Will shared responsibility in Venezuela lead to reconciliation?
By: Luis Beltrán Guerra G. - 15/03/2026
Share:
Let us turn, prima facie, to linguistics in order to keep in mind the meaning of the words "conciliar", referring to composing and adjusting the spirits of those who are opposed to each other and "reconciliar", which indicates attracting and agreeing the disunited spirits.
Regarding Venezuela, it seems appropriate to assume that "the political reconciliation to be pursued would seek to put aside decades of polarization and conflict," 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 essential. It is, in fact, imperative. It is difficult, in the interest of objectivity, to deny this.
A variety of factors fuel the crisis, which, as it deepened, fostered the shared governance between Washington and Caracas that has led us to this point. The North assumed tutelage over the Caribbean, citing reasons that have been mentioned so many times they need not be repeated, but also making promises for a better Venezuela. The viability of this methodology in the 21st century has been questioned by some prominent figures, and even challenged. But the tutelage is in full swing. Arguments in its favor include the upheaval of the Venezuelan economy over the last few decades, in response to which "the giant of the North" has proposed alternatives through an investment plan and the exploitation of valuable natural resources. The question posed by a resounding majority is: How is it possible that, despite the struggle for independence and the centuries that have passed, Venezuela finds itself at this crossroads? This is a pertinent question for both the government and the opposition, and, surprisingly, it is being heard throughout Venezuela. Evidence of a major popular disagreement.
Recent events testify to the lack of understanding that has characterized us, a source of conflict with other countries. Rebeca Monsalve, who studied Social Communication at the Bolivarian University of Venezuela, created during President Chávez's administration, is the author of the essay "Naval Blockade of Venezuela by England in 1902." She recounts how 20 ships from Germany, England, and Italy together blocked Venezuela's access to the sea as a pressure tactic to force then-President Cipriano Castro to pay the external debt incurred by previous governments. The United States had to intervene as a "mediator" to reach an agreement that ended the threat. In her insightful analysis, the researcher also notes that Castro declared his refusal to pay in January 1901, arguing that the substantial loans had been acquired before his government, and in February 1902 he suspended debt payments. We read that General Juan Vicente Gómez decided to honor the external commitment, leaving the internal debt on the verge of collapse. In the praise heaped upon Gómez, it was argued that he had achieved a Venezuela, for the first time, free from the heavy burden of illegitimate obligations and capable of attending more freely and unhinderedly to national progress. This was undoubtedly a decisive achievement in qualifying him as "the meritorious one," that is, deserving of honor or esteem. Worthy of praise. The researcher might ask whether, in her view, the United States would have established the first co-government with Venezuela at that time. That is, shared governance, a protectorate, or a tutelary status. It is often said that during the meritorious one's government, the granting of hydrocarbon concessions in Venezuela was exceptionally dynamic.
This essay, as its title seems to reveal, is nothing more than an attempt to highlight the imperative need for what is known as "democratic commitment," understood, if we read carefully, as that which generates solutions to conflicting issues. We acknowledge that it refers to a reconciliation between those who must bring about these solutions—in the case of Venezuela, a well-known process—as the path to an efficient democracy, built on parameters suitable for a sincere handling of the issues that divide us. This presupposes a complex web of fundamental relationships between the groups involved, politically speaking, the government and the opposition. A society, we admit, will not develop these relationships without a minimum of cooperation in the interactions of its citizens.
Let us try to complement these guidelines contained in the serious work of IDEA as follows:
1. While democratic engagement generates solutions to conflicting issues, reconciliation addresses the relationships between those who will have to implement them.
2. The premise must be understood to apply not only to the political class, but also to the intermediaries involved, including, of course, the population.
3. Reconciliation strengthens democracy to the extent that it fosters the fundamental relationships necessary for its successful implementation,
4. Likewise, adequate economic justice, as well as a sound distribution of political and social power, are crucial.
5. In a pragmatic sense, political reconciliation demands positive functional relationships, capable of generating the environment within which good governance can flourish, since the opposite, that is, negative relationships, end up undermining even the best system of government.
A dose of patience, therefore, must be observed in Venezuela today, in search of the opportune moment so that, once the crisis we face has been overcome and there is reconciliation, it is our turn to go to an electoral process for the selection of our government, democratic, objective, serious and efficient.
It's like saying "let's not rush," because we could end up tired and without achieving our goal.
Let us pray to Divine Providence that the shared responsibility between the government of President Trump and that of Acting President Delcy Rodríguez will lead us to achieve this. There will be plenty of time for lawsuits and claims.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».