Being a republic is a serious matter. The case of Venezuela
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 28/09/2025
Share:
In ancient times, much later, and even today, the methodology for disciplining ourselves as beings with virtues and defects requires analyzing what "the regulations" have been, derived from agreements between ourselves or determined, imposed, and accommodated by third parties, in some cases as "individualities" and in others as "command partnerships." This is a disturbing task, since it has been perceived that in both cases, there has always been "a leader," and God forbid that this will not happen in the future, although the calculation of probabilities, fueled by historical events, seems to lean toward the opposite. Therefore, it must be considered with caution, since "the systematic caudillo" is hidden, but it does not disappear.
The "caudillo" is usually conceived as "absolute leader, political dictator, and usually, military." It derives from the Latin Capitellium, which, when translated into Spanish, means "leader" with the variables "political, military, or ideological." That noun, although it may seem like an invention, has been with us from quite far back to the present. But let's also keep in mind, for the purpose of understanding "la dupla," the meaning of the adjective "comandita" to refer to "the person who accompanies another," a retinue, a troupe, a congregation, a brotherhood, and a "junta." The latter, as is well known, is the one we have liked the most, something magical with "the property of curing all ills," and which has served, as a byproduct for the manufacture, with astonishing speed, of normative regimes derived from our ad-infinitum vice, to elaborate them, as well as reform them, and even replace them. There is, therefore, ample evidence to suggest that the "leader and co-leader" equation has not been entirely beneficial to us.
Rather, caudillismo has left hidden traces in countries that seem to have gone through the marquetry trade to become "republics." Those who have claimed to be cabinetmakers have acted with the help of "the caudillo and command-party equation" and, in very few cases, with serious intentions. The cabinetmakers, it's hard to deny, haven't known what to do with the wood. The sermons, numerous, by the way, have developed into a kind of enabling typology of the slogan "We will establish a real, beneficial, just, and necessary republic!" These sermons have been a mirage, spurring reactions that usually arise later, seeking to restore what has been broken and to save at least some of us from the "cataclysm." We should bear in mind that the attempts, both those described above and the initiatives to change them, have been so numerous that they have shaken people's confidence, to the point where many have lost hope.
Venezuela, like almost all of Latin America, has not escaped the scheme. On the contrary, it has been a martyr, to its misfortune, of "the equation" and, consequently, of a complexity of experiments to make it a reality. But, to our misfortune, the facts reveal that things have not gone well for us, instead generating insurmountable diatribes between one another. In the opinion of many, we have lived for decades in a kind of "rabble," which, according to the dictionary, means "a multitude of people or things considered as a disordered whole." It's hard to say, and even more so when any book you open highlights Venezuela's geographical position in Latin America, with opportunities for maritime, air, and land transportation. Additionally, it boasts excellent human capital and competitive cost advantages compared to the region. It doesn't seem, therefore, an affront to the Homeland to ask: What has happened and what are the reasons?
The phenomenon, as it is written, is more than common throughout Latin America, even classifiable as a "maelstrom," according to dictionaries: "abundance, grandeur, or confusion," but also as a "confused crowd of people or things." More than one chapter of our history seems to be described this way. A product of its own disappointments. South American countries today, it is undeniable, are not full of satisfaction, both domestically and internationally. But, furthermore, if someone were to say that they perceive the pregnancy as full of prosperity, more than one would refute them by arguing, in a word, that the gynecologist is incompetent.
An objective analysis of the Venezuelan case reveals a variety of cycles, not without anarchic manifestations, reflecting a tendency to reject the few positive moments and embrace the unfavorable ones, a premise that many consider when questioning our independence from Spain. Have we managed the freedom we've gained well? It remains a difficult question, considering how we were and are.
In a research paper entitled "New Meanings of Democracy That Venezuela Seeks to Build Starting in 1999," by Ingrid Karina Núñez and Nila Leal González, professors at the University of Zulia, they note that the "democracy" proposed by Hugo Chávez, elected First Magistrate on February 2, 1999, was based on the legitimacy and convenience of Venezuelans to participate, directly or indirectly, as holders of sovereignty, both in the elaboration and in the fulfillment of the provisions of public powers for the sake of improving their quality of life. The fundamental democratic values of the Magna Carta approved during that aforementioned magistracy and that would guide citizen participation were: 1. "Equality, 2. Solidarity, 3. Non-discrimination and 4. The collective good." This path leads the academics to describe the constitutional regime as a "participatory democracy," a path for the real involvement of the people, holders of sovereignty, called to realize a system of government that allows them to contribute and acquire knowledge in deliberation, decision-making, and the control of public management. Ultimately, the formulation, evaluation, and oversight of public policies. The work emphasizes that the people should not be limited to the election of legislators, governors, and judges. Despite all the circumstances described and the obstacles that hinder them, the professors reiterate that "from the constitutional order of 1999 in Venezuela, a new subject will be constructed to make their demands viable through social organizations, in their opinion, a derivation of citizen participation." The researchers should be congratulated, but they should be warned that in the construction of republics, the dichotomy between "theoreticism and realism" should not be overlooked.
It is equally valid to ask academics to read the Preamble to the Constitution of the so-called Fifth Republic: “The people of Venezuela… with the supreme goal of refounding the Republic to establish a democratic, participatory, and leading, multiethnic and pluricultural society in a just, federal, and decentralized State, which consolidates the values of liberty, independence, peace, solidarity, the common good, territorial integrity, coexistence, and the rule of law for this and future generations; ensures the right to life, work, culture, education, social justice, and equality without discrimination or subordination of any kind; promotes peaceful cooperation among nations; and encourages and consolidates Latin American integration in accordance with the principle of non-intervention and self-determination of peoples, the universal and indivisible guarantee of human rights, the democratization of international society, nuclear disarmament, ecological balance, and environmental legal rights as the common and inalienable heritage of humanity.” The only conclusion we could offer is that very little has been achieved by the motley revolutionary constituent assembly. One piece of advice might be that "republics can be built without bombastic language."
In Dr. Tomas Polanco's excellent book, "Jose Antonio Páez, Founder of the Republic," the distinguished scholar argues that Venezuela began its journey as an independent and sovereign state beginning in 1811, but whose survival was varied and difficult due to political changes and the War of Independence. In 1830, under the authority of José Antonio Páez, the Republic was born in its current form and with the characteristics it possesses. For this reason, the professor concludes, there is no hesitation in attributing Páez the role of creator of Venezuela. For Professor Rafael Arraiz Lucca, the best bibliography on Páez is Polanco's.
It is written that since Venezuela's founding as a republic, it has experienced "a long and complex journey in which it seems as if everything has happened. And the republic seems to have gone astray, not to say, lost." It was in 1860, in the first electoral process in the history of the republic, that an election was held for the first time, by direct and secret ballot, to elect the Chief Magistrate, resulting in 48 presidents having governed the country to date. Special consideration must be given to the government presided over by Rómulo Gallegos, as it constituted a decisive step in the consolidation of a democracy overthrown by the penultimate Venezuelan "coup d'état." This is further evidence of our uncertainty about being a republic. In all fairness, it cannot be ignored, however, that by 1948, when the novelist was overthrown, we Venezuelans had already better understood what democracy was and what its benefits were. Evidence is that after a decade of dictatorship, the democratic will was reborn with the presidency of Rómulo Betancourt, elected First Magistrate in 1958.
But it must also be admitted that both independence and self-governance are difficult issues. In Argentina, a country that once was both the world's leading economy and the largest breadbasket, after the ruin wrought by the same "kids" entangled in so-called "Peronism," a disastrous embodiment of "unbridled populism," the "La Libertad Avanza" party emerged, along with the selection of Javier Milei as its first magistrate. Today, he is entangled between the so-called "free market" and the "chainsaw" he brandished during his election campaign, expressing a pressing need for at least "a new engine."
Skepticism, in linguistics, "the doctrine that affirms that 1. Truth does not exist or 2. That, if it does, human beings are incapable of knowing it," leads us to ask: Is it perhaps the enemy that leads us to pessimism or the "pana" to reality? The answer seems to be found in George Orwell's book "Animal Farm," about which writer Jesús Carrasco expresses that the British writer left us a text that reads like a warning against all totalitarianism and as a defense of independence, intelligence, and above all, humanity. Copying Carrasco: "The fact that, as citizens, we witness similar strategies in politics every day would explain, in itself, the book's relevance. Where it said 'we will always hold primary elections because we are democrats,' it now says 'we will elect whoever suits the party leader because that is best for everyone.' In this sense, and having so precisely described the path that any totalitarianism follows from beginning to end, the book functions today as a warning, just as it did in 1945 and possibly in 2025. These are the signs that precede domination: be careful, Orwell seems to be telling us. "And these symbols, you only have to raise your eyes a little and observe, proliferate today in every corner of the globe as a sign of what may come next."
Let us conclude by keeping in mind that this essay brings up the meaning of words mentioned in it, including, among others, "maelmagno": disorder, confusion, uproar, hubbub, mess, fuss, disorganization, mess, messiness, but also, "caudillo" (Latin: capitellium, "ringleader"), a term used to refer to a "leader" (political, military, or ideological). Although in a broader sense, as we read, it is also used for any person who acts as a guide for others in any field. Finally, it is added that the use given to the word "caudillo" has been due to its decisive political connotation, evidence of which is "El Collage" with some of them on our continent: Vicente Guerrero, Mexico; Bernardo O'Higgins, Chile; Manuel Dorrego, Argentina; José Martí, Cuba; Gabriel García Moreno, Ecuador; and Agustín Gamarra, Peru.
We Venezuelans, among whom we are fortunately included, are viewed with sadness due to the confrontation at one of the most critical stages in our history, which is not very questionable if we know who we are. Will we be a republic? The answer is difficult. And it's even difficult to see the Caribbean Sea, which we love so much, surrounded by ships, warplanes, and rifles, all of the so-called "new generation." But, additionally, what is no small feat, they have been placed there by the "World's Leading Power."
Let us note that this essay is a broader version of the one published last week under the title "Independence and Its Derivatives." It should be noted that the additions do not omit to reiterate our regrets for not having achieved "A Great Homeland."
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».