Noble Venezuela and its episodes
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 27/07/2026
Share:
The process of consolidating nations has not been easy. The conditions, as demonstrated throughout the centuries, including the most recent ones, demand—with increasing determination and even violence—the most harmonious development possible, in political, economic, and social terms.
In serious research, we have found evidence of the drawbacks expressed by prominent academics, from antiquity to the present day. They argue that a possible explanation lies in considering the consequences of the social contract, conceiving it as an agreement between rulers and the ruled, subject to mutual concessions, permissions, claims, supplications, complaints, and protests. This is understood to be different from, and even opposed to, a contract between two or more people, such as a creditor and a debtor, through which rights and obligations are created, modified, or extinguished, and whose validity depends on the free consent of those who sign it and a possible and lawful purpose. The effects of such a contract pertain only to the natural or corporate persons who enter into it. And only to them.
Despite this, respected analysts insist that a parallel to the social contract actually underlies the rights and obligations of the governing state and the governed. The purpose cannot be denied as being linked to the state's imperative vocation to maximize social, economic, and cultural conditions, a path to equitable political, economic, and social development. This entails: 1. Prioritizing collective well-being, 2. Guaranteeing justice, peace, and human dignity, and 3. Designing and implementing public policies that contribute to acceptable levels of individual and collective progress. It would seem, then, acceptable that a contract, albeit atypical, is established between the state and its citizens.
The social contract, if we were to say that it proposes a methodology for avoiding the deplorable consequences of poverty affecting significant segments of the population, would be establishing a reasonable premise. In academic circles, it is argued that the rational approach is for each individual to align their interests with those of others for a more rational benefit. The paradox lies in the fact that self-interest, combined with the desire for a future and a respectable place in society, leads to divisions and negative consequences.
Reputable sources discuss the necessary effectiveness of the social contract, highlighting its contribution to a long and healthy life, access to knowledge, and a dignified standard of living, while denouncing the negative consequences of its absence. This provides motivation for justifying the methodology, particularly considering, for example, that the Human Development Index (HDI) for the United States, a power with which Venezuela currently shares governmental responsibility, places it in the very high category, ranking 17th out of 193 countries. Furthermore, China, which in the last 40 years would have preferred a tutelage over Caracas (which it appears to have attempted), has become the world's second-largest economy and an upper-middle-income nation, one of the few to have moved from a low to a high level of human development. The social contract, therefore, seems to have operated successfully in both the US and China. Regarding Venezuela, the HDI places it 120th-121st globally. And for AI, its human development shows a marked historical regression.
It is therefore appropriate to observe, by way of contrast, how Venezuela has fared with the social contract, or conversely, how the latter has fared in our homeland. 1. This noble country has written various versions of the social contract throughout its history. 2. Likewise, it has committed itself to making it a reality. 3. Assuming, as would seem logical, that the social contract is that which is embodied in constitutions, it must be considered: a) We have had, throughout our republican history, 25 social contracts. b) In drafting constitutional texts, it goes without saying that we have been very advanced, but not, as history reveals, in their implementation. We have distinguished ourselves, then, as very good drafters, but terrible implementers. Hence, among other reasons, the relevance of having titled this essay “Noble Venezuela and its Episodes.”
The country, it cannot be denied, currently finds itself in a state of profound tension and psychological conflict. That is, caught between two mutually exclusive options, we are uncertain as to which is more beneficial. A dilemma, according to the Dictionary of the Spanish Language, is a situation where one must choose between two equally good or bad options. It is also used in philosophy as a type of argument with two opposing sides. It illustrates a situation where the pursuit of self-interest leads to suboptimal results for all involved. There seems to be no doubt that Venezuelans are compelled to resort to the methodology that best suits us. We might say, to write a sincere constitution. And, what is essential, an essentially enforceable one.
It is imperative to address the current situation of shared governance, protectorate, and tutelage with the United States, a global power whose actions reveal that the methodology will take the necessary time to achieve its objectives. The internal scenario remains complex, typical of societies battered by those who governed them misguidedly and those who seek to do so under the guise of efficient democracies.
This leads to several questions: 1. Will the US be willing to end the tutelary regime? 2. Would it do so to advance an electoral process aimed at electing a President of the Republic, parliamentarians, and judges? 3. Are the states capable of selecting their governors, legislators, and other authorities through popular vote? 4. What is the fate of financial resources, in principle, under the coordination of the United States? 5. Is a change in the protectorate regime to be expected as a result of the so-called midterm elections in the United States?
In an analysis titled “They are not negotiating who will govern Venezuela. They are negotiating the rules of the future,” authored by Venezuelan political scientist Antonio de La Cruz, which a dear friend sent us, we have extracted the following observations: Washington's statement on the meeting between Dinorah Figuera and Jorge Rodríguez does not mention elections, candidates, or the presidency. It speaks of institutions, of who writes the rules before anyone wins. The transition does not begin with an election; it begins with the reconstruction of the State. In other words, first the board, then the game. There is no mention of election dates; this is not an oversight, but a message. The discussion is not about elections but about technical work, institutional engineering, and the architecture of the system. The legitimacy is for establishing a negotiating table… In the state under tutelage, stabilization has already occurred and recovery is underway. The transition will be supervised, not improvised. A return to chaos cannot be negotiated. The transition does not seek to determine who is in charge; it seeks to decide what things no one can destroy again. In our opinion, it seems to be an adequate analysis of the protectorate to which we have referred, whose validity does not seem to depend on our unilateral action.
It makes one wonder if De La Cruz could be considered the current social contract in Venezuela. Or at least, the guidelines for its creation. Just another chapter in our history.
The academic's response would be relevant.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».