That negotiations between warring factions have taken place throughout Venezuelan history is undeniable—to end long and bloody civil wars, to divide the country, to change the ruling class. All of these negotiations have been between sectors of the elite and under the influence, to a greater or lesser degree, of foreign powers. From the Treaty of Regularization of War between Morillo and Bolívar; the separation of Venezuela from Colombia between Sucre and Mariño; the Treaty of Coche between Páez and Falcón; and the Punto Fijo Pact—you know who was involved.
History repeats itself. No! They've all been different, but there are constants in these secret meetings. They occur at critical moments when the stability, and even the very existence, of the Republic is in danger. The Church is always involved. The people are a fearful absence. Hence the need to create for them a phantasmagorical world of freedom, equality, and, currently, participation.
There are many critical moments that have not culminated in negotiations, both before and after the Republic. Who negotiated with Guaicaipuro, Miguel, Andresote, José Leonardo Chirino, Gual and España, Boves, Zamora, the people of January 23, 1958, the guerrillas of the 60s, the people of the Caracazo; Chávez on February 4 and April 11, 2002, or with Maduro on January 3? When I mention leaders, I mean people with aspirations. These crises ended in prisons, torture, and massacres, not at dialogue tables.
The Federal War, the Treaty of Coche, and the 1864 Constitution marked the people's withdrawal from political belligerence in the 19th century; and on January 23, the Punto Fijo Pact and the 1961 Constitution did the same for the 20th century. At the cost of their lives, the people rose up again on February 27, 1989. Ten years later, a horizon of democratic and participatory expectations opened up. With the Bolivarian Revolution, the elites felt the terror that their music would be drowned out by the rhythmic tapping of sandals on the carpets of Miraflores Palace. But there was no guillotine. Changes were made that, in the name of justice, should have favored the "wretched of the earth." The onslaught has been atrocious; we survived it.
History doesn't repeat itself, but underlying it is that which makes us wonder: "Oh, what is it that knows no weariness and never will? That which has no limit?" To those who demand terror, I remind them that the guillotine's blade knows no laterality.
Certainly, history doesn't repeat itself, and the same actors rarely appear in similar events. However, underlying causes always share many similarities, for example, the struggles to maintain control over the masses and to hold onto power, as long as the strategies employed are always external in nature.