphasizes, with respect to the obstacles, that “The parties were used to slow down or neutralize the implementation of the economic development policy in progress.” The inconveniences present in CAP I and CAP II. And Carlos Andrés Pérez, as we noted in our book The Dilemma of Venezuela, president 2 times and between 2 Rodríguez. The commotion, the take-off of you to put on me, one of the most typical manifestations of the anarchy that has persecuted us. And its consequences are painful.
Let us subsume ourselves, as an experiment, in the current Venezuelan scenario, so that someone can provide us with some ideas that will help to alleviate the crisis typified, among other aspects, by the rejection of some against others, and which is becoming more confused every day. And let us answer the whys wandering in our minds, already quite troubled. How about the example of the Republic of Chile, the royal homeland of Don Andrés Bello from Caracas, that of the Civil Code of the countrymen of Bernardo O'Higgins and author of the drink “Si dame esa vaina”, one of the most requested by diners in the menus in restaurants in Santiago. There, nothing more and less than General Augusto Pinochet, a regime characterized, number one by being military, two, essentially a dictatorship and three, with its source in a coup d'état, a procedure, as we read, advanced in France in the 17th century. , defined “as a violent and rapid action that displaces the existing authorities.” A practice that is objectionable and censored by many, but that does not end up losing its validity. In the Americas we don't know what to do with it, but it is there and on every corner. The government that derives from it, it is written, has an origin not stipulated by the norms of the Constitution and laws. It is difficult to affirm, despite the warning, but it would seem that Bello, if he lived in Venezuela, would advise the way in which the Chileans helped in order to get rid of the disastrous regime. We are referring to the “plebiscite”, a gate through which democracy entered, which today the countrymen of the poet Pablo Neruda enjoy, so well administered that even the current Head of State, Gabriel Boric, has understood that we must meditate regarding “ "the juvenile measles of the so-called left." It is written that “The plebiscite constituted the final step of the long process of institutionalization of the military regime, which began with the entry into force of the Political Constitution of 1981. Likewise, to the surprise of many, one of the distinctive elements of this electoral process is related to the massive citizen participation, after more than fifteen years of absence of popular votes, highlighting that 7,435 were registered in the registers. 913 citizens, that is, 97.53%. Such a percentage had never been registered.” Let us understand in the face of our complications that there is always a “first among equals” and it is in that person that we should place our trust and put help for the benefit of the Homeland at their full disposal.” We can do it, by good means, electorally, or by bad means, violence, conflicts and even wars, to regret them afterwards. It seems like a review of what we should do, which is nothing other than understanding each other. Let's pretend, the way so that aggressiveness stops being the forced weapon.
The Magna Carta that was promulgated at the request of the government, whose beginning was tremulous, but it must be censured that in a cycle of contradictions with flags that fluttered in the wind, it ended up legitimizing it, without a doubt, formally, democratically, but it must be admitted that It fell into a cycle of contradictions which punished the hypothetical libertarian conception of its first period. Today bad for many and good for others, the latter numerically smaller than the former. They are unquestionable truths that keep us alarmed and unanswered.
That Constitution allows a plebiscite like the one advanced in Chile. Yes, a popular consultation aimed at getting Venezuelans to speak out regarding the way we understand each other. But with the sacrifice we forget that hanging corpses will appear on the cables of the poles, as happened to Benito Mussolini and others of the time. Emulating him goes beyond the way of being of those born in the land of Bolívar. Of course, responsibilities will be demanded, but in accordance with the Law. Never "commit suicide, much less by batteries." Let's think that collecting corpses is a serious thing.
The Constitution of President Hugo Chávez itself, therefore, it is unfair to question its authorship, does not cease to alert us regarding a “Great Agreement”, in order to integrate us, forgetting the past and even the present, but, as he used to express “knee in land". And forward. But for that purpose. The one of concord.
The considerations presented are not easy to understand or make them a reality. Let us please delve into our feelings to ask ourselves: Is it possible? I, at least, don't know. But neither do we, respond Pedro, Manuel and Julián, from over there in Barinas, Zulia and Margarita. What will happen? From Táchira you can hear the “echo”, “us less”. And in Portuguese, the same. Finally in Monagas the hesitation is acute. The evidence, a crowd asks: PRESUMPTABLE, VIRTUAL, EXECUTABLE? However, let us please be optimistic, we hear from a student in the last semester of the Political Science degree at the Central University of Venezuela. Our union, which we must achieve at all costs, will be the only way to free ourselves from the negative appreciation that is sustained in the academia of developed countries. And which I proceed to read to you: “Democratic institutions in much of Latin America remain weak, plagued by rampant corruption, political polarization, and growing public skepticism regarding government and politics. In some countries, democratic forms are still a façade; in others, they are precarious and vulnerable.” Venezuelans, let's unite, to change history. Loud applause is heard.
Comments welcome.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».