Sovereignty, between optimists and pessimists
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 19/10/2025
Share:
Sovereignty, "the highest power in a given territory," is defined as "the political body that is born with the 'social contract' (CS)." It is, therefore, "the fundamental principle of the state." It is recognized as inherent to the legal system and cannot exist beyond it. But this does not mean that it is absolute or arbitrary.
The "CS" could be expressed as "a development methodology," but at the same time "a goal" inherent to "the science and art of governing." It is born from an elementary understanding of the human being, who carries with him the need to overcome difficulties in order to live with dignity, a goal to which, from a "summit," when we are rulers, legislators, and judges, we have all pledged ourselves, hoping to achieve it. We turn to the belief that we are born with an "innate force" that draws us into what is truly "life," an atmosphere to embrace the alternative of a kind of "human fantasy," for a few the authorship of "Divine Providence," a complicated atmosphere with its setbacks, but ultimately surmountable with dedication. The method? For some, but for others, the majority, why not say it, an imperative hardship resulting from an essential activity of the being that possesses it (Drae). Reference is made to the strangely successful practice of the so-called "social contract/CS" as something that mutates into that "immense sea of survival," favorable to some, unfavorable to others, and nonexistent for a few. For a few, of course, not alien to theological criteria, the scenario is "the kingdom of God," and consequently, "endless."
In that kind of unimaginable ocean, on whose waves we find ourselves, seeking to maintain equanimity, let us assume that we are sailing on a "magnanimous steamship," captained by ourselves, since without exception we were all good captains and frigates, in a humanity full of setbacks in reaching "acceptable states of well-being," both spiritual and material ("physical, mental, and social health," as it is read). In a single word, "dignity."
But, unfortunately, that desire, in all honesty, must be expressed, increasingly resembles a nightmare. For there are a few revealing signs that, on the contrary, what we have achieved is, rather, "a deep-rooted malaise." We would then be labeled as poor navigators or that the ship was not the right one. And the oft-mentioned "sovereignty" is perhaps a strengthening force for having wandered and continuing to do so in that kind of "tsunami," fueling the antithesis between optimism and pessimism, in the face of gigantic waves that have hindered us from reaching safe harbor.
The “sovereignty” copied from all “declarations of independence,” but also from “constitutions, without exception, in a “duo” with the machinery of the “SC,” end up forming a kind of “little duo” that would contribute to “good government as a result of a truly efficient democracy.” The opposite has kept us like “Damocles,” taught a lesson by Dionysius, a tyrant of Sicily, who allowed the former to enjoy being served a lavish banquet as king, an affability that ended when Damocles realized at the end of the meal that above his neck hung a sharp sword held only by a hair from a horse’s mane, “probably that of Damocles himself.” A narrative that censures constitutions, the democracy they postulate, and those who lead them.
A "corollary" of the above illustrates the confusion that has fueled weak democracies, also known as "paper democracies," of course, in contrast to stable and efficient ones. The defining characteristic of the former is their combination of "reckless action exposed to danger and beyond reason or time," the most accurate interpretation of which, with respect to underdeveloped countries, would be the assertion that "the community grew tired of the mischief that disrupted its peaceful lives." The "corollary," by the way, is often defined, in accordance with linguistics, as an assessment that does not require proof, which leads to the reaffirmation that Latin American democracies, with very few exceptions, constitute evidence of "ineffectiveness."
Indeed, a quick tour of our continent shows: 1. Argentina, Milei, despite the fact that “freedom advances” would meet at the White House with Donald Trump, seeking to close a US bailout for his shaky economic plan, 2. Brazil, entangled in the Bolsonaro controversy, who is trying to be exonerated of a coup d'état, 3. Colombia, with a First Magistrate who knows he is entangled, but does not admit it, 4. Chile, whose President seems to have gotten rid of juvenile measles, the country that was an example of development under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, seems to be heading towards the so-called “right” with José Antonio Kast, 5. Peru, where it seems that the best president of recent decades is Pedro Castillo, the one with the hat, 6. Ecuador, regarding which it is hard to deny that Rafael Correa appropriated the land of José María Velasco Ibarra, 7.
For Bolivia, Carlos Sánchez Berzaín, the elected president has two options: a) Continuity, becoming the fourth leader of the plurinational narco-state; or b) Returning to being the President of the Republic of Bolivia. The political scientist believes that what seems to be looming is a fragile hope for a return to seriousness. In Central America, with the exception of noble Costa Rica, the home of Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias, everything reeks of disaster. The guidelines for the proper use of sovereignty on the continent give the impression that they are being maliciously subverted or are unknown.
Venezuela, a 40-year-old democracy inclined to social reforms aimed at benefiting society as a whole, which in the opinion of a few, local and other latitudes, had taken the path of seeking "harmonious development" through an appropriate exercise of "sovereignty," resides today, as cannot be denied, between optimists, the few, and pessimists, the many. We look at each other in the face, faced with already widespread reasoning, among others: 1. The harmful presidential reelection, 2. The bureaucratization of the parties, 3. The "get out so I can put myself in" (someone seeks the fall of another with the sole purpose of taking their place), 4. Military arbitration, and 5. The disharmony that continues to be fostered by what could be described as "godarria" (the "godarria").
That democracy, supported by a new constitution, promulgated in 1961 following the overthrow of what we believed would be the last dictatorship, begins with a very beautiful preamble: “With the purpose of maintaining the independence and territorial integrity of the Nation, strengthening its unity, ensuring freedom, peace, and stability of institutions; protecting and exalting work, safeguarding human dignity, promoting general well-being and social security; achieving equitable participation by all in the enjoyment of wealth, according to the principles of social justice, and fostering the development of the economy in the service of humanity; maintaining social and legal equality, without discrimination based on race, sex, creed, or social status; cooperating with other nations and, in particular, with the sister Republics of the Continent, in the goals of the international community, on the basis of mutual respect for sovereignty, the self-determination of peoples, the universal guarantee of individual and social rights of the human person, and the repudiation of from war, conquest, and economic dominance as instruments of international policy; to uphold the democratic order as the sole and indispensable means of ensuring the rights and dignity of citizens and peacefully promoting its extension to all peoples of the earth; and to preserve and enhance the moral and historical heritage of the Nation, forged by the people in their struggles for freedom and justice and by the thought and actions of the great servants of the homeland." It remained in force for four decades, and under it, it cannot be denied that solid stages of political, economic, and social progress were achieved.
Sovereignty was perceived, without much effort, in a tricolor that the air of Ávila and the Caribbean moved as a sign of freedom.
We were more optimistic than pessimistic. An equation that today forces us to read backwards.
Could it be that Divine Providence is suggesting that we read the primer again: 1. Governance, 2. Sovereignty, rules for its exercise, 3. What development consists of (political, economic and social), 4. The imperative to achieve it, only possible through an efficient democracy, 5. Institutional environment for governance and citizen participation and 6. The reduction of inequalities and social exclusions.
Enlightenment on the issues may be the path to an enforceable "social contract." Sovereignty, properly exercised.
The optimists would be the majority.
It sounds easy, but it has been difficult for us.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».