HomeSpecialStop Suffering | Voting is a means, not an end

Stop Suffering | Voting is a means, not an end


The recent call for elections provides indispensable warnings. Faced with the multiplication of meetings with more or less diffuse purposes that existed before the quarantine, I concluded that for the ordinary mortal a meeting only makes sense if it achieves an objective, while for the politician, the meeting is the objective. In other words, for the elector the election is the means, for the politician, the end. The politician is interested in the candidate, that is, himself; the voter, the program, that is, the result. This difference creates distances that open chasms.


By virtue of the Punto Fijo Pact, which established as principles the single program and the limitation of the electoral debate to the issue of plates and candidacies, since 1958 the plans of the bipartisan government were so similar that the debate should focus on the people. Thanks to the magic of the American advisers Joe Napolitan and David Garth, the political contest was transformed into a tournament of personal attributes similar to that of the election of the misses. That is to say, the people chose the mariachi, but not the song.


A controversy in which it was forbidden to discuss the essentials, the ownership of the means of production and the distribution of the product of social work, had to be about irrelevant questions. We had thus for half a century conceptual debates as deep as the one that in 1958 faced the slogans "Against fear" to "Your problem is my problem"; in 1963 "Black vote" for "Caldera the best", in 1968 "One hundred thousand houses per year" for "Gonzalo a great President"; in 1973 "Democracy with energy" to "Lorenzo, a friendly President"; in 1978 “Luis Herrera fixes this” to “Piñerúa, correct”, in 1983 “Lu (yes) nchi Presidente” to “entire Venezuela needs Caldera”; in 1988 “El Gocho para el 88” to “El Tigre”. Thus the bipartisanship wasted half a century of power without inviting the people to participate, until they decided to participate without invitation.


The irruption of Bolivarianism opened the hope of a policy in which elections were a means and not an end, with its limitations. Since 1998, Bolivarian socialism has had more successful electoral consultations than years of government. Two decades of decisive electoral majorities led to transcendent social improvements and a National Assembly and a Constituent Assembly one hundred percent socialist, which, however, did not complete the integral social appropriation of the means of production or destroy capitalism. On the contrary, they allowed inexplicable aberrations to escape: a judgment of the Supreme Court that declared that Venezuela embraced the principle of “relative sovereignty”. An Organic Law of State Public Finance that allowed the privatization of rivers, lakes and lagoons (which, fortunately, Hugo Chávez Frías vetoed). A Law for the Promotion and Protection of Foreign Investments of 2018 that allows foreign courts to annul the judgments of the Supreme Court, that transnationals are immunized against tax increases and that they enjoy tax exemptions, preferential allocations of resources and even non-capital contributions. extensive to national companies. As if one wanted to resurrect the bipartisan principle that the voter thinks one thing and the one who reaps his vote another.


To avoid deviations from the programmatic compass such as those indicated, it is necessary to remember but above all to apply provisions of the Law of Political Parties of December 2010 that have no waste:.Article 26. Every elected citizen or citizen elected by popular will, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic and the laws, is subject or subject to the electoral commitment embodied in the management program consigned to the National Electoral Council at the time of registering their candidacy. Article 28. It constitutes fraud against the voters, by those who are elected as deputies to the National Assembly, any repeated conduct that, in the performance of parliamentary functions, deviates from the political orientations and positions presented in the management program as an electoral offer. Article 29. The following will be considered fraudulent conduct for the electorate: 1. Voting against the postulates of the management program presented to the voters, in terms of its programmatic content and its political-ideological orientation. 2. Make common cause with content and political positions contrary to the offer of the management program consigned to the National Electoral Council, and presented to the voters during the electoral campaign. 3. Make common cause with political forces opposed to social movements or political organizations that supported the management program consigned to the National Electoral Council. (…).Article 30. Any fraud against voters based on the provisions of the preceding articles, may lead to the suspension or partial or total disqualification of the deputy, upon request of the citizens in a number not less than zero point one percent. (0,1%) of the total number of persons registered in the electoral register corresponding to the federal entity, or of the electoral district where the deputy was elected or the deputy elected. The request must be accompanied by a statement of reasons stating the arguments that support it. The National Assembly will submit to the plenary for consideration the request for suspension or disqualification presented and it will be decided by a majority of the deputies present at the session in which the request is considered. "


That is to say, a program is not a salute to the flag, a string of inconsistencies, a collection of adjectives or makeup applied between image consultants. It is an ethical and legal commitment formulated as a plan of concrete actions, and its non-compliance, the true electoral fraud. Only the programmatic end justifies the means.


  1. I seldom differ from the columnist. Today definitely yes.

    In addition to formal and quantifiable violations with respect to established laws, in a democracy it is not a law that decides whether the elected official complied with what was promised. This would lead to court disputes that could last for decades. Concluding in sentences, if any, useless.

    Any law in this sense is absurd, and useless for which a very large X should be placed on it.

    Bringing to court the decision on compliance or not with electoral promises would become a hydra of thousands of heads without being able to decide which of them to begin the task. And, not only because of a judicial system that is obviously inoperative.

    I say this from experience. I brought a lawsuit against the UDO authorities. The judicial apparatus took 16 years to decide nothing. A magistrate at the time, a personal acquaintance, to whom I demanded that a decision be made, whatever it was, responded laconically, ... well Nando, you know ... judicial processes are slow ... as a lawyer I led trials that lasted more than 20 years. years. Be patient…

    In a democracy, I have often said, the management of an exercise of government is charged at the polls, if the majority of voters considers it positive, and it is paid at those polls if the voter considers it negative. Very simple very effective and very verifiable as an account: numerically. That management should never be left to chance or the whim of a judge or his political preferences.

    On the issue of compliance, the ballot box is law and the ballot box is judge. There is not and cannot be another way.

Leave a comment