An Alphabet to Restore Democracy (continued)
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 01/12/2025
Share:
In recent days we raised the need for “An Alphabet to Restore Democracy,” convinced that despite its countless benefits, it is being shaken from side to side and is not currently at its best in at least a few countries. Consider what has been analyzed as “Preliminary Considerations,” and from now on, in this and subsequent essays, we will analyze the content of the letters of the “Alphabet.” We begin, therefore, with:
Letter “A”
Chapter I
A National Constituent Assembly
Which we described in the “Preliminary Considerations” as “that composed of deputies elected by the people in universal and secret ballot, so that, in the exercise of the power that the latter, as is well known, possesses as sovereign, and through a constitution, the State may be established, organized, and disciplined, and its proper ends reaffirmed and truly realized. The constitutional text, in consideration of its hierarchy as the supreme law of a country, is also called the “Magna Carta, Supreme Law, and Law of Laws.” We also note, with regard to Venezuela, that it has not escaped the trend common to Latin American countries, which, "erga omnes," have struggled to establish, organize, and stabilize themselves with the necessary efficiency according to the provisions of the constitutional assembly. This assembly, including its consequential effects, has been treated more like a soccer ball going back and forth between the goalposts without ever actually entering either. Therefore, as scholars of the subject have suggested, the phrase "the constituent necessity" must be given meaning, illustrating that if we don't take this seriously, we will continue to engage in mere mockery. We, aware of the "constitutional chaos," would rather speak of "a decisive urgency of necessity." Indeed, the urgent, and indeed imperative, nature of the treatment that this crisis demands must be emphasized.
We would also be inclined, for the sake of greater precision, to state that the "purpose" of a Constituent Assembly "is to build a republic," which complements the observation regarding the "football," since, for the Royal Spanish Academy, "the noun 'purpose' refers to the 'spirit or intention to do something,' but also to 'not doing it,' a hypothesis not absent from our history, given that throughout it we find a profusion of attempts to build ourselves as a 'republic,' which would seem to suggest that they have not been 'serious constitutional assemblies,' but rather attempts fueled by the 'spirit or intention not to do something.'" This is the second interpretation that the Royal Spanish Academy attributes to the noun "purpose."
Some readings, quite interesting indeed, including that of Sergio Ortiz Leroux, PhD in Political Science from Mexico (Republic and Republicanism, January-April 2007), argue that the creation of a republic has been confronted with two types of “republicanism.” The first, “radical-democratic,” embraces democracy without fear and maintains that the idea of the common good coincides with the equation “government of, by, and for the people.” It is also identified as “government of the poor.” The second approach, government of the rich, is based on oligarchy, autocracy, and “a single leader or group of individuals,” resulting in little “tolerance for political pluralism.” Regarding the republic, it is written that it should rather be associated with the defense of liberty, in order to “decide who we are and how we want to be,” thus excluding domination, that is, being governed by another. Not being so leads to self-governance.
This second type of “republicanism,” according to Ortiz Leroux, is that of “a society of property owners,” and therefore, of those who are not property owners, a hypothesis that is challenged by the notion that “whoever lives at the mercy of another is not free but a slave.” Thus, the citizenship to be built, in addition to providing us with rights linked to freedom, demands obligations from us. In liberal-democratic republicanism, the common good is associated with the rule of law and with the modern notion of representation. The participation of the people is, of course, important, but limited to the election of rulers. They do not participate directly in government, an observation that leads to the question of whether “non-democratic republics” can exist.
In this republican system, the autonomy of the individual vis-à-vis the State and the predominance of their individual rights, particularly property rights, are reaffirmed. This is evident when examining their duties to the community, which are limited, in principle, to the protection of their own rights through suffrage. Consequently, the participation of individuals in the public sphere is reduced to the mere expression of private interests through voting, thus mediating the preferences of the electorate in positions of representation. In the assembly, the rights of the wealthy will obviously take precedence.
The foregoing considerations confirm that “building a republic” is a serious matter, and therefore, so too must a “Constituent Assembly.” And no less crucial is the popular representation that comprises it. Consequently, it must be concluded that “not all countries are republics, or at least that there are different and even opposing republics.”
Given this scenario, let us consider "the problematic context in which the 'constituent assembly' in Venezuela has operated," the analysis of which, upon examining the numerous and diverse attempts, leads us to determine whether they have been sincere or "disguised." Indeed, since our independence in 1811, we have formally had 25 constitutions, if we include our Act of Independence of July 5, 1811, and the Constitution of Gran Colombia of 1821. It is noted in this regard that the Act of Independence would not be classified as a Constitution; however, for scholars of the subject, it is, since it is what constitutes us as a people, manifested even before independence (Study group comprised of the professor of constitutional law, Gustavo Planchart Manrique, its coordinator, and Manuel Caballero, Marianela Ponce, Manuel Pérez Viva Vila, Nikita Harwich Vallenilla, Empresas Polar Foundation).
For the sake of clarity, we read that the aforementioned Act of Independence contains two provisions, derived from the exercise of sovereignty: 1. To end the Spanish colonial regime, and 2. To establish the principles by which we would depart from the status of a colony and institute ourselves as a “republic.” These circumstances, in the opinion of respected analysts, contribute to classifying the aforementioned “act” as derived from “a constituent assembly.” The first, we should consider, is the first in a series of successive events that illustrate our history—so many, in fact, that it is extremely difficult to find a suitable answer to the question, “Why?” This is a long-standing debate with which we have coexisted from 1811 to the present day.
It is advisable, therefore, to acknowledge that Venezuelans, like many other countries, have striven for "republican institutions." And we also accept that the methodology has been "a constituent assembly," in all respects, even though it has not been formally designated as such. That is to say, applying the substantive criteria (liberty, equality, dignity, and justice), no other conclusion seems possible.
In the commendable compendium "Constitutions of Venezuela," a suitable selection of constitutional texts throughout Venezuelan history is made, in pursuit of a serious, stable, and efficient republic. We are certain that the distinguished Venezuelan professor Allan Brewer Carías, coordinator of the work, as well as the members of his team, must have wondered, "Why so many constitutions?" Unfortunately, it remains a difficult question to answer, even as we approach the year 2026. Furthermore, one must consider the reasons for discarding the 1961 Constitution, whose stability lasted for four decades and with it the most stable and prosperous democracy we have ever known. As we read, it replaced the Constitution of April 11, 1953, and reflects the still-current trends of Western democracy by taking into account:
1. Contemporary needs have led to an interventionist socialism, in search of a stable and fruitful balance with the old liberal foundation,
2. The spirit of the new Charter reflects a liberalism completely absent from the previous Constitution, which embodied the full expression of a dictatorship.
3. It should be noted that it was approved by a popularly elected “congress”, following the end of the anti-democratic regime.
It therefore takes little effort to conclude that, based on a material criterion, the democratic Constitution of 1961 was the result of the exercise of the constituent function. That is, “Congress exercised the constituent function.” As if it had been an “assembly.”
It is widely known that this constitution was repealed by a constituent assembly, which would establish a democratic, participatory, and protagonistic society, a state of justice, the consolidation of freedom, independence, peace, solidarity, the common good, territorial integrity, coexistence, and the rule of law, the guarantee of the right to life, work, culture, education, social justice, and equality… The Republic became known as the “Bolivarian Republic” and… bases its moral heritage and values on freedom, equality, justice, and international peace… Venezuela, fundamentally, is constituted as a democratic and social state of law and justice, which upholds as values… life, freedom, justice, equality, solidarity, democracy, social responsibility, and in general, the preeminence of human rights, ethics, and political pluralism… The government… is and will always be democratic, participatory, elective, decentralized, alternating, responsible, pluralistic, and with revocable mandates…. The Constitution is the supreme law and the foundation of the legal system.
Venezuela, it's hard to doubt, is today on the verge of a new "Constituent Assembly" for the same purpose: the drafting and promulgation of a new Constitution, the 26th. We thought, including a few assembly members from the 1999 Constitution, that the 1964 Constitution would be the last, since constitutions require time to solidify, resorting to amendments and reforms to adapt them to emerging realities. A simple "stroke of the pen" wasn't enough; I live in Caracas, where the scribe has done it no less than 25 times. And the most serious question is: why and for what purpose?
The answers, unfortunately, are more than difficult; it's as if they don't exist. The reasons for our current state, if indeed any cause for “our institutional incontinence” can be found there, have been identified by some scholars in the limitations imposed upon us by Spanish colonization. This argument is strongly refuted in the book “Nothing to Apologize For,” by Marcelo Gullo Omodeo. In its prologue, written by Carmen Iglesias, Director of the Royal Academy of History, she states that the author is correct when he affirms that “the Spanish brought to America their culture, their religion, their language, their social organization, the values of Western civilization—everything they were and had. They brought with them a body of law, the Laws of the Indies and other subsequent decrees, which allowed the King’s subjects to appeal to the courts of justice under the powerful protection of the Hispanic Monarchy, also known as the Spanish Monarchy.” From Don Marcelo’s reading, it would seem that we are the ones who should genuflect before the Spanish, and not the other way around.
The complexities arising from the struggle between these two groups, labeled since ancient times in the French National Assembly as "the right and the left," seem to have been established by a Higher Power for eternity. Yet, they continue to be used, and in Caracas, on more than one occasion. In truth, they have never ceased to entangle us, and it would be objective to say they haven't affected us. Incredibly, they continue to be used, even after so many centuries, in the definitions of the powerful, deeply entrenched in religious principles and professionally better prepared, and in the so-called proletariat, which includes "the worker who does not own the means of production and who obtains his salary from the sale of his own labor"—for a select few, "the true people," holders of sovereignty and constitutionality.
The next essay, following the alphabetical order, will refer to "the Constitution, Supreme Law and Law of Laws." Genuine manifestation of the "Constituent Assembly." Chapter II of the essay.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».