Photo: T13

The legion of Nicolás Maduro’s followers, if there ever was one, is declining. Only 30% of voters in Venezuela remain loyal to Hugo Chávez’s heir, according to the results of the presidential elections of May 20.

If we compare this process with the 2013 elections, when Maduro was first elected, the numbers say he lost 1.3 million votes. He’s surrounded by dissatisfaction, while Chávez keeps making political miracles even after death: His approval ratings remain between 50% and 60% among citizens surveyed by Datanalisis in March, although 91% of respondents think the country’s situation is bad or very bad. However, they proudly say: “I’m chavista, not madurista.” If such a distinction is even possible.

The legion of Nicolás Maduro’s followers, if there ever was one, is declining.

Maduro ascended to power because it was President Chávez’s last wish. Since then, he hasn’t implemented any radical change regarding chavista economic plans. Instead, he’s radicalized persecution against dissidents. Saying that you’re chavista, not madurista, when the model is the same, can turn into a tactic to shield yourself from attacks and slip jail time although not everyone manages to do the latter. Claiming that we lived better with Chávez exculpates him, without considering the unprecedented oil boom during his term. The soldier created the debacle, but he died before having to face the consequences and, with that, he evaded the accusing fingers.

“I identify as a chavista and not a madurista and I’m convinced that the same is happening with an important majority of the people who supported Chávez many times, who know that Maduro isn’t chavista, because if he were, he wouldn’t have abandoned them. He wouldn’t have turned them into one of the most impoverished people on earth,” says Héctor Navarro, a minister from the Chávez era since the first cabinet created in 1999; expelled from PSUV, the ruling party.

Chávez gets some of the blame, but he’s still rather clean. Ricardo Sucre, political scientist and social psychologist, thinks that if politicians don’t attack him, it’s because there’s no point in kicking someone who can’t defend himself anymore. “I think that after 2007, Chávez earned the respect of those who opposed him. What would be the point of attacking an icon who built the image of a superman who inspired fear?”, he wonders.

If politicians don’t attack Chávez, it’s because there’s no point in kicking someone who can’t defend himself anymore.

The idea of treason gains traction among those who still believe in Chávez’s so-called legacy. Gonzalo Gómez, national leader of Marea Socialista and co-founder of Aporrea, muses: “Madurismo is the denial of chavismo.” He explains that Venezuela’s living a counter-revolutionary phase, in which the values and ideas originally proposed by the late president have been twisted, destroyed and perverted. “The destruction isn’t caused by external elements, but by inside forces assimilated by capitalism. One thing is the discourse, but in practice, those in the government steal the national rent and destroy what’s left of Hugo Chávez’s project.”

What does this project mean, however, for those who still praise Chávez’s government? Gómez lists what he thinks were that project’s accomplishments, and the reasons why support for the late president doesn’t decline, even though the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecasts a 1,000,000% inflation rate by the end of 2018. “Some battles were lost. However, during Chávez’s tender, there were conquests in sovereignty, social benefits, rent distribution, construction of the social tissue.”

Erosion

“I met Chávez in person. In my hometown, in Monagas. He was that sensitive Chávez who was still open to hugs,” says Indira Urbaneja, national coordinator of the Movimiento Mujeres en Desafío and a close ally of former Minister Miguel Rodríguez Torres, before he was arrested for treason.

She says that the president was handing out housing units in Monagas for disaster victims and she called him screaming and crying; he heard her and walked up to her; he saw such courage in her that he invited her to Caracas to be a part of the Youth Ministry’s reactivation. “He was the Chávez of the people, the one who received pieces of paper and letters with requests. Not that transfigured Chávez. When chavismo started, it was a feeling, it had no major political, ideological doctrines, no theoretical framework, but lots of feeling.” Urbaneja now stands in a crossroads: On the one hand, chavistas who are completely disappointed and want a radical change in the government system and on the other, chavistas who aren’t maduristas. “In low-income sectors, people say we weren’t so screwed up with Chávez. Now, there’s a very bad person in the presidency and when they compare the previous administration with this one, the former president’s merits grow. That’s why we often hear: ‘This wouldn’t be happening if Chávez was alive’,” says Urbaneja.

Ricardo Sucre doubts there could be madurismo without chavismo because, according to several polls, 80% of those who identify as chavistas support Maduro.

For Yorelis Acosta, social psychologist, five years is too little to forget a person who Venezuelans had to persistently see through mandatory broadcasts on radio and TV, government events and public works showing his picture. “With him, they worked the idea of the leader, the father protector of the poor; reinforced by the clientelism favored by steep oil prices. On the other hand, we have a hard time acknowledging when we messed up. For his followers, it’s hard to admit that the ‘revolution’ was a big scam, so it’s easier to put the blame on Maduro and hold on to the idea of Chávez, the betrayed saviour,” she explains.

Ricardo Sucre doubts there could be madurismo without chavismo because, according to several polls, 80% of those who identify as chavistas support Maduro. He argues that Chávez isn’t held accountable for the Venezuelan crisis for two reasons: the first is that we lived well during chavismo. “It was an age of bonanza, of spending. CADIVI was created and, in the long run, it turned into an opportunity for easy money and many people took that chance. Besides, a 20% inflation rate was paradise compared to the 128% rate we had in June.”

The second reason has to do with the traits of Chávez’s personality, Sucre says: a man who was simultaneously respected, admired and feared as an overprotective, strict father.

The known evil

Undercover agents, traitors, pretenders, counter-revolutionaries and disenfranchised fools. Each of those adjectives has been applied from government tribunes to discredit those who, from their own trenches in the same side of the wall as the government, raise their voice and denounce the corruption, shortages and hyperinflation ruining Venezuela.

In any case, Maduro (and his flaws) still sits on the presidential chair. A public servant who wished to remain anonymous claims this has nothing to do with the ruling opportunism, but the opposition’s failure to show that they’re ready to rule. “They aren’t united either and they propose an ideological disaster that doesn’t convince me. As long as I don’t see a good opposition that sticks up for us, I’ll keep voting for the government.”

In any case, Maduro (and his flaws) still sits on the presidential chair.

Urbaneja agrees that the opposition has been playing their cards all wrong: “Maduro is a consequence of the chavista sentiment, which was so great that it took a person to the presidency just to fulfill the leader’s wishes; but the opposition has played its role dreadfully. They haven’t connected to chavismo, instead they discredit them, call them a plague. They don’t build bridges.”

Finally, the former Minister Navarro says: “If Hugo Chávez were reborn, he’d immediately die again upon seeing this disaster.”

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.

33 COMMENTS

  1. “Urbaneja agrees that “chabizmo is bad, but oppos are SSOOOO MUCH WORSEEEEEEWWWAAAAHHH!””

    That person, as well as ALL of those “dissident chabiztas” are the example of miserable dollar-suckers who are whining now because they were unplugged from the dollar faucet, they’re even worse than the paid fake opposition form the MUD.

  2. I need to say, that Chávez mythology must be erased from this country. Everything Maduro has done, has been from Hugo Chávez’ book. The arrest of dissidents, rationing power and gas, crime, exchange controls, the murder of freedom of speech, all of that was there in Hugo’s times. There hasn’t been a single original Maduro policy, ever. The only difference between the two is that Hugo had the oil barrel at $140, and that actually makes him worse than Maduro, because he didn’t save a dime for times like these.

    Why do you think Chávez picked Maduro as successor? Ex-minister Navarro: If the Comandante one day rises from the grave and looks around, he’ll smile and say “We did it!”

    • He would smile and say “I’m so glad that venezuela is still under the control of my beloved cubans, because how I fucking hate those disgusting veneburros who denied me on the 4F”

    • Well, oil at $140/barrel. AND an petroleum infrastructure that still functioned because it was coasting along on the previous investments and maintenance. By neglecting investments in maintenance, he was actually sowing the seeds of future disaster.

      • Exactly. The neglect of maintenance began practically from day one of El Finado’s takeover of PDVSA. In 2007 I got an e-mail from a petroleum engineer consultant who had made a number of inspection tours of Venezuela, with regard to a rig that burned down near Anaco. He told me that in recent years he had seen increased neglect of oil industry maintenance, increased deterioration of oil industry infrastructure. By 2007.

  3. Shitloads of Russians remain loyal to the antics of Stalin. Even more Chinese venerate Mao. I doubt nothing less than 95% of North Koreans think Kim il Sung is nothing less than God. You will be hard pressed to find 30% of US college students who think that the teachings of Marx, and the actions of Trotsky and Lenin are not only forgivable, but were necessary. I wish I had a dollar for every filthy Che shirt infecting every college poli-sci major.

    Venezuelans don’t want an end to Chavismo. They want new leadership who will bring back the glory days when Vile Capitalists had their property confiscated and they were showered with all sorts of freebies from the benevolent State!

    When the end comes, it shouldn’t be pretty. As a matter of fact, I would be extra diligent to rub their noses in it… like the dog who shit on the carpet. A lesson needs to be learned.

    As Victor wrote, all of this shitstorm is courtesy of Chavez. He just had the bad taste to die before it could be pinned on him. The ONLY way Venezuela pulls a phoenix is by El Pueblo associating this disaster with Chavez. Which is why I think the misery must continue until thousands die… dumb* people take a long time to learn any lesson.

    *Do not confuse dumb (the willfully ignorant) with the uneducated.

    • “When the end comes, it shouldn’t be pretty.”
      Just for practical justice, the chavista apparatchiks should live out their lives in precisely the worst conditions they helped create, in a very large cage on public display — but that’s a utopian dream.

  4. “For Mariela Verdú, this has nothing to do with the ruling opportunism, but the opposition’s failure to show that they’re ready to rule. “They aren’t united either and they propose an ideological disaster that doesn’t convince me. As long as I don’t see a good opposition that sticks up for us, I’ll keep voting for the government.””

    Very true. They aren’t ready to rule. They are Chavismo Lite. There is ZERO difference between the Chavista and (fill in the blank) opposition Party… only how Chavismo will be implemented and who will do it.

    • You and everybody else know that she wasn’t talking about the “chabiztas lite” (AKA the MUD AKA the goddamn paid time-wasters, NO ONE cares about them, actually), she, as all the resented lefty cha-babies is talking about “those fu****g escuálidos who DARED to believe they are more than s**t under my soles”

      In fact, those chabebitas LOVE their chabizmo lite, where THEY could become rich without working and see how the hated “escuali-shits” were tortured to no end, because according to them “It’s their birth right to f**k the escualimi**das’ lives”

  5. Widows of Chavez can be found not only among the chavistas but also among people who love ambiguity, seemingly uncapable of having a clear posture. Comments like those of Ricardo Sucre are preposterous. He says: ““I think that after 2007, Chávez earned the respect of those who opposed him. What would be the point of attacking an icon who built the image of a superman who inspired fear?” and add that “we lived well under Chavez” and “he earned our respect”. This was true of , largely, those who benefitted from corruption or handouts, certainly not of those who love democracy and fredom.

    • Widows of Chavez can be found not only among the chavistas but also among people who love ambiguity, seemingly uncapable of having a clear posture.”

      Excellent!

    • Those are chabiztas too.

      The only authentic non-chabizta is one that’s SURE that everything was the podrido’s fault and that he NEVER did any good thing whatsoever.

  6. But why this should matter at all? Why bound ourselves to the lower common denominator?
    The problem is not that many Venezuelans still feel positively about Chavez and his supreme incompetent reign (we are all by default ignorant especially in politics and economics and by nature we have evolved to follow instinctively charismatic leaders). The real problem is the political structure, specifically the electoral system that allows to degenerate into this dynamic, because it is based in the very flawed assumption that the “people” know best. They don’t and they never will.
    In the few years of “true” Democracy in Venezuela there were never rigorous demands or proper qualifications for this most critical job other than being POPULAR, it was and always has been a brute and vulgar popular contest.
    In other words Chavismo/Madurismo is exactly what was expected from a Populist Democracy, its eventual self destruction.

  7. They are all really CASTRISTAS! Castro is the idiot that caused all of this with a little help from Karl Marx!
    Now Nicaragua is descending into the same bottomless pit!

  8. Guapo is spot on regarding Chavistas. (If you want any validation, just read Aporrea):

    “They want new leadership who will bring back the glory days…”

    Chavismo changed the culture in Venezuela. The professional class and traditional leadership, or escalidos, are the enemy of the people in Chavistas narrative. This idea was well absorbed. Leopoldo, Maria Corina and all those educated sifrinos can never be trusted and thus rendering them a feckless opposition. Sure they may vote for them, but manning the barricades?

    (Also IMF, World Bank, Imperialist Gringos, privatization are terms reserved for the 1984 ‘two minutes hate’).

    Chavista know in their stomach that they need change. They tasted better just a few years ago, but they will go for more Chavismo in the next chapter.

    Chavistas van a coger co~nazo para rato.

    Lk 23:34 – Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”

    • https://www.aporrea.org/oposicion/a267175.html

      This guy is what I am talking about.

      He doesn’t give the least shit that he has nothing and things are getting worse for him and his family. His primary reason for exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide is that non-Chavistas get fucked over.

      This is why Chavismo will live on for years without Maduro. They don’t care about success or achievement. They care that their neighbor has it worse than them. (This is a universal mentality among leftists… envy and hatred. Half the United State is awash with voters who don’t care what happens to the wealth THEY have… they are concerned about the wealth YOU have.)

  9. “In any case, Maduro (and his flaws) still sits on the presidential chair. A public servant who wished to remain anonymous claims this has nothing to do with the ruling opportunism, but the opposition’s failure to show that they’re ready to rule. “They aren’t united either and they propose an ideological disaster that doesn’t convince me. As long as I don’t see a good opposition that sticks up for us, I’ll keep voting for the government.””

    We had been without telephone and internet service here since Monday afternoon so being bored out of my skull, I watched Godgiven Hair’s program last night on Chavez TV. Late in the program he did a segment on the opposition and I must admit, I was in total agreement with his conclusions…….the Venezuelan opposition is almost non-existant today, in total disarray, and cannot seem to formulate a single idea around which its ever-declining membership can coalesce.

    Ironic isn’t it? Never have the problems of the country been greater than today, and yet the opposition cannot find its voice.

    Of course, we all know the opposition gave it all away just about a year ago today.

    I’m sorry, I’ve never been a defeatist in my life, but I just see no way out of this if the country is going to rely upon forces from within for change.

    • Amazing how people claim to need somebody to convince them that the government isn’t good. They are just chavistas trying to hide it.

  10. Shortly after Chavez died I was in Miami for work and met a Venezuelan opposition supporter. He stunned me by saying “it’s a shame that Chavez has died.”

    “Really?” I said. “Doesn’t seem like such a bad thing to me…”

    “You don’t understand,” he responded. “This system is unsustainable. It will eventually collapse. But we Venezuelans really needed the see it collapse with Chavez still at the helm. Now when it goes down, and down it will surely go, we won’t learn what we needed to learn. People will just say that everything was fine when Chávez was still alive.”

    I had no idea I was in the presence of a bonafide prophet

    • I don’t buy it at all. It’s the exact opposite:

      If things went to shit under Chavez, Chavez would simply blame the Gringos even harder, and the pueblo would buy it.

      Under Maduro, they’re NOT fully buying the bullshit that the Gringos are to blame.

      That guy had an interesting spin on things, but he’s wrong.

      • He was at least half right: people are saying that everything was fine when Chávez was still alive. They are wrong, but that is what they are saying

      • This proves you don’t really understand the Venezuelans, Ira. I get your point,but as they say here: Tienes razón, pero vas preso.

        Chávez alive today may not be as unpopular as Maduro, but you can be sure he’d be vulnerable not only to losing power, but to have a reputation tarnished enough that gaining cult figure status would have been kiboshed.

        Chávez died when it was most convenient (not going down the rabbit hole of “was he murdered”) for El Proceso.

        In fact, I am willing to bet the “arrechera” would have been greater given where we are today. Higher expectations dashed and all that. Maduro, after all, is not some kind of “hero” who risked his life in ‘92. So less is expected of him. He’s a caretaker, a steward.

        If the Hero of the Mountain screwed things up like Maduro has, you can be sure that the “factura” would have been presented. And paid.

        Getting Chavismo out, root and branch and leaf is never going to happen now. The thugs who rule in his shadow will go, sooner rather than later, but the cancer that is chavismo will remain in remission only to rear its fugly head time and again.

        Even with a clean CNE, etc. The next few elections will always feature a 25-30% vote for whoever can wear the Chavez mantle convincingly.

        • ** “Chávez died when it was most convenient (not going down the rabbit hole of “was he murdered”) for El Proceso”

          That’s why he was murdered, by the cubans, exactly for the reason you stated in your previous paragraph, to avoid “tarnishing” the myth.

          ** ” Maduro, after all, is not some kind of “hero” who risked his life in ‘92. So less is expected of him. He’s a caretaker, a steward. ”

          You would have been surprised (And disgusted) of how many chabiztas actually believed that maduro was the “best choice” to continue the tyranny’s reign, to who they considered “a man from the barrio, a true pueblo”

          ** “Even with a clean CNE, etc. The next few elections will always feature a 25-30% vote for whoever can wear the Chavez mantle convincingly.”

          As long as the myth remains untouched (Because NO ONE WITH MEDIA PRESENCE DARED TO TOUCH IT), it’s possible to reach such disgusting numbers, six months of showing the truth about chabizmo (Even the part where the cubans killed him) and then chabizmo/socialism/communism will revert to become the 0,05% of the electorate.

  11. NO ES CHAVEZ, ES MADURO!

    En su texto Historia documental del 4 de febrero publicado en 1998, Kleber Ramirez, uno de los más respetados ideólogos del movimiento bolivariano, argumentaba a favor de una Constituyente Comunal. Tal organismo sería expresión de la “comunidad constituida soberanamente” con el fin de decidir sobre “problemas trascendentes propios”. “Revocar, sancionar, o modificar las decisiones adoptadas por las autoridades”, son las funciones que le competerían. El escrito data de mayo de 1992, tres meses apenas luego de que resultara fallido el golpe de Estado; tiempos “pre revolucionarios” tal como Ramirez los calificaba, en los que el MBR-200 y sus líderes discutían todavía las formas sociales, económicas y políticas que un gobierno insurgente impondría al país. El marco de acción de estas formas de organización sería lo que el ideólogo llamaba “democracia comunera” o “comunal” desde la cual comenzarían a gestarse formas socialistas de producción, hasta llegar a la democracia socialista propiamente. Esta última atravesaría varias etapas hasta llegar a la fase final, la democracia total, en la cual el Estado, de existir, sería una “entelequia”. El reino del gobierno comunal se materializaría. Estos planteamientos con tinte inequívocamente marxista leninista, ingenuos y soñadores en apariencia, encerraban lo que ha sido una constante en los regímenes totalitarios. A saber, la imposición de un orden sociopolítico que no deriva de la dinámica social desde abajo; que no reconoce la autonomía de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil, sino que pretende instalarlo desde la cúpula del poder convencida de sintetizar la voluntad general.

    Esta disposición de los bolivarianos fue claramente mostrada en los decretos que se proponían aplicar, una vez que la conspiración militar del 4 de febrero se consumara exitosamente. Dos tipos de edictos regirían: el del Consejo General Nacional (CGN) como expresión suprema del nuevo estado insurreccional y el de la Presidencia de la República. Ambas modalidades delineaban la acción del Gobierno de Emergencia Nacional que se instalaría de facto. De los 24 decretos llaman la atención especialmente aquéllos destinados a anular y vaciar las viejas instituciones como el Parlamento, las Asambleas Legislativas y la Corte Suprema de Justicia. A las mismas se las pretendía sustituir por consejos conformados por individuos escogidos a discreción del Consejo General Nacional, órgano este que pretendía empinarse, cual Dios, por sobre lo humano y lo divino desplomando de un solo manotazo la república. Merece nuestra atención también el Decreto número 7, a partir del cual se procedería al nombramiento de una Comisión de Salud Pública concebida la misma como “la personificación de la conciencia pública nacional” cuya misión sería “velar por una elevada ética en las funciones que se realicen en cualquier instancia de la administración pública”. Con esta resolución estamos nada más y nada menos que frente a la moral colectiva secuestrada y personalizada en una elite auto ungida destinada a higienizar el aparato estatal.

    Aparece perfilado así, en palabras premonitorias de Alberto Arvelo Ramos (en El dilema del chavismo. Una incognita en el poder, (1998) un “Estado totalitario como jamás hemos tenido alguno (…) Los Decretos le dicen al mundo el tipo de gobierno que piensan implantar, y definen sus características esenciales: disolución de los Poderes Públicos, Comité de Salud Pública, control rígido de los asuntos privados y civiles, concentración de la sociedad política en los militares y los amigos de confianza de los mismos.” Esta amplia y prolija batería de decretos reflejaba una voluntad autoritaria largamente madurada que esperó y ha esperado con convicción y paciencia su hora para cercenar definitivamente la democracia. A pesar del alto número de procesos electorales que el chavismo impulsó cuando las urnas le favorecían, burlar sus resultados cuando los mismos no favorecen a la cúpula, ha sido parte privilegiada de la tarea. O, encerrarse a cal y canto en su empeño de impedir elecciones a sabiendas de la derrota. Tal como ahora está ocurriendo.

    No es inoficioso recordar que en los años inmediatamente posteriores al golpe, 1993 y 1995, Chávez trabajó para lo que él llamaba “abstención electoral activa”. Se jactaba de que fuera su organización, el MBR-200, quien hubiese logrado un nivel de rechazo al voto sin precedentes en el país. “La abstención tiene para nosotros el signo de la muerte para el viejo régimen. Es otro 4 de febrero en otra dimensión” diría Chávez a Agustín Blanco Muñoz en el texto Habla el comandante (1998). No es sino hasta 1996 cuando la vía electoral comienza a activarse, una vez convencido de que era éste el único instrumento posible para acceder al poder. Alcanzado el triunfo dos años después, se dio comienzo al proceso constituyente, principal oferta del candidato Chávez en su campaña por la presidencia.

    La Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC) que resultó electa en julio de 1999, se ocupó fundamentalmente de despejar el tránsito del Presidente hacia la consolidación de un poder omnímodo. Aprobada la nueva Carta Magna, la ANC decretó un Régimen de Transición del Poder Público no contemplado en la nueva Constitución que diluyó el Congreso y la Corte Suprema de Justicia y nombró a los nuevos integrantes de dichos poderes además del contralor de la república, el fiscal general y los miembros del Consejo Nacional Electoral. Organizó también un Comité Nacional Legislativo configurado por 11 miembros de la ANC y 10 señalados “a dedo” por ésta; es decir no producto del voto popular. De modo que, gracias a estos antidemocráticos artilugios, los poderes de la República terminaron en manos de funcionarios fieles al proyecto bolivariano. Con las variaciones del caso, la fantasía revolucionaria dibujada en los decretos jacobinos del 4 de febrero se hacía realidad. La ruta electoral tan denostada por el líder golpista, paradójicamente, la había hecho posible.

    En algunos de sus aspectos, el ordenamiento constitucional resultante, sin embargo, comenzó a convertirse en una molestia en los zapatos del Presidente. La incorporación de aspectos no deseados en aquél sería obra de quienes lograron “infiltrarse” en su elaboración, según el mandatario. Era imperativo entonces introducir reformas en el documento supremo a fin de derribar los obstáculos que impedían el avance del proyecto revolucionario. La consulta de 2007 tuvo ese propósito. Reelección presidencial indefinida; ampliación de las competencias de la Fuerza Armada Nacional; creación del Poder Popular cuyo pivote principal sería la comuna, concebida esta como el núcleo espacial básico e indivisible del Estado socialista, serían los principales cambios sugeridos Con respecto al Poder Popular específicamente, Chávez se pronunciaría dejando muy claras las cosas en el proyecto de reforma: “El pueblo es el depositario de la soberanía y la ejerce directamente a través del poder popular. Este no nace del sufragio ni de elección alguna, sino que nace de la condición de los grupos humanos organizados como base de la población”. Conquistado el poder por la vía comicial, el Presidente intentaba regresar las aguas de su proyecto a sus cauces originales: negación del voto directo, secreto y universal con el que la democracia venezolana estaba casada desde 1947.
    Derrotado en la consulta de 2007, Chávez optó por imponer sus reformas apelando al control que ejercía sobre la Asamblea Nacional. Las habilitaciones que recibió para estos fines actuaban como dispositivos que, salvando las distancias temporales y de contexto, sustituían, otra vez, los Decretos del 4 de febrero. Era como si el golpe del 92, hubiese triunfado en el 99 con la acción arbitraria de la ANC y, otra vez, en el 2007 con las habilitaciones que lo convertían en un monarca sin corona del siglo XXI.

    En diciembre de 2010, sin contar con la opinión de la sociedad, la Asamblea sancionó 5 Leyes Orgánicas destinadas a implantar el Estado comunal. Dos tipos de Estado formalmente hablando comenzaron a discurrir simultáneamente: el Estado liberal consagrado constitucionalmente y el Estado comunal apuntando hacia la construcción del edificio socialista. De acuerdo al articulado que las rige, el principio de representación encarnado en los “voceros” de las comunas no emanan del sufragio universal directo y secreto, sino de una elección de segundo grado.
    La muerte de Chávez en 2013 adormiló, de algún modo, la euforia comunal. A pesar de que Maduro haya insistido en que el futuro de la democracia está en las comunas, apenas 103 de estas organizaciones se han registrado frente al gobierno nacional. Esto significa que el Estado comunal formalmente existente, está lejos de hacerse realidad; mucho menos, si el carisma del padre creador no está presente para animar su desarrollo y consolidación.

    A pesar de esta precariedad, el presidente Maduro ha propuesto una Constituyente Comunal a fin de dar a luz una nueva Constitución. Sin duda, es este un ardid para perpetuar en el poder a la oligarquía militarista que hoy asola al país. La base de los comicios para la elección de una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente sería “sectorial” y “territorial”; vale decir, con sentido corporativo. Siendo así, estaríamos de vuelta al origen: instauración de un gobierno integrado por autoridades públicas no derivadas del voto de cada uno de los venezolanos. Tal como el movimiento bolivariano lo plasmó en sus Decretos. Tal como Hugo Chávez concibió el poder popular. No fue de la chistera del Presidente Maduro entonces, de donde salió la proposición de Constituyente Comunal corporativa. La propuesta se emparenta perfectamente con el núcleo totalitario fundacional inherente al movimiento insurgente del 4 de febrero. Maduro no está traicionando el legado del máximo líder de la revolución bolivariana: lo está perfeccionando.

    https://polisfmires.blogspot.com/2017/05/nelly-arenas-no-es-maduro-es-chavez.html

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here