Constituent assemblies: Tale, myth, legend, or fable?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 07/12/2025
Share:
The constituent assembly is defined as “the parliamentary body of deputies elected by the people in universal and secret ballot, for the purpose of establishing, organizing, and disciplining the State through a constitution, thereby exercising its sovereign power and reaffirming its inherent aims.” In recognition of its hierarchical status as the supreme law, it is also referred to as the “Magna Carta,” “Supreme Law,” and “Law of Laws.”
The definition reveals the importance of the constituent assembly, since it is the people themselves, through their freely exercised vote, who establish it, in pursuit of "maximizing collective well-being," that is, "the common good." This mission is conditioned, for obvious reasons, among other circumstances, by the ideology of the assembly members. Metaphorically speaking, the people.
The conceptualization of the “common good” has undoubtedly been difficult, but its realization has been far more so. This prelude, though easy to understand, stems from the diversity of political ideologies and the priorities they determine. This has led to an ongoing debate regarding the rationale behind the constituent assembly and, logically, the “constitution” that derives from it. Consequently, doubts are raised about the efficiency, both procedural and substantive, of making the “common good” a reality, the consequences of which, as is obvious, have repercussions in the political, economic, and social spheres.
In Venezuela, our country, it is difficult to deny the constitutional shortcomings stemming from the "constitutional chaos" that has historically characterized us, which is why we continue to demand what could be described as "a critical and urgent need for a constituent assembly." This demand, it must be noted, is imperative in these revealing times of one of the most severe crises to have affected this wealthy Latin American nation.
Given its current situation, it is highly likely that Venezuela will soon hold a new constituent assembly and, consequently, adopt a new constitution that will replace the 1999 Constitution. Therefore, if we are fortunate enough to act objectively, we should avoid a mere collection of wishful thinking, as has unfortunately been the case throughout history. Instead, we must act with objective honesty, defining what is truly probable and ensuring that the people understand it. We are also compelled to understand that this alternative demands electing assembly members with the necessary qualifications for the crucial role they will play, a role that involves guaranteeing genuine forms of coexistence in pursuit of acceptable levels of equality. Constitutional success, it must be understood once and for all, depends on this, both for the constituent assembly and for the elected representatives. The alternative leads to an indeterminate number of folkloric precepts—what could be termed "constitutional proliferation."
It is therefore no exaggeration to say that in Venezuela, as in the rest of Latin America, with very few exceptions, "constituent assemblies," in the face of the anarchy that has characterized our countries, have been used as stopgap measures, to the detriment of their proper functioning and the achievement of institutional goals. They have consequently lost popular credibility. And even more so the governments created through these assemblies, which inevitably end up straying from the law. This truly critical situation has been exacerbated, as has been denounced, by illicit activities, including drug trafficking, a source of unimaginable sums of money lining the pockets of rulers and their allies—individuals and corporations, certainly, more than one. The United States, as the media reveals, has reacted, even by using its armed forces. Unfortunately, starting with the Venezuelan Caribbean. What will the outcome be? It is not easy to predict.
Given this critical situation, there will be the spirit, encouragement, and vigor for objective seriousness on the part of the constituent assembly, for the sake of genuine constitutions. This is only possible with the conviction that the purpose of a Constituent Assembly is to build a republic that ensures the observance of the law, accompanied by acceptable levels of collective well-being. This requires distancing ourselves from the profuse diversity of attempts, which, strictly speaking, cannot be considered, at least in a material sense, as "serious constitutional assemblies." Rather, they are initiatives fueled by egocentrism, self-promotion, and the pursuit of personal gain.
“The constituent purpose,” it must be said, objectively seems more like “a preposterous purpose.” Therefore, we understand that the Royal Spanish Academy legitimizes the use of the noun “purpose” to mean both “the spirit or intention to do” and “the intention not to do.” And it seems that we have been navigating the latter. We Latin Americans have been navigating this ambivalence.
It must be taken into account, of course, that the constituent assembly in Venezuela has not fared well. A wide variety of attempts reflect this, which leads us to conclude that not all of them have been objective. Indeed, since 1811, we have been entangled in around 25 constitutions, including our Act of Independence of July 5 of that year, as well as the Constitution of Gran Colombia of 1821. We read that the aforementioned document contains two provisions derived from the exercise of sovereignty: 1. To put an end to the Spanish colonial regime and 2. The first attempt to become a “republic,” which, incidentally, has been repeated on various occasions and probably continues to this day.
It is therefore acceptable that Venezuelans have tended towards "a republican institutionality" and that the methodology has been "a constituent assembly", even though it has not been formally called that.
In the 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 Professor Allan Brewer Carías, the research coordinator, must have wondered, "Why so many constitutions?" It is not easy to answer, nor is it easy to explain why the 1961 Constitution, whose stability lasted for four decades and with it the most stable and prosperous democracy we have ever had, was thrown out the window in pieces. As we read, it replaced the Constitution of April 11, 1953, which can rightly be described as dictatorial. It should be noted that the 1961 text derived from the exercise of the constituent power. That is, "Congress exercised that power." It was not as if it had been an "assembly."
It is widely known that this constitution was repealed by a constituent assembly, which was supposed to 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. But it was also to guarantee the right to life, work, culture, education, social justice, and equality. The Republic became known as the "Bolivarian Republic," literally a builder of freedom, equality, justice, and international peace, and declared itself constituted as a democratic and social state of law and justice, which upholds life, liberty, justice, equality, solidarity, democracy, social responsibility, and, in general, the preeminence of human rights, ethics, and political pluralism. Finally, the government is and always will be democratic, participatory, elective, decentralized, subject to alternation, accountable, pluralistic, and with revocable mandates. And finally, the formal phrase, “The Constitution is the supreme law and the foundation of the legal system.” In linguistics, synonyms for “deception” include “swindle, swindle, fraud, farce, trickery, deception, ambush, treachery, swindle, trickery, swindle, and swindle.” It wouldn't be unreasonable for a perceptive Venezuelan to add others.
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 1961 Constitution would be the last, since constitutions require time to solidify, resorting to amendments and reforms to adapt them to emerging realities. No, a stroke of the pen was enough. I live in Caracas, where the notary 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 just difficult; they seem to be nonexistent. 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—an argument considered irresponsible by a few.
The foregoing considerations lead us to reiterate that “the building of a republic” is a serious matter, and like humanity itself, so too must be “a Constituent Assembly.” And no less crucial is the popular representation that comprises it. Consequently, we should conclude that “not all countries are republics, or at least that there are different and even opposing republics.”
We think, without knowing if we're right or wrong, that we ask ourselves with concern: Constituent assemblies—tale, myth, legend, or fable? The answer is truly complicated. But let's not lose hope, particularly if we consider that in countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Honduras, the flags of democracy fly high, and God willing, forever.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».