The exhaustion caused by the conflict makes it very difficult for the scenario of January 2019 to be repeated, where a large number of Venezuelans accepted a leader and followed a single strategy, the three-step mantra (Maduro stepping down, transitional government, free elections). While dispersion in our strategy today is inevitable, we have to think about how to deal with this issue in order to continue with the democratic offensive during 2021, adding the Coronavirus crisis to all the problems we already had. To think about this challenge, we propose the idea of ​​the “swarm”.

At the time this article is being written, the Venezuelan democratic field is at its worst moment of division and internal confrontation. As we have insisted in other texts, this is precisely the strategy of authoritarianism to stay in power: to strengthen itself while its opponents fragment and weaken.

The current debate is summed up between participating or not participating in the next parliamentary elections. However, a growing number of Venezuelans ask what the strategy will be as of December 7, adopting a long-term vision for the restoration of democracy. The greatest danger for the unity of a critical mass based on the new socio-political scenario is not the dictatorship itself, but rather that the current parliamentary race, due to the increase in sectoral tensions, which could blow up the bridges between the different factions, to a point that makes collective action impossible during the year 2021.

This stumbling block deserves other ways of understanding politics. Now it seems that there is a dispute over the opposition leadership, exercised in recent months by Juan Guaidó, and that rather than promoting actions that erode the regime, there are short-term tactics being deployed to try to replace who has been the main spokesperson of the democratic offensive.

In order to achieve a method that allows us to leave the parliamentary elections as less fractured as possible, I depart from two premises. The first one is that all the proposals that are on the table at the moment, which we will summarize in an arc that goes from maximum confrontation to minimum confrontation, are rational from a political point of view. This is so regardless of whether we agree with them or not, along with the assumptions on which each one is based on. If we understand that this is so, we would be obliged to raise a high-level and well-argued discussion, not only on the weaknesses of the other approaches, but especially on the strengths of ours. At the moment, we use moral reasons to disqualify others, in a superficial debate loaded with adjectives and emotionality, which will take us to the place where the current status quo wants us to be: isolated and confronting each other.

The second premise is that, until now, none of the sectors has promoted a really effective strategy to achieve the transition. For different reasons, none have been able to fulfill their promise: not those who from an interim government offered the cessation of the transition, or those who announced an act of force as imminent, or those who have worked for an “exit from the left.” By recognizing this impossibility for the whole, we will exclude from the conversation the critiques that each group makes about the others. The honest thing would be for each one to carry an analysis on why the authoritarian regime continues where it is, and to make the necessary corrections in their strategy.

If we believe that all the proposals are possible and none, so far, have proven their reliability, and recognizing that the sum of the greatest number of wills is an indispensable requirement to achieve democratic objectives, it is important to assume a logic that allows for it. The one that comes to mind right now is that of the “swarm”.

If we agree that the objective is to end the dictatorship, each sector weakens it from a different point, all at the same time, without pretending that it will be a specific strategy that does it, but not the sum of all the pressures carried out consecutively by the different strategies. In such a type of strategy there is a motive, a collective strategy – which in our case would be to return to democracy – that causes swarm behavior. There is no central planning, but each strategy tries to win as much support as possible to exercise pressure at the same time as others. There is quite a lot of literature available on the internet about “swarming” applied to social movements. The important thing is that it is not established in advance which strategy is correct and which is not, every one of them is maintained and increased in order to apply pressure.

In a swarm, the different groups are autonomous, but with a level of coordination and communication among each other that allows for the sharing of information that serves for the action of all. A positive aspect is that swarms include both those who are more committed, who have already defined their pressure mechanisms, and those who have partake in occasional activism and do not identify with any of the above groups. Known as “weak links” within the swarm, they allow us to connect with groups that we usually do not reach, generating new opportunities, and allowing us to connect with citizens far from politics.

In order to have the ability to “swarm”, the literature recommends being credible and consistent, taking care of both the performance of the swarm itself and the pressure of the group of which we are part of. The recovery of confidence is vital. As communication plays a very important role, we must strengthen the network of contacts in agreement with our objectives, as well as enrich our profile and the quality of the content that is disseminated. We should seek to personalize political messages as much as possible to have a high level of affinity and take care of and nurture our “weak links”.

The swarm implies both autonomy and self-responsibility. We have to know the general strategy, making the necessary adaptations in our action. Without the knowledge of this strategy, which knows the adversary’s weaknesses and visualizes opportunities, there will be random and even chaotic behavior, but not swarming.

(*) Sociologist and General Coordinator of Provea