[ad_1]
Before any predictions, the prospect in Venezuela has taken an absolute turnaround compared to the scenarios that in the recent struggles were on the table for a possible fall of the Nicolás Maduro regime. As if the republic itself had refused to disappear despite the constant crimes and curses it received, an unbeatable opportunity broke through the Venezuelan horizon: the illegitimacy of Nicolás Maduro became effective after consuming 39, criminal act of usurpation of the Presidency of Venezuela on January 10, after the elections unknown by the people, the international community and the National Assembly as the only legitimate power.
In the 20 years of tyranny, a peaceful solution has never been so close, understanding that despite a democratic alternative being impossible by electoral means, there is nothing more imminent than a change of constitutional government; approved by Article 233 of the Constitution without the need for popular support that would, under all canons, be influenced and vitiated by electoral power in the hands of the regime. Once again, the nefarious Venezuelan opposition, this time led by Juan Guaidó, plays with the hope of the people, painting a panorama of liberation devoid of any foundation. This is just another hoax similar to the July 2017 plebiscite and the power vacuum decreed by the National Assembly.
In the historical context of the premise concerning Venezuela at the moment, there is a precedent of great importance to be recovered. After a federal war between 1859 and 1863, which cost the last 20 years of tyranny, Juan Crisóstomo Falcón revived the dying republic with a decree of guarantees that established a new social, economic and political order for the country. Comparing the actions of Marshal Falcón with those of the presumed President Guaidó is an absurdity; it is not comparable in any way a decree that contemplates from the deductive the new structure of the country to superficial declarations in which the president of the National Assembly frequently repeats that the whole parliament will assume the historical responsibility that the Constitution confers on him. So far they have not advanced a millimeter for that purpose.
For opinions like this Rafael Poleo calls us radicals; Henrique Capriles considers us a cult; for collaborationist opposition we are a clear threat to the simple fact of thinking critically, refuting the poor arguments that seek to profess and unmask a modus operandi which held tyranny at the top of power due to lack of commitment and fear of losing the privileges that have been gathered under the table in 20 years of revolution. Radicals for condemning that Guaidó did not take over the presidency on January 10 and was condemned by a mediocre statement by the presumed president the day after, where he did not say anything different from the previous one. A sect to affirm that with open chapters and clear words is not overthrown on a dictatorship, some pessimists clearly imagine that this whole assembly of opposition is nothing but a trap to remain in everyone's mouth.
What Guaidó repeats of his intentions to assume this responsibility is false. If his oath of president of the republic were true, it would have happened on January 10th. If what he says is relevant, it would not have been necessary for the TSJ to make a declaration in exile to push Guaido to take over the presidency on January 11th. If he had been convinced of the actions that he would not postpone to 23 January a presumed appeal to protest to support his responsibilities, on the contrary, he would have long denounced irregularities within the national parliament that prevent the consolidation of a true democracy in Venezuela.
How do they pretend not to suspect a fake capture of Guaidó when they have lost all credibility with people? Do you want us to trust you after seeing how Julio Borges (former president of the AN) met in the brand new Meliá hotel with the government's followers? Can we believe it after Capriles Radonski retired to an election that won but lost the next day? Did not it cause distrust in the regional elections of October 2017 when they shouted to the international community that the elections to the National Constituent Assembly in July 2017 were illegitimate?
It is logical to act in favor of tyranny. They had to give Guaidó the political and media plan that he did not have with a presumed capture. Julio Borges negotiated his future residence in the Dominican Republic and the subsequent exile in Colombia, Capriles Radonski avoided the prisons of Green Branch also conforming with a seat of power in the governorate of Miranda and Acción Democrática necessary to conquer at least 4 governorates to stay afloat receiving economically all kinds of bribes through these allegations. The Venezuelan opposition management of the situation at the head of the National Assembly was as unfortunate and disastrous as the 20 years of the Venezuelan dictatorship. It is impossible to understand how many opportunities have been wasted due to personal interests. In short, nobody wants to put the country above their well-being.
After analyzing this series of events it is possible to reach a fatal conclusion: up to now the only difference in the Venezuelan scenario is that Nicolás Maduro is not legitimate but governs; Juan Guaidó is legitimate but does not want to govern.
If you find a syntax error, a word or spelling in the article, select it and press SHIFT + ENTER or click here to inform us Thank you!
[ad_2]
Source link
