Why Popular Unity on 6D is Crucial to Save Venezuela

Eduardo Viloria Daboín
https://scontent.fyyc2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/127251015_3149785351794862_6767699876059796206_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=2&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=9YKpI7XW-W4AX_irGa7&_nc_ht=scontent.fyyc2-1.fna&oh=8a5fe54bb30cd2420e2696ccd9c07a96&oe=5FEBD693

I

From the beginning, we were the target of a systematic attack carried out in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights, by the economic and political elites who are builders and defenders of neoliberalism and false representative democracy. The US elites and their subordinates quickly saw the danger to their interests of the emergence of a leadership like Chávez in a deeply impoverished, plundered and exploited continent where a social time bomb was emerging, a continent with a people struggling to expand transformative horizons.

Even before, when everything was being developed, when Chávez came out of prison and traveled around the country building the national movement that would bring him to power in December 1998, the Venezuelan elites waged a fierce and sustained media campaign against him and against those who accompanied him in the political leadership and in the boisterous horizontality of the Venezuelan people: Chávez and his leaders were catalogued as violent, authoritarian, and full of hate, and we, the people who supported and sustained the growing political movement, were defined by the mass media and political speeches defending the status quo, as ignorant, angry, resentful, and manipulated.

After we succeeded in bringing Chavez to power with elections in 1998, in the electoral processes that followed, the qualifiers associated with hate, authoritarianism and violence were associated not only with Chavez but with all those who aspired to a popularly elected position as part of the MVR or the allied parties. Then, advertising posters abounded in the press with fabricated photographs, guns placed in the hands of leaders, faces disfigured by graphically manipulated grimaces of hate, false statements regarding the accumulation of weapons arsenals in the basements of their houses or buried in their patios. How can we forget that advertisement titled “Chávez’s threats”, in which, together with the image of a false press clipping, a professional imitator reproduced Chávez’s voice saying: “I will eliminate the Adecos from the face of the earth”, and then, accompanied by images of frying pans with boiling oil, the voice said: “I will fry the Adecos’ head in oil”. Sowing fear, they sought, on the one hand, to distance us as a people from the project that Chávez proposed and, on the other, to cultivate hatred in the social sectors prone to oppose him for ideological and class reasons. The first did not succeed, the second did.

The media discourse against Chávez escalated until, Chávez and those of us who followed him were manufactured as icons of terror, the April 2002 coup d’état was forged with an operation that politically capitalized on the hatred sown and led it to build the stage for the great media montage of Puente Llaguno: The opposition called for a large march and took it to the Government Palace, where it would provoke a clash with the Chavista mobilization that was there: the armored personnel of the Metropolitan Police (conspiratorially organized) advanced, trying to open the way by shooting at the Chavista mobilization. A Venevisión camera recorded our defense against the armed aggression of snipers and police, to later broadcast these images as if it were an attack by Chavistas against the peaceful march: “The armed bands that the government itself paid for and provided with weapons were responsible for sowing terror in the middle of a peaceful march”, “We were all horrified to see how they shot at a defenseless crowd”. This is what was said by TV broadcasters on the nightly news, while one saw only the Chavistas shooting, without showing that we were really defending ourselves against the Metropolitan Police. The audiovisual montage built an illusion of continuity between the Chavistas shooting at the police and the dead and wounded being picked up and carried. The operation was closed by a video of a part of the military high command (recorded the day before, according to what was later known) pronouncing against Chávez after holding him responsible for having ordered the deaths.

II

By 2002, when these events occurred, after only four years of existence with the Bolivarian revolution, we had won five national elections, all with very high levels of participation, transparency and reliability, having just come to power in December 1998. This democratizing avalanche was also expressed in the application of a new model of democracy characterized, among other things, by

  • the creation of massive instances for popular organization and the exercise of power in multiple forms in daily life,
  • very high levels of popular mobilization,
  • massive popular participation in debates and consultations on issues of national interest and strategic scope,
  • incorporation of the organized people as a key element in the execution of public policies of national scope, in the areas of
  • education, food, energy, public services, production, health.

Before this process had time to realize important achievements that would root it even more in the sympathy and conscience of our people, the elite economic and political forces that dominated and oppressed Venezuelan society, supported by the United States, decided to truncate it, faithful to their anti-democratic principles: their response was a media war, a coup d’état, the frontal assassination of innocent people, massive sabotage of the heart of the country’s economy.

These elites, displaced from power by the democratic avalanche that we as a people launched, removed the masks of democracy and social conciliation with which they had governed us for decades: they never hesitated to confront us by all means foreign to politics and unscrupulously disregarded our will as a people. Leaders such as Julio Borges, Leopoldo López, Antonio Ledezma, Capriles Radonsky, Henri Ramos Allup and María Corina Machado, who today promote the asphyxiation and destruction of the country and the fraying and delegitimization of the Venezuelan State in the name of freedom and democracy, were the main protagonists of those events. The puppet with the surname Guaidó is nothing more than the most recent face with which this political group and its northern chiefs sought to renew their already broken and shameful disguise.

We are clear about the line of continuity between that opposition leadership and the one that today acts as an instrument of U.S. aggression. Their current decision to destroy the Republic, to leave the State without economic income, to cause enormous suffering to the Venezuelan population, to ignore the State and the government, to create a parallel State and not to participate in the legal and legitimate December 6 elections, is absolutely consistent and coherent with the ignorance of our institutionality and the will of the majority that they displayed at the time when the Bolivarian Revolution was born by winning elections with an absolute majority and practically without abstention. We are clear on this. They are the same practices and the same substrate, with different and renewed tactics and methods. Today’s attack is a new expression of their elite, supremacist, authoritarian, racist, violent and anti-democratic character, which is made evident when they remove their masks, or when we pull them off.

III

We managed to counter violence and force the defeated anti-democratic forces to take legal and political paths. Furthermore, the face shown by that political, social and economic class when the mask was removed provoked such a rejection that they experienced an enormous political setback. These were then the years of development and consolidation of the Bolivarian political and socioeconomic model, the years of our great achievements as a people. And they were the years of deepening and expansion of Chávez’s leadership not only in all of Venezuela but in the continent and the entire world. Some numbers may help measure the dimension of some of our conquests:

  • Between 1998 and 2013, the GDP grew 57%.
  • Until 2014, employment grew by more than 4.5 million jobs.
  • There was a 15% expansion of the formal sector of the economy.
  • In the poorest sectors:
    • access to initial education went from 38% to 77%,
    • access to primary education increased from 86% to 97%,
    • access to middle school education from 48% to 76%,
  • university education increased by more than 2.5 million places,
  • employment increased from 68% to 74%.
  • The income gap between the richest and the poorest was reduced by almost 6 times.
  • More than 4 million children went to breakfast, lunch and snacks in public schools.
  • Venezuela became the fourth country with the least child malnutrition.
  • 1 million people went to eat once a day every day in 6 million feeding houses located in the most excluded sectors.
  • According to the FAO, Venezuela reduced hunger by almost 5 million people.
  • Extreme poverty was reduced by almost 6%.
  • We reached a high Human Development Index, with 0.76 points.
  • The public health system reached 82% coverage.
  • Access to drinking water increased to 95% of the population

Those years also and above all meant the demonstration and concrete experimentation by the great majority of our people of a key fact: a model is possible in which the wealth generated in the country is distributed equitably and in which there is participation, co-responsibility and the deepening of an authentic democracy.

15 years after the Mar del Plata Summit: when Chávez, Kirchner and Lula organized the No to the FTAA – news that was beginning to spread throughout different countries of the continent, and Hugo Chávez was becoming a continental leader who spoke of anti-imperialism, which led to the defeat of the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas (FTAA), which spread and promoted in concrete terms Latin American integration as the only way to independence and development in Latin America, which achieved an echo and consensus in the continent with the new governments that were emerging and which began to be a certain threat to the economic and political interests of the United States in the continent and to the interests of the local servile elites.

Then they definitively set in motion all their political, military, economic, diplomatic, discursive, rhetorical, aesthetic and symbolic scaffolding, led by the United States, at the service of a continuous attack against our democracy to cut off that upward process.

The narrative and action against our revolution was basically based on three blatant lies:

1) Chávez was a dictator and his government a tyranny in which no freedom was respected, all human rights were systematically violated and there was no possibility of a frank political struggle because there was an iron grip on all public powers, including electoral power.
2) Instead of popular support caused by political, economic and social development and growth, the Bolivarian government sustained its support base by manipulating the population through a creeping populism that gave undeserved gifts and presents to lazy and ignorant people who did not earn their rights and welfare with work, education, honesty and sweat.
3) Chavez, with Cuba in the shadows, financed international terrorism, gave space in Venezuela for the organization, training and operation of international terrorist networks, and exported this tyrannical and populist model to all of Latin America, thus representing a threat to the peace, security and stability of the entire continent, including the North.

During those years the strategy of the elites directed by the US against Venezuela was centered on deepening and propagating that pre-fabricated construction (it has been developed and deepened up to now) and on laying the foundations and making the first experiments of what would be their new course of action:

1) total disregard for our institutionality and democracy,
2) total insurrection supported by concrete force injected from abroad via open interference,
3) sabotage and monetary, economic and financial boycott.

IV

Chávez’s death in March 2013 marked the beginning of a deepened deployment of multidimensional and hybrid aggression, based on the idea that we were entering a phase of weakness due to the loss of our commander. This is how those forces that counted on the death of Hugo Chávez, who from the beginning tried to overthrow us by violent means and ignored the will of our people, and saw a privileged opportunity to capitalize on their objectives, and launched themselves with all their strength and resources to achieve it. We always keep all this in mind. We are forbidden to forget it and, in fact, we will not forget it.

Presidential elections in 2013:

Not only did we win the election, but we had to go out and defend the victory. This time they devised a powerful media operation to disregard the electoral result, based on the political accumulation gathered by Henrique Capriles Radonsky in two consecutive electoral campaigns, seeking to capitalize on all the previous campaigns to delegitimize the Venezuelan State, beginning in 2004 with their song of fraud before our victory in the referendum on Chávez and later with their absence of participation in the 2006 parliamentary elections.

The whole election day we were bombarded by an avalanche of fabrications oriented to sow the perception of fraud in the opposition population, with which the explosive charge was prepared that corresponded to detonate Capriles himself when at a press conference, not knowing the election result, ordered his followers to unleash violence in the streets.

Communications mercenaries such as Nelson Bocaranda played a central role in the operation, taking charge of disseminating the fakery massively and initiating much of it, such as the one that claimed that a CDI in Zulia had doctors in La Fresita (@RACHELY127) | Twittercubanos protecting stolen ballot boxes, with the clear aim of directing the violence that Capriles had ordered to be unleashed. Besides the deployment of a whole psychological mega operation to degrade the figure of the NEC President and to malign her as a puppet at the service of the “Venezuelan dictatorship”, fabrications were made, such as some military officers allegedly burning electoral material, served to sow in the opposition population the idea of fraud.

From that moment on, the deployment of political violence against us began: 11 deaths, all Chavistas, 108 people injured and considerable material damage caused to the physical infrastructure of health centers, vehicles and official headquarters of the Psuv, was the result of that insurrectionary attempt.

The Exit:

We ratified Maduro’s narrow victory in April and expanded it through elections in December 2013, with 240 of the 337 mayors elected and 48% of the votes in our favor. This was again ignored by the opposition, in a new demonstration of their contempt for the will, desires and aspirations of the Venezuelan people: “We are not going to wait six years for a change in Venezuela. The entire Venezuelan people must rise up. Let Nicolás Maduro know, we are going to get him out of Miraflores” (Leopoldo López) and “There are some who say that we should wait for elections to take place in a few years, but we cannot wait” (María Corina Machado). Young people involved in the plan told the media: “Our mission is to overthrow the government” or “We are not going to wait for the next elections, either it is now or it is never”. This is how the new mega operation started in February 2014: The Exit.

This time, the modality was the deployment of violent street actions that involved blocking of roads, assault, fire and looting of official buildings and vehicles and of the Psuv. In this deployment, the previous training and preparation of young people employed in the plan with military techniques, combined with the selective action of armed mercenaries, was evident. Another feature of this deployment was that it only took place in the middle and upper classes and in municipalities governed by the opposition. The actions were characterized by barricades, fires, oil spills in the streets and the placement of transversal cables in the streets, all of which caused a large number of wounded and dead.

The violence deployed on the ground was raw material for the international mega-operation of black propaganda identified as “S.O.S. VENEZUELA”, aimed at creating the image of our government as a murderous and tyrannical one. Thousands of memes, caricatures, illustrations and trick photographs circulated in social networks and international media: images like these were viralized throughout the planet:

  • the Venezuelan flag shot through and bathed in blood,
  • arms dressed in red or military or police officers pointing guns at people in a peaceful attitude,
  • soldiers blowing the heads off unarmed people with long guns,
  • the map of Venezuela turned into the bars of a cell.

In addition, there were also many fake photographs taken from other countries, placed as if they had been taken in Venezuela: people being beaten by the military in Chile and Egypt, or corpses piled up from the war in Syria, for example, spread as if they had been taken in Venezuela.

The media campaign was reinforced and legitimized by political spokespersons from various countries and international bodies such as the US, Spain, and the UN, and by international human rights franchises such as Human Rights Watch.

The total number of victims of this insurrectional plan was 43 persons dead, of which 35 were civilians and 9 were officials of State security bodies. Of these, 30 died from gunshot wounds, 6 from collisions with the barricades or guayas, 4 were from the process of activating the guarimbas and 3 in other circumstances.

The scenario of violence between civilians and public security forces, in which people were injured and killed, was constructed in order to develop a story that condemned the Maduro government as responsible for repression, human rights violations and death. The same method of April 2002 with some variations: it was no longer a single confrontation but multiple, and it was not a single night of TV news but the viralization on social networks and the internet of each action, each confrontation, each person killed, day after day, week after week, with the verdict determined previously.

Total violence in 2017:

In the years 2015 and 2016, the sustained operation against Venezuela focused on the economic and political plane. These were years of deepening economic warfare as a central strategy to affect our daily lives, making it impossible to satisfy basic needs, to produce a political outcome: demobilization, apathy, and disaffiliation from the enormous political support that the Bolivarian revolution continued to have.

The objective was the 2015 parliamentary elections: to generate as much discontent as possible through economic warfare and capitalize on it electorally. The strategy worked this time. However, in the political class that conquered the National Assembly by political means, the supremacist and authoritarian eagerness prevailed, pushing forward the objective of immediately overthrowing the Bolivarian government. The intoxication of having won the Legislative Power meant in the long run the greatest political squandering ever witnessed in Venezuela. What could have been the first step of a political and democratic ascent that would finally lead to the achievement of their objectives in the medium term, resulted in a zero sum for those political actors when they failed to realize their instrumentalization of a state power against the President of the Republic.

In 2017, this failure led once again to the reiteration of the violent path, this time taken to a superlative level. The Exit was far surpassed in territorial deployment, duration, use of mercenaries, levels of destruction, looting and death, and in communicational reach.

Towns and small cities (for example: Colón, in Táchira; Socopó, in Barinas; San Antonio de Los Altos, in Miranda; Cabudare, in Lara) and large areas of different cities (for example: Chacao, Bello Monte, El Cafetal, La Trinidad, in Caracas) were completely besieged for days; food storage centers were set on fire; electrical installations were attacked; 23 people were burned alive in the streets just because they appeared to be government sympathizers. The deplorable balance of this violence was more than 150 people dead and more than 3,000 wounded.

The official response to avert this onslaught was the least expected but most effective: elections for a National Constituent Assembly. The levels of violence reached such a point that in certain territories throughout the country it was not possible to install voting centers, so they had to be activated in safe areas so that the people residing in the sites most affected by the violence could exercise their right to vote (The Poliedro de Caracas, with long lines of thousands of people, was the most emblematic). The anti-democratic and violent nature of the forces that have been adversely affecting the Bolivarian Revolution since the end of the 1990s reached this extreme. The result of that election was that even part of the opposition social base voted in understanding the electoral exercise as a way to stop the fatal and mercenary violence: more than 8 million votes confirm this.

The violence was then stopped as if by magic and regressed to total demobilization. The Bolivarian government’s political counter-offensive confirmed this: three elections in a row left the opposition much smaller in terms of concrete spaces of political power: governmental, mayoral and presidential elections. The governmental elections (October) resulted in 18 states for the Bolivarian coalition led by the Psuv, with almost 6 million votes, and 5 states for the opposition, with almost 5 million votes. The municipal elections (December) resulted in 305 mayors’ offices for the Bolivarian coalition, with 6.5 million votes, and 30 mayors’ offices for the opposition, with less than 3 million votes.

Once again, the political and electoral road, promoted at all costs by our government and our people, made a mockery of the violent, warmongering and anti-democratic intentions of the political forces representing the elites servile to the United States.

2018: total delegitimization strategy:

The presidential elections of May 20, 2018, in which Nicolás Maduro was reelected as president of Venezuela, marked a huge leap in the war against Venezuelan democracy. After almost two decades of media construction of the Venezuelan government as an anti-democratic regime, that narrative had taken on political formality with former President Obama’s 2015 decree that Venezuela is an unusual and extraordinary threat to democracy and peace in the region. From then on, economic sanctions were applied and political spokespersons from different countries and from the OAS and the European Union were given the green light to adopt this terminology.

“Why the elections in Venezuela will be a megafraud of historic proportions”, stated a headline from the New Herald on line a few days before May 20, by way of question. “It is an electoral farce that seeks to prolong a dictatorship increasingly isolated from the people. A transitional government is needed that can generate a legitimate electoral system,” affirmed Luis Almagro on May 19, Secretary General of the OAS, through his Twitter account. Something similar was published by the IACHR on May 18 also in its Twitter account: “Elections called for May 20 in Venezuela do not comply with the minimum conditions necessary to carry out free, fair and reliable elections in Venezuela”. Earlier that month, Mike Pence, US Secretary of State, had issued the message: “There will be no real elections in Venezuela, and the world knows it,” he said in a speech to the OAS. This rhetoric was seconded by Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos through his official Twitter: “Intelligence sources warn of a plan by the @NicolasMaduro regime to give out ID cards and move Colombian citizens to vote this May 20 in Venezuela. I reiterate that we will not recognize the result of those elections”.

Thus, before the elections took place, without previous investigations, without evidence or demonstrations of any kind, it was determined that the Venezuelan democratic regime and its institutions would not be recognized. And with that, the discursive line that the media should take throughout the world to deal with the Venezuelan presidential electoral event was established. And so it was done.

“Maduro is re-elected as president in a farce without rivals”, headlined on the front page of El País of Spain on May 21, in a verbal maneuver to avoid holding elections and suggesting the idea of self-election. “Maduro reelected and questioned”, titled O Globo, from Brazil. “Maduro proclaims himself the winner in elections that the opposition and several countries do not recognize,” wrote El Mercurio, from Chile. Others, such as Clarín, from Argentina, from a facade of greater objectivity, first give all the official data of the election, and then widely develop the delegitimizing analysis previously established as an editorial guideline, giving more importance to other sources than to legitimate ones: “The unofficial figures give an account of another reality. For example, the Lima Group published a report on social networks by the pollster Meganálisis, whose Bulletin No. 5 stated that the abstention was 82% and that only 17% of the voters had voted, that is, 3.5 million people (…). The unofficial bulletins coincided with the atmosphere of desolation that was registered in the 14,000 electoral centers throughout the day. The empty streets and the lonely ballot boxes. That was the image of Venezuela this Sunday”.

On May 21, the OAS Secretary General did his part by tweeting: “We do not recognize @NicolasMaduro as the legitimate president of #Venezuela. The country needs a transitional government that can generate a legitimate electoral system, which in turn allows for solutions for the country”. “The worst thing that can happen to #Venezuela is the prolongation of the dictatorship. We cannot be indifferent and we will not be. We will continue to fight for stronger sanctions against the regime and for the end of the Venezuelan dictatorship”. “Yesterday #20May was an infamous day for democracy in the Americas. The dictator @NicolasMaduro tried unsuccessfully to give a democratic garb to his totalitarian regime in #Venezuela. My message to the farce of the dictatorship”.

Thus the stage was set for the last great plan of assault on democracy, peace and sovereignty of Venezuela: the Guaidó device.

2019 – 2020: the Guaidó device:

The features that characterized the Venezuelan opposition by the time Juan Guaidó appeared on the political scene were

  • absolute absence of leaders who could convene and mobilize the organizations, parties and social base of the opposition,
  • growing rejection of all its leadership by its social base,
  • division, fragmentation and internal conflicts,
  • discontent, disillusionment and demobilization of their bases,
  • no discourse of its own and no country project,
  • inability to reach the popular sectors and the great majority of the country,
  • loss of practically all spaces of formal power and popular legitimacy,
  • international discredit.

This is the reason why the United States, aware of this reality and consistent with its efforts to overthrow the Bolivarian revolution, designed and manufactured the Juan Guaidó device, which required, as fundamental fuel to exist and function, the permanent injection of oxygen and concrete force from outside Venezuelan territory by the U.S. government, international institutions aligned with its interests and governments servile to the U.S. power elites.

In this way, the use of a power of the Venezuelan State, the Legislative Power, as a political instrument for foreign aggression and the fragmentation of Venezuelan institutions is concretized. They turned the National Assembly directed and presided over by the opposition into a weapon of war.

The highest representatives of the government of the United States assumed directly, without intermediaries 1) the management of opposition actions, the alignment and management of the diplomatic network and international political pressure against Venezuela; 2) the operationalization of its political, economic and military institutionality to pressure and attack Venezuela; 3) the permanent issuance of speeches, orders and actions in view of the overthrow of the government of Nicolás Maduro.

Only in this way was it possible to raise a leading figure and give him national and international prominence, to bring together the opposing political forces and their more radicalized and pro-American social base, to achieve cohesion and unity of action. The U.S. assumed the leadership and transferred it to Juan Guaidó, as president of the Legislative Branch.

The most complete arsenal against the country was then simultaneously and increasingly deployed:

  • Self-proclamation of Juan Guaidó as interim president, immediately recognized as such, via Twitter, by Donald Trump, president of the United States, and by Luis Almagro, secretary general of the OAS
  • Recognition of that government by more than 50 countries aligned by the United States
  • Maximum political and media pressure to break the Bolivarian National Armed Force and get some strong factor aligned with the foreign aggression
  • Armed attacks on military installations and posts
  • Attempted armed violation of Venezuelan territory on the border with Colombia
  • Permanent psychological operation to convince the population of the need for a war to overthrow the government
  • Frontal military threats by the President of the United States and other senior officials of that government
  • Military threats and provocations from Colombia and Brazil
  • Total sabotage to the National Electric System (national blackout)
  • Attempted military coup d’état (April 30)
  • Oil embargo
  • Sanctions to PDVSA
  • Sanctions on 58 ships, 58 aircraft and 131 fuel and supply transport companies
  • Sanctions against the Central Bank of Venezuela
  • Theft of more than 5.4 billion Venezuelan dollars deposited in banks abroad
  • Kidnapping of Citgo and Monomers
  • Losses to the country of more than 130 billion dollars
  • Absolute commercial and financial fence
  • Mercenary invasion in the form of outsourced and privatized warfare (operation Gideon)
  • Reduction of state revenue to $500 million (in 2013 it was $56 billion

However, despite the enormous magnitude of this attack, the plan designed by the U.S. to overthrow our revolution has failed. Our demonstration of force and unity was decisive in preventing the interventionist plan from succeeding: the political leadership did not break, the FANB did not break, the public powers did not break, the structures of national, regional and municipal government did not break and they remained firm on Maduro’s side, the political, social and popular factors preserved unity in the midst of the differences, tensions and the effects of the crisis and the blockade.

At the end of 2019, the political framework of the Venezuelan opposition within the country was practically the same as the one that had given origin to the US design of the Guaidó device:

  • Once again, the social base became unmotivated, frustrated and demobilized,
  • Once again, personal, group and party interests sprouted with the corresponding political break-up of the opposition block,
  • The international discredit of the Venezuelan opposition is increasingly reappearing,
  • Opposing political factors that reject U.S. interference and the blockade, that recognize Maduro as president, and that are willing to find a national, negotiated solution to the political conflict and the grave economic situation of the country, have emerged with greater force.

V

In this country we have memory and we do not forget the multiplicity of attacks and aggressions against peace, democracy and sovereignty from 1998 to 2020, because we know that this has been the main battle that our country has been forced to fight, especially from 2013 until today: to defend peace, democracy and sovereignty.

We know that in this battle all other struggles, all other victories, all horizons are at stake. Without the resistance that we have known as a people to this constant aggression, no other victory, no other conquest would have been possible. And we bear in mind that without the continuity of that resistance and without the latent perspective of victory the door to the possibility of transformation that the Bolivarian revolution has been, is and will be, would be closed.

We must not lose sight of this under any circumstances: today we have lost ground in all areas, but the possibility of recovering the lost ground and continuing to open the way to the liberating, sovereign, just, democratic and humanist perspective of the Bolivarian revolution is sustained by the fact that we can continue to resist and achieve the necessary tactical victories.

Let us not lose sight of which is the central scenario of confrontation and conflict, and which is the main adversary, that which from the beginning ceased to be a political contender and became a bitter, bloody and unscrupulous enemy. In this regard, we have also reviewed the mood of the enemy, its fundamental characteristics and the methods and weapons it decided to use from the outset, which it has adjusted and deepened.

That is why we are also clear about the strength and the main weapon with which we have always managed to succeed as a people: the unity of all the forces, currents, tendencies and forms of Chavism around the Psuv, the Gpp and the Bolivarian government led first by Chávez and now by Nicolás Maduro. In each one of these scenarios and battles this unity was always firm as a fundamental determinant of the resistance and the victorious counteroffensive.

Today the scenario is the same and even more serious, the level of the aggression is even more powerful, profound and evident than in previous attacks, the consequences of the aggression on institutional life and on the lives of the people are more grave than ever. That is why we must today be on the ground as we have always been.

Today there is an open and sustained process of attempted coup d’état, of a rupture of the constitution and open violence against all the Venezuelan people. That is why clarity, conscience and maturity must prevail among us so as not to put other debates and contradictions ahead and to place as an absolute priority the supreme interest of defending peace, democracy, institutionality and the sovereignty of the country.

Whoever assumes a contrary position must know that they will be playing in favor of this adversary who from the first moment despised the will of the majority and opted for anti-democratic violence.

It would be a grave political error or illusion to believe that any of the revolutionary forces, of the left, communal and Chavista, organized and existing in the country, can, outside of the nucleated unity around the PSUV and the GPP, confront, contain, stop and defeat the weight and volume of the aggression proposed against peace, democracy and the sovereignty of Venezuela. It is a mistake to believe that it is possible outside of the capillarity and organizational depth and the existing capacity for action, for example, around the more than 14 thousand UCBs, the more than 30 thousand Claps and the structure that organizes the more than 3 million militiamen and women, all political and social structures generated and sustained by our Chavista people in their own midst.

We know then that the fundamental tactical victory is to finish breaking and defeating the main weapon that the adversary has used in the last phase of the aggression: the Legislative Power, the National Assembly in the hands of deputies who are nothing but pawns of the aggressive force. And the scenario in which this must take place is also key: broad, transparent and legal elections, like those called for on December 6 of this year.

Let us remember that the democratic exercise has been, throughout this history of attacks, the main resource with which we have managed to reduce and prevent attacks, after containing and resisting them. We have always consolidated our victories with a democratic counteroffensive. Ultimately, at the height of the attacks, at their climax, it has always been the ballot box, our participation, our will for peace, joy and dialogue that we have taken in order to win.

December 6 will be no different. The adversary and his methods are the same: military violence, political violence, media and psychological violence, economic violence.

This adversary will not be the one with its colors, acronyms and faces in the electoral dispute itself, because in their eagerness to ignore the Venezuelan institutions and democracy and in their eagerness to ignore the will, aspirations and desires of our people, they decided not to participate. Nevertheless, it will be the enemy that we will be defeating with the election and our participation, because we will be voting to elect the men and women that will replace them in the seats of the National Assembly that from 2015 onwards was used to destroy the Republic, dismember the institutions, besiege and suffocate the country in the economic sphere, steal billions of dollars from it and cause the suffering of millions of Venezuelans.

After December 6 they will no longer have any legitimacy to act in the name of anyone. They will stop being deputies and will become what they really are: nothing.

Image may contain: crowd

Translation by Internationalist 360°