What will happen in Venezuela?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 22/03/2026
Share:
In Venezuela, following the election of Hugo Chávez Frías as President, a Constituent Assembly convened for that purpose approved the current constitutional text, which was subsequently promulgated by the Head of State. It was named the “Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” dated December 30, 1999, and has therefore been in effect for two decades and seven years. It repealed the 1961 Constitution, under which the country's longest-standing democracy had reigned. The current document, it is undeniable, is not considered ideal, either in terms of its observance or its contribution to constitutional stability.
It must be stated, therefore, that in Caracas, as in almost all Latin American countries, “constitutional grammar” seems to have prevailed regarding the validity and application of constitutional precepts. A pairing of “drafting and compliance” has not been established. The proof? A disproportionate number of constitutional texts.
The current, uniquely local scenario, still being understood, must be acknowledged, with the exception of a few academics, without intending to offend anyone. The definitions range from the terms “protectorate (territory in which shared sovereignty is exercised),” “tutelage (direction, support, protection, or defense),” and “co-responsibility (balanced distribution of tasks, obligations, or care),” which seems etymologically linked to one of the meanings of “correspond,” that is, “to repay affections, benefits, or favors equally, relatively, or proportionally.” The patronage, then, in the hands of the United States since January 3rd, concerns what is happening and what will happen. The expectations that are perceived, hopeful for a majority, should still be considered as such. Regarding the government and other public powers, the acceptance of "reality" prevails, at the presidential, legislative, and judicial levels, stemming primarily from the "authority" of presidentialism throughout our history. This was undoubtedly accentuated during the three revolutionary decades.
In the interest of seriousness, it would be reprehensible to ignore, within this inextricable scenario, the lamentable disintegration of the bonds of unity among Venezuelans, intensified in recent decades. A fragmentation of political organizations is undeniable and accompanied by evident individualism. It is often said that when people take opposing positions, the role of a third party who can mediate between them is fundamental to resolving the conflict. In modern societies, this is the role of state institutions. However, in cases of high political polarization, institutions are less likely to be seen as neutral mechanisms for addressing the predicament and more as partisan tools for wielding power. When this becomes the case, violent outbreaks are more likely. It is difficult to deny that this is our situation, but with the added complication that the paths to a solution depend on the "co-responsibility" that has prevailed since January. A diversity of interests continues to complicate matters.
The lack of understanding, fueled by a penchant for controversy and the "move aside so I can get in" mentality, means that the aforementioned person can enter. People are, however, tolerant, to the point that, to dispel the effects of the "move aside, because I'm the best" attitude, Eddie Dee, in collaboration with Daddy Yankee, turned this maxim into a well-received reggaeton song, released, as we observe, in 2004, on the album "12 Disciples."
Regarding “co-responsibility,” we have written about the advisability of assuming that the protectorate, if properly managed, would foster “political reconciliation, leaving behind decades of polarization and conflict” (Co-responsibility in Venezuela: Will It Lead, March 14, 2026). Today, we reaffirm that this is only possible through national reconciliation for democratic coexistence, capable of overcoming confusion, nascent credulity, and even institutional weakness. A model of social reconciliation to abandon “political anarchy” is imperative. It is, in fact, unavoidable. In the interest of objectivity, it is difficult to deny this.
Some government measures, particularly those related to the reorganization of public power and specifically to the selection of people for important positions, have not gone uncriticized; God willing, the cause has been polarization and not discontent regarding those selected.
One chapter pertaining to the National Assembly, specifically the selection of the Attorney General and the Ombudsman, members of the Citizen Power branch according to the Constitution, whose importance is emphasized by the Constitution itself, is particularly relevant. Suitability must be the guiding principle for their selection, and this is what the people expect. It is, therefore, an opportunity for objectivity and a reaffirmation of the requirements that these public offices demand.
Chapters like this, and others more complex, will fall to the public authorities to clarify. God willing, the provisions will ensure objective compliance with the law.
The restoration of confidence in Venezuela must be the result of the shared responsibility, oversight, and protection that has been in place in Caracas since January 3rd. But only to the extent that it is well managed.
God willing, it will be for the best.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».