The constituent never dies
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 08/07/2024
Share:
In linguistics there are always entanglements regarding the “constituent” and its grammatical appreciation. In effect, it is described as an “adjective”, but with the caveat that it can also be used as a “noun”. And there are also “jobs” in the academies. In the street, more than the “constituent,” what becomes one of its most determining derivatives is handled, that is, “the constitution.” People find out when they are ignored or transgressed, both partially and completely and even by “osmosis”, so it could appear that the people seem to be more interested in the book than the author. Let's say both things.
We read, in effect, that the constitution refers to the institutions, practices and principles that define and structure a system of government, as well as the written document that articulates it. Each state, it can be said, has a constitution in the first sense (the structure of a government). Likewise, since World War II, practically everyone has had written constitutions. Great Britain, Israel and New Zealand are among the exceptions. But it must be clarified that they have them spoken and despite this they are observed just like the written ones and often with greater efficiency.
It is heard that “the constitution” derives from the coordinated action of people, in order to structure themselves as societies for the common good. Conceptually it encompasses the ideas of order, organization and formation, inherent to every societal process. It is also read that the word is made up of the words “Cum” and “Statuere”, whose meaning is “to establish”. This means that a Constitution is what forms or establishes a State.
In Caracas “the modality of written constitutions” has governed. Asdrúbal Aguiar, noble friend, with the legitimacy that characterizes him refers to the constitutional thought of the Founding Fathers in 1811 (Federal Constitution for the States of Venezuela), the first text or social pact of an independent nation, in the opinion of Pedro Grases, to date, “a vigorous entity capable of giving the world a group of first-rate personalities.” Aguiar also notes that it was the first constitution drawn up in Latin America by a free State, a precedent that today acquires greater and better relevance given the crucial moment that the Homeland is experiencing and at times that indicate its proximity to another republican birth (Genesis of Constitutional Thought of Venezuela, 2018). In the analysis of the aforementioned academic, the first evidence that “the constituent is exempt from death” could be found. And if he dies it is temporarily.
This last appreciation finds much more evidence in a simple outline of our history. In fact, from 1811 to 1893 the constituent recovered life 11 times and as evidence left 11 constitutions and from 1901 to 1999 it gave life to 14 more. The final one, until now, with the atypical name of “Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela”. This text is in force today and according to which presidential elections will be held in a few weeks, with respect to which perplexity never stops rearing its ugly head. A question, if we look at history, would be to consider the alternative, in principle, quite probable, that the aforementioned electoral event leads to an “amendment, reform or new Magna Carta, alternatives that will induce the constituent, from being asleep wake up and say “Present.” I have not died. “I am alive and well” (Expression used to indicate that a person or animal that was considered deceased is still alive). The constituted people (that is, the constituent), will most likely listen to Ramón Guillermo Aveledo, to whom the fight to rescue democracy owes a lot, in regards to the reestablishment of the Senate, banned in the Today's Magna Carta. Presumably to energize legislative activity, the opposite of what really happened and is happening. This statement is recorded by the Head of the Social-Christian Fraction at the end of our last democracy: “It is true that he had not exercised weights or jumping, nor had he excelled in the use of spears or swords, but Yes, he did so in counsel, in reasoning and in judgment. These qualities, if they had not been typical of our elders, the elders, would not have established the Senate as the Supreme Council.” Very timely parenthesis in the interesting book The Senate, Comparative experience and usefulness for democracy in Venezuela (2019).
The Venezuelan professor and friend Allan R. Brewer Carías maintains that “constituent power is always in the hands of the sovereign, who exercises it without any type of legal limitation and in conjunction with the so-called constituted powers limited by the norms established by the sovereign or power. constituent", which the academic defines as "legally unlimited power." Brewer notes that German professors have made a useful distinction between constituent power, which has no legal limitations. Not so the organs of the sovereign, which do have the restrictions established by the constituent power itself. And they are also subject to the political control that rests with the people who elect them (Principles of the Rule of Law, Editorial Juridica Venezolana International, Miami, Fl. 2010). Determinant the appreciation of the Venezuelan academic.
“The constituent does not die.” The thing is that he cannot die, since he is the permanent arbiter of the people, but with the particularity that the latter believe him, generating an indissoluble relationship. The constitution disciplines the people and the latter disciplines the people. The positive constitutional order, as it is read, must be sought in social reality itself, in its deepest strata. Constitutions, thus, are not mere products of reason, something created by man, or deduced from certain principles. On the contrary, they are the result of something that is in a concrete and living relationship with social forces in a certain place and historical conjuncture. This is the essence of the theses presented in our book “The Constituent Theory, Explained in some lessons by Petra Dolores Landaeta”, with prologues by Julio Rodríguez and Carlos Ayala Corao. There is an opinion regarding the inseparable link between the constituent and the constitution with the social and economic analysis. Theory is not a panacea for conflict resolution. Finally, it has not been easy for people to form themselves as real societies in the exercise of their inherent sovereignty. The constituent has not died not only for the reasons explained so far. Also because it lacks its final achievement, that is, the consolidation of true societies.
It has been difficult for us Venezuelans to adhere to constitutional provisions. We achieved this for a long time following the Democratic Magna Carta of 1961 and the Nation began to call itself a Republic with conviction and great pride. Today we all know what happened. The upcoming presidential elections must be seen as the knock on the door of the “constituent”, which seems to be characterized by “not giving up”.
Let us not be surprised that he opens his expression to us:
"He was not dead, he was out partying".
Comments welcome
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».