On May 4, when a confusing insurrection was still unfolding on the Venezuelan coasts, PROVEA reiterated a series of principles through its social networks, which generated a virulent response from officials of the de facto government. What did the messages say? 1) By blocking peaceful channels of conflict resolution, Maduro encourages scenarios of violence; 2) Provea would only support peaceful mechanisms for a transition to democracy; 3) The international community must reject the use of force, increasing diplomatic pressure mechanisms and 4) People arrested in the incident shall not be victims of torture, forced disappearance or extrajudicial execution. These messages, with some variations, have been published several times in recent months. Why have they caused this inflamed criminalization this time? Our answer so far is: The nature of the conflict is changing qualitatively.
The state of alarm decree has given rise to control mechanisms that we have described as “dreamy” for Bolivarianism as a device of domination of Venezuelans: disconnecting and isolating the citizens so that they become incapable of collective action in the public space, increasing censorship and self-censorship, militarizing the territorial control of the main urban centers, and increasing the intrusion of the state in everyday life. The remnants of dissent that we knew before the epidemic are being progressively eliminated. For this reason, we have seen cases of medical doctors detained for denouncing in private chats the lack of equipment in hospitals, or citizens detained for voicing out their discontent over fuel shortages on Instagram. This happens because the extraordinary situation derived by Covid-19 is being used by the authorities as an exercise to normalize absolute silence and inhibit the expression of discontent. To put it in other terms, the Coronavirus has allowed the unfolding of a new extraordinary situation that we believe will remain after the epidemic. By taking advantage of the circumstances, the dictatorship is becoming more brutal.
Even if violent options are rejected, as is our case, the facts speak for themselves. The opinion of a sector of the Venezuelan society which believes the use of force can alter the balance of power and catalyze change has materialized. As such, we might be entering a dangerous phase of armed struggle that will reposition all national and international actors, especially those within the de facto government, which will respond to the threat of aggression with military morale. This new reality would reinforce the scenario described in the previous paragraph.
Not only moral reasons command us to reject violence. We believe a transition caused by an act of force will not be the beginning of a political process to leave behind authoritarianism, but a continuation of the conflict. We will have to insist on promoting political and civilized mechanisms in what I believe will be a scenario with different qualitative attributes than before the epidemic. It will not be easy in the midst of so much uncertainty, but it is definitely the way.
