“Venezuela is, right now, under a tutelage regime,” says the international analyst and member of the board of directors of the Inter-American Institute for Democracy, in conversation with DIARIO LAS AMERICAS. “What we are seeing is a guardianship regime similar to what we have seen with the Marshall Islands.”
It defines the guardianship model as one that involves the creation and administration of institutions with the objective of establishing order and a functional legal system.
In his opinion, it is a mistake to think that the US objective is the total replacement of the Chavista regime. Stability is sought to avoid a violent collapse that forces direct military intervention.
“The United States works with whoever can guarantee that stability and carry out precise instructions for the reconstruction of essential infrastructure, especially after the disaster that exposed the failed state,” he says.
To portray what the Chavista regime has been like for 27 years and the magnitude of the damage caused in the Caribbean country, he uses the figure of piranhas, which all they do “is destroy, destroy, destroy and eat, eat and eat.”
Why is Dinorah Figuera leading the transition?
Making it clear that Venezuela is under the figure of tutelage and what is sought is stability, allows Rangel to explain why the president of the National Assembly (AN) of Venezuela 2015 was “chosen” by Washington to lead the dialogue between Chavismo and the Venezuelan opposition, and why Marco Rubio, head of the US State Department, assures that the transition starts on August 1.
The analyst remembers that the AN of 2015 was the last institution that was elected with the popular vote and that had the recognition, not only of the United States but of 56 countries.
However, from their point of view, both the 2015 and 2025 Legislatures are “illegitimate.” The first because her mandate has already expired and the second because she was elected through electoral fraud.
He states that when the Trump administration decided to apprehend Nicolás Maduro, last January, he was covered by the law, “because the man had an immense investigation. He had been found guilty by a North American court of money laundering and drug trafficking.”
He argues that, after the tragedy of the double seismic event, Washington has realized that, among other things, they have to rebuild the Venezuelan State. “And for that reason, they began conversations with the Supreme Court of Justice in exile, because that is where it starts.”
He summarizes that the judicial system must be rebuilt to resolve controversies among Venezuelans, which are many. “I also understand that the United States motivated, pushed, sponsored a meeting between the two assemblies, both illegitimate. So, something has to replace those two assemblies.”
It is understood that from there derives the body or institution made up of a group of parliamentarians from both legislatures, which will discuss the re-institutionalization of Venezuela that involves the designation of a new National Electoral Council (CNE) and a new Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ).
The internationalist points out that, before the tragedy, the US was already taking care of the institutional reconstruction of Venezuela. And now, with the devastation of the country, they are going to have to accelerate more and they are going to have to send the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
He notes that the choice of Dinora Figuera was not from the United States, but the result of the agreement made in 2015, by the factions that made up the Parliament of the time and according to which each year the presidency of the National Assembly corresponded to a representative of the four major parties and in the last year it was the turn of the minor political force.
Because it is the AN 2015 that the Trump administration endorses, Figuera enters the scene to lead the dialogue and the beginning of the transition.
Figuera, in his statements on Monday, July 20, stated that he announced that “all democratic sectors” will be invited to participate in these talks, scheduled to begin on August 1 with the support of the United States.
Opposition mistakes
The big mistake of the opposition, in Rangel’s opinion, was the inability to separate the institutional from the political. The opposition was in charge of dismantling, “by kicking,” the only internationally recognized institutional framework: the 2015 Assembly and the figure of the presidency.
It refers to Juan Guaidó who in 2019 proclaimed himself president of Venezuela.
“A person in charge was elected to administer a power vacuum and then, instead of strengthening that institution, he was replaced outside of his mandate. This created a vacuum that the United States, out of geopolitical realism, has had to try to fill by dialogue with illegitimate institutions, both on the side of Chavismo and the opposition, to be able to settle controversies and rebuild the judicial system.”
He highlights that things were confused because Guaidó “was not a president, Mr. Guaidó was in charge of the presidency of Venezuela, which is something else.”
He also adds that the United States recognizes this institutional figure and gets 56 countries to support it. The Venezuelan opposition had to understand that this institutional framework endorsed by the United States and 56 countries had to remain firm.
“But no. They dismissed Mr. Guaidó and created this lady (Figuera), even out of office. What’s happening? All that is collapsing, but the US clings to the only institution it recognizes because it was a product of the popular will, therefore, of Venezuelan sovereignty: the 2015 Assembly.”
Rangel insists that “that is the truth. But those who were wrong were the Venezuelans, not the United States.”
María Corina and Simón Bolívar
Rangel points out that we must distinguish that: María Corina Machado is, indisputably, the leader who has managed to capture the popular will and has demonstrated unprecedented personal integrity in the recent history of Venezuela.
Since the challenge is now institutional, he points out, Machado will have to participate in the process, because the reconstruction involves a new CNE and the TSJ. The country is in an emergency situation; The coming readjustment will be marked by this humanitarian and economic crisis, and requires an organized, civilized and institutional transition, not improvisations.
For Rangel, from Simón Bolívar to Machado no one “built and created the architecture that led the people in the democratic feat.”
He highlights that there is a political process of the Venezuelan people to select a leader. “A very important thing was what the Nobel Commission did, by awarding the prize to someone who, against all obstacles and without resorting to any violence, recalibrates the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people.”
What’s coming
Beatrice Rangel envisions that the future will be marked by having the institutions that guarantee the electoral process and once that is achieved Machado will participate in the elections.
It foresees a slow transition process that must begin from the municipalities and mayors’ offices, not from the central power, as well as supporting the spontaneous organization of civil society to found new parties adapted to a country that has been materially and morally bankrupt.
