Venezuela: A New Regulatory Order?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 08/02/2026
Share:
Hugo Chávez is identified as the president of Venezuela from 1999 until his death in 2013. He was the founder of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), which he led until shortly before his passing. His government is accused of dismantling what was once the most stable democracy in Latin America, leading Venezuelans to ask one another, "What happened?"
On January 3, 2016, the United States, through a flawless military operation dubbed "Operation Southern Spear," arrested Nicolás Maduro, who had succeeded Chávez as President following the latter's death. Maduro had been elected President on April 14, 2013. And Venezuelans once again became curious about what had happened, naturally with different perspectives. For a large majority, the democratic aspiration that began with the 1961 Constitution, brutally suppressed for almost three decades, had been blessed by "divine Providence," as is still heard in various churches, without exception. The restoration of democracy, therefore, was underway.
The US government, however, has decided not to move so quickly, perhaps because of the popular saying, in Washington's language, "Haste leaves nothing but exhaustion," or in Venezuelan slang, "Haste makes waste." Nevertheless, we Venezuelans look at each other again, asking the same question, but in the present tense: What's happening? And many also ask themselves in the future: What will happen?
Some express their anxieties by asking "how long the guardianship will last." It will contribute to "a republic that would derive from the exercise of the popular will, through suffrage. But, moreover, based on a democratic normative order." In a "Magna Carta" different from the demagogically named "Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela," which ended up being, if you'll pardon the expression, "neither one thing, but quite the opposite." That is to say, a "nonsense."
In implementing "Northern tutelage," fortunately under the diligent Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, it has become clear that preparing Venezuela for a "democratic scenario" requires acting like an efficient farmer eliminating "unwanted vegetation" (weeds, bushes, tall grass). This necessarily includes removing individuals, illegal practices, imprisoning politicians, and so on, as it involves replacing what is bad—and abundant, to say the least.
In the execution of the US agenda, the list of laws passed during the atypical regime that ruled Caracas for almost half a century will surely resurface, among them, the most important, the Constitution. A new one seems the most sensible course of action, because if we were to compare what was written—not entirely rational—with the manipulations carried out to favor the government in all branches, that is, in matters concerning legislation, law enforcement, governance, and the administration of justice, it would be clear that it is, as is heard almost without exception, a constitutional text that is neither "reformable" nor "amendable." Therefore, the Venezuela we hope will return to democracy as soon as possible demands a new Constitution. It doesn't matter if history repeats itself, because the circumstances justify it.
Laws, decree-laws, regulations, and other secondary normative acts, as derivatives of the Constitution, must be reformed and even repealed if we understand the generally held conviction that they suffer from the defect of "excess or abuse of power." This is because the purpose for which they were enacted bears no relation to the interest they ostensibly sought to satisfy. Rather, they serve an opposing, even detrimental, interest, whether collective or individual. The control of legality, of course, requires courts, including the highest court, with ample expertise and objectivity to purge legal systems affected by the error or flaw classified as "abuse of power." In Caracas, it is no exaggeration to say that during the nearly 40 years of government that are about to end, this deviation from “normative inflation”—that is, an exacerbated normativism—grew considerably, in most cases typical of populist governments, a characteristic difficult to deny in Venezuela, where for the last few decades it seems as if “every man and his dog” has governed, legislated, and administered justice. In the United States, this is a common expression. Besides “inflation,” there is ample evidence that so-called “normative deflation” also occurred, at least with respect to human rights. Indeed, we read that “sectoral legislation on human rights often suffers from normative deflation.”
The prominent Bolivian political scientist and founder of the prestigious Interamerican Institute for Democracy, Carlos Sánchez Berzain, has consistently maintained a keen interest in the Venezuelan crisis, a country he considers rife with “infamous laws” drafted and enacted following the formal procedures for their creation, but which violate human rights and fundamental freedoms in their object and content. These are laws in their formal aspect, but within the framework of the rule of law, justice, and legal certainty, they are provisions devoid of any true sense of legality and legitimacy. These are regime-imposed provisions processed and approved by legislative assemblies subject to the will of the head of government, who controls them with absolute majorities obtained through electoral systems and norms that have been rife with fraud. The legislative bodies have been transformed into mere bureaucrats or “vouchers” to fulfill the president's will, who, having lost his true status as an official, acts as a dictator. This entire framework of “false institutionalism” is founded on the political constitutions that supplanted Precisely so that it serves as the basis for the “indefinite retention of total power” through the simulation of the separation and independence of powers. The final component is a subordinate judiciary that ratifies and declares the “constitutionality of these infamous laws” whenever necessary. Dr. Sánchez Berzain advocates for a census of these laws so that, during the process of the US intervention in Venezuela, once Maduro Moros is deposed from the presidency, they can be analyzed and repealed. This assessment corroborates that the methodology of the US government with respect to Venezuela, whose design and implementation is entrusted to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, appears indispensable.
On the contrary, it is worth noting, is to be exposed to a succession of governments, which can be overthrown one by another, not entirely foreign to the reality of Latin America.
The political leadership that Venezuelans achieved, with care and tireless effort, and which is mainly led by María Corina Machado, gives the impression that it cooperates with the Secretary of State's team, a commendable effort in the task of a sincere democratization of Venezuela.
It's like saying, as our last democratically elected president, Carlos Andrés Pérez, said, "Let's get to work." He, by the way, as we mustn't forget, predicted the disaster that would befall Venezuela following the coup d'état led by Hugo Chávez, which swept away a four-decade-old democracy praised by a considerable part of the world.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».