By Teódulo López Meléndez
While the Constitution is subject to appeals, and it is quoted with a longing to see it, and it is mentioned any of its articles every day with an invocation that mimics a prayer; at the same time it is proposed a National Constituent Assembly to liquidate it, to reform it, to modify it, or simply; to tamper it.
If exterminating from its pages the conception of a socialism of the XXI century were to be pursued, it is worth remembering that there is none of that in it. If the causes of our distorted and malicious present were sought, such a search would be anomalous seen that from those who oppose the regime, its faithful compliance is required every day. If the objective was to pull out of rennet the “Plan of the Nation”, made already a law, absurdly and in violation of all that in legal terms can be considered such, the action would be futile given that it is not in it.
If a reform of style were to be pursued, a removal of the dreadful language which violates everything conceivable from Spanish, with its fad to believe that the woman is honored if distinguishing “boys” and “girls” when speaking instead of using the generic word “children”,leaving battered the language of Cervantes; for then we would prepare for another formula under itself to modify it or amend it. Or, maybe if a Constituent was announced with a specific project of modifications, we would dare to point out no presidential reelection, removing the Legislative Councils of the States and their replacement by an Assembly of Mayors, and the extermination of excessive presidential rule.
We understand that a Constituent is convened for that purpose, but not here. Here is presented as ” The Constitutional Exit”, that is, as a way to topple the government without getting the hands dirty, which is commonly called “Coup”, as a surgical procedure done with latex gloves where eminent people, not knowing what to do to respond to a country weary of so many evils harassing it every day, resort to that layer of hypothetical legal protection to tell an exhausted society that the “exit is constitutional”. In the best case, to get to the next election, where the owners of the “unity” as blackmail would reach climax.
The Constituent is sought as a simple and transitional provision adjourning the period of public bodies, including clearly the president, and calling for new general elections. They find it so easy. The objections just leave the CNE (National Electoral Council) or voting machines. Some of us see it differently: The cessation of the protest to collect signatures, setting another Tascon’s list, modifying circuits, violent impediments for signatures to reach their destination, the summons, the act of voting and, of course, the results. If they could overcome such roadblocks, we have to look at this latter. A majority willing to write the famous “Transitional Provision” could make Jose Tadeo Monagas look like an innocent infant without a mouth opened Fermín Toro. A government majority would remove the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to arise the Popular Socialist Republic of Venezuela.
Here it is not even about that goofy mania that lawyers call constitutionalism or resolution to believe that everything can be fixed by changing the basic text. Since many constitutions have had this country. It is about a clumsy maneuver, an approach to end protests, for “channeling through legitimate means” the urge to leave the government, the political leadership responses without a verb, no program, no ideas, no strategy, no tactics, without talent.
Here we are in a political battle, not a trinkets or magicians fair where we are asked to respond under which of the three cards the coffee grain is hidden. Here, the Instituent Power is required, the daily exercise of democracy which dents totalitarianism, the daily discussion of connected citizens that imposes lines and decisions, the quotidian action that goes imposing substitution parameters for elites and the shameful circumstances. The Instituent Power does not collect signatures, deliberates. The Instituent Power does not go to the CNE, change cultural paradigms. The Instituent Power does not meet for a delimited time, but does so daily, changing daily, “instituting and de-instituting” and that is why the original sovereignty rests with the people, which shall exercise without constituents.
Traducción al inglés de Dirlay Castillo @ddcastilloy