| Former secretary of the MUD coalition blames against abstention - May 27, 2017 |
In our view, the main leaders of the opposition are feeling that the demonstrations are loosing "momentum", that demonstrators are less and less recognizing the leadership and guidelines provided by the Opposition Coalition (MUD) and that people murdered and/or harmed by government repressive forces are no longer being noticeable for the public opinion. Instead casualties are increasing in number, but that fact does not imply a change in the wind. On the contrary, is almost impossible to track the whole situation derived from repression.
Since people is not able to digest all the information on casualties that they are receiving, even with good faith, assassinations for the mass are becoming more a "collateral damage" rather than an indignation instrument that should highlight the relevance of each victim on a case by case basis. And each individual is valuable. Just ask each of their loved ones what they think about their relatives killed by the repression. I am sure that they would like more than a tribute in the national Congress and a graphic showing that they are part of an horrible statistic.
I exposed these thoughts in my twitter account. The reaction created mixed feelings since many people asked me why I think that the opposition parties will attend to the creation of the communist constitution. Hereby I proceed to set a brief summary of my arguments:
1) The 2005 electoral myth: during the Congress elections of the year 2005, the main part of the opposition parties choose to abstain during the election. As a consequence chavismo won the entire Congress and ruled without restrictions in the legislative branch. According to the pundits that lead the opposition public opinion guidelines, this action was a mistake (I have another point of view on the matter), so in order to not "loose spaces" opposition must attend to every possible election available.
2) The prisoner's dilemma: eventually protests must have a break point. Will the people stay in the streets endlessly? How much may the people remain in demonstrations with no concrete results? Yes, non-violence is a great weapon, but it must have a concrete outcome. If not, eventually people will get tired and get back to their means of survival. So the opposition is facing the following dilemma: we cannot concrete the withdrawal of Maduro from power, we cannot atomize chavismo in such a way to break up the power coalition, we are not able to motivate the military to rebel themselves against Maduro, what else can we do? By attending to the ANC we will be able to at least pick up something. Yes, is illegal. Yes, is against the so-called "Chávez legacy", but at the end, in a failed state such as the Venezuelan, the Rule of Law and the legality of government actions are just a joke. The Constitution of 1999 was illegal when it was created, but at the end people ended accepting it. Even Law Schools in the country no longer question its legitimacy. Even more, the Constitution of 1999 is used as a cornerstone of democracy, so you may understand how deep is our tragedy.
3) There is a historical fact also. In you review some works of Rómulo Betancourt in 1948 (after his party Acción Democrática and the military overthrow with a coup d'état Mr. Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945) and former president Luis Herrera Campins have stated that political changes must be conducted through elections and legality, neglecting any "shortcut" on the pursuit of power. This guideline has been adopted by the opposition coalition as a mantra that together with the lines of not "loosing spaces" have made predictable the opposition behavior.
There are a lot of rumors in this matter and crossed information. Again, I don't see opposition abstaining. If they abstain, however it would be an irony, because many of the arguments exposed by the opposition to abstain right now are the same that in the past many of us used against prior elections, and may criticized us an called us supporters of "antipolitics". Of course, when the masters of the public opinion say something is very different than the criteria of an outsider. Even if the words are the same.
I exposed these thoughts in my twitter account. The reaction created mixed feelings since many people asked me why I think that the opposition parties will attend to the creation of the communist constitution. Hereby I proceed to set a brief summary of my arguments:
1) The 2005 electoral myth: during the Congress elections of the year 2005, the main part of the opposition parties choose to abstain during the election. As a consequence chavismo won the entire Congress and ruled without restrictions in the legislative branch. According to the pundits that lead the opposition public opinion guidelines, this action was a mistake (I have another point of view on the matter), so in order to not "loose spaces" opposition must attend to every possible election available.
2) The prisoner's dilemma: eventually protests must have a break point. Will the people stay in the streets endlessly? How much may the people remain in demonstrations with no concrete results? Yes, non-violence is a great weapon, but it must have a concrete outcome. If not, eventually people will get tired and get back to their means of survival. So the opposition is facing the following dilemma: we cannot concrete the withdrawal of Maduro from power, we cannot atomize chavismo in such a way to break up the power coalition, we are not able to motivate the military to rebel themselves against Maduro, what else can we do? By attending to the ANC we will be able to at least pick up something. Yes, is illegal. Yes, is against the so-called "Chávez legacy", but at the end, in a failed state such as the Venezuelan, the Rule of Law and the legality of government actions are just a joke. The Constitution of 1999 was illegal when it was created, but at the end people ended accepting it. Even Law Schools in the country no longer question its legitimacy. Even more, the Constitution of 1999 is used as a cornerstone of democracy, so you may understand how deep is our tragedy.
3) There is a historical fact also. In you review some works of Rómulo Betancourt in 1948 (after his party Acción Democrática and the military overthrow with a coup d'état Mr. Isaías Medina Angarita in 1945) and former president Luis Herrera Campins have stated that political changes must be conducted through elections and legality, neglecting any "shortcut" on the pursuit of power. This guideline has been adopted by the opposition coalition as a mantra that together with the lines of not "loosing spaces" have made predictable the opposition behavior.
There are a lot of rumors in this matter and crossed information. Again, I don't see opposition abstaining. If they abstain, however it would be an irony, because many of the arguments exposed by the opposition to abstain right now are the same that in the past many of us used against prior elections, and may criticized us an called us supporters of "antipolitics". Of course, when the masters of the public opinion say something is very different than the criteria of an outsider. Even if the words are the same.
