By Luis Manuel Aguana
“To be or not to be, that is the question. Which is more worthy action of courage, to suffer the penetrating throws of unjust fortune, or to oppose the arms to this torrent of calamities, and to put an end to them with daring resistance?”. Hamlet’s terrible dilemma is the third, first scene in the third act of William Shakespeare’s immortal play, where a Prince faces a problem of conscience, unable to close his eyes before “the doubt between the agony of life and the liberation that suicide would imply, after the disappointment suffered in the shameful behavior of his parents”(see Hamlet or the eternal doubt, in Spanish by Susana Torres Prieto http://ideas.ie.edu/hamlet-o-la-eterna-duda/).
I wish the MUD would face that problem of Hamlet’s awareness of doing what is supposed to be right. If they did, they would all commit suicide as the Prince put it in Shakespeare’s play. They don’t even step aside to give someone else the option to deal with a problem they clearly haven’t been able to handle. But unlike what the average person believes, it is not the MUD that refuses to die or to consider doing it by its own hand. It is everything that has given life to the MUD in these almost two decades of coexistence with the regime.
And it is that thinking more carefully about why, in spite of everything, independently of all the alternative options and leaderships different from the MUD to lead the oppositional destiny, something always appears that puts back into the channel the options proposed by the MUD so that Venezuelans can fall back into the hands of those incompetent people who have been the main pillars of the regime’s support. And to show a button: the FEDECAMARAS-AVERU communiqué of February 17, 2018 (see it in Spanish at http://prensa.ula.ve/2018/02/17/averu-y-fedecamaras-rechazan-llamado-anticipado-elecciones).
Let’s see. After indicating that they reject “the anticipated call to the presidential elections made by the illegitimate National Constituent Assembly (ANC), and the electoral process activated by the same National Government and supported by the National Electoral Council (CNE)”, They end up making “a call to citizens in general, to all social and political actors, to continue advocating for elections that guarantee Venezuelans, inside and outside our country, the right to vote freely, universally, directly and secretly.”. What kind of madness is that?
Because my astonished question is this: continue to call for elections within the framework of an illegitimate constituent, even if they are given the conditions? Wouldn’t it be the logical correctness, after saying that they express themselves within the framework of the calls of the Venezuelan Episcopal Conference, that the first thing to be done is to dismantle the illegitimate Constituent and then demand Authentic Elections? That is precisely the trap of the MUD, to demand elections without dismantling Delcy Rodriguez’s constituent. That was what they were trying to do from the Dominican Republic and could not materialize.
Two institutions of the stature of FEDECAMARAS and AVERU asking for the same thing that the MUD asks for, without the MUD asking for it: elections but coexisting with the regime allowing the illegitimate Constituent to remain in office, in the ridiculous belief that a hypothetical President of the opposition can survive with a Constituent that will have to go to swear as they did before all the governors who were elected in the last electoral charade. And even more, that this new President can dismantle that illegitimate Constituent. That is what the MUD believes and they are making Venezuelans believe indirectly helped by institutions with the credibility of FEDECAMARAS and AVERU, without knowing that in some cases they are being used by interests beyond their institutions.
Now let us suppose another hypothetical situation: that the regime and the official MUD agree on a new CNE from the same National Assembly, and elections are called for December as constitutionally established. Would the opposition go to that elections in that case? Would the international community remain unaware of the outcome that will come out of there?
To the first question, the opposition would have to go because there would be no excuses, it is constitutionally established because the call would be for the end of Maduro’s period and the conditions would be the same as with those that went to the last processes. But to the second question, definitely because they totally ignored the existence of that Constituent of the government. But the regime has been so clumsy that it is forcing an early unconstitutional election from which it will come out worse than this one, so that it will “win” those elections by force.
There are still many hairy hands that are interested in the survival of MUD. There’s a lot at stake. There are factors that convince institutions to double even the toughest positions in favor of the MUD because of “that we have nothing else” but to put the regime, some of these factors acting in good faith but others definitely with dark and bastard interests that are charging in the government window.
Does the MUD deserve to be saved? I don’t think so. He doesn’t deserve it to begin with. It is time for the birth of a new opposition in Venezuela. It is high time that the institutions to which the Venezuelan still gives credibility, as is the case of the Venezuelan Episcopal Conference-CEV, the Association of University Rectors-AVERU, FEDECAMARAS and so many others begin to hear different voices of political content, which point to their same basic truths and convictions. It is time to hear the other opposition country. It is time they convinced themselves that the MUD is gone.
Venezuela is moving towards a new dawn and many of those who are now will not be. And many who are not now will be. It will be time for a new transparency. Almost 20 years of totalitarianism, self-censorship, fear and cowardice have distorted the ethics of being. Hamlet’s question was pertinent from the heart of someone pure. Is it worth living in the middle of unworthiness? That is a question that someone becomes aware of. But it is also a question that others must ask when someone without that conscience wants to continue living doing harm to others. Will we continue to allow that to happen?
Caracas, February 17, 2018