The incident of the failed invasion increases the crisis of representation of Juan Guaidó for his “All options are on the table” speech. To overcome it, he must rebuild his authority, trust, and ties with all the democratic sectors of the country.
The Venezuelan conflict has reached such level of severity that the shock threatens to permanently erode the figure of Juan Guaidó, after the initial connection of officials from his environment with a former North American green beret, Jordan Goudreau, who led a failed insurrectional act on the coasts of the country.
Guaidó’s survival does not depend solely on his ability to rebuild what in itself was a fragile alliance of political parties to promote the transition towards democracy, but also his link with the country’s civil society, which today debates whether or not it is appropriate to distance itself from who has been designated as “Interim President” by the National Assembly.
For several years, Venezuelans have lost a good part of their capacity for wonder. That is why that Sunday, May 3rd, when it became known that the government of Nicolás Maduro had intercepted a boat with people trying to start an insurrectional campaign against Miraflores, the first reaction on social media was disbelief.
Under the state of alarm, which has decreed a quarantine across the country since February 13, the news continues. A US court decision that offers millions in rewards for information that allows the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his environment; the declassification of pictures of a UFO sighting by the Pentagon; the return of thousands of Venezuelan migrants; gasoline shortages across the country; the conflict between Miraflores and the most important national food suppliers and the confrontation for several days of two criminal gangs for the control over the largest neighborhood in eastern Caracas.
Two days before that Sunday the 3rd, the agency Associated Press published a report by journalist Joshua Goodman describing a bizarre conspiracy to depose Nicolás Maduro whose plot showed leaders of the Venezuelan opposition, military deserters from the army, the retired general Cliver Alcalá and businessmen from other countries, in addition to Goudreau himself. When the bizarre plan seemed to materialize 48 hours later, local tweeting assets displayed cautious skepticism.
As the hours passed and more details appeared, evidence of its plausibility accumulated. The first was from the journalist Patricia Poleo, who, exiled in Miami, conducted an interview with the former green beret, who showed recordings of his conversations with Juan Guaidó and a contract signed by both parties. The next day, when a second ship was captured, one of its crew was Adolfo Baduel, son of General Raúl Isaías Baduel, one of the political prisoners with the greatest significance for Chavismo.
That day, what finally convinced the unbelievers was the series of interviews given by JJ Rendón, whose signature appeared in the contract shown by Goudreau, where it was recognized that there had been an initial agreement but that it had been dismissed due to “inconsistencies” on the part of the contracted security company. Rather than clarifying the whole situation, Rendón’s statements – appointed to join the “Interim Government Strategy Committee” in August 2019 -, darkened it. For the Washington Post, he stated that “Guaidó was saying that all options were on the table and under the table. We were fulfilling that purpose. “ What was evident in that phrase irritated more than one. The episode became the best gift to maintain the precarious stability of the government of Nicolás Maduro.
On May 8th, the political party Primero Justicia issued a statement rejecting the events that occurred on the Caribbean coast. Including the events of April 30th, 2019 – when Guaidó and Leopoldo López, along with a group of soldiers, from a bridge near the military airport La Carlota, asked the rest of the Armed Forces to rise up – they stated that “they end up frustrating our people and destroying trust among those of us who fight for political change, ” adding that “For years, we have completely rejected Cuban interference in our country, and we also radically reject the hiring of illegal groups. ”
Two days before, on May 6th, a statement was signed by 8 parties (Primero Justicia, Acción Democrática, Un Nuevo Tiempo, Voluntad Popular, Proyecto Venezuela, Copei, Encuentro Ciudadano y Movimiento Progresista), where they stated that “The democratic forces do not promote or finance guerrillas, outbreaks of violence, or paramilitary groups, ” adding that “Democratic forces are committed to a peaceful exit that provides tranquility and stability to all Venezuelans and their families. “
Although both communiqués insisted on the constitution of a “National Emergency Government” composed by the different sectors of the country, that of Primero Justicia – which according to its electoral base is the most important opposition party in the country – also demanded the dismissal of the officials involved in the illegal groups, the conduction of an investigation carried out by the National Assembly and the rethinking of decision-making mechanisms in the opposition and in the so-called “Government Center”: “so that unity is truly respected and the focus of the political struggle be placed on Maduro’s departure from power ”.
Ambiguity as a strategy
Juan Guaidó’s response has been erratic. On Sunday 3rd, he described the fact as a false-positive or an episode of ordinary crime manipulated by Miraflores. The next day he ratified his speech on the assembly, and incorporated the respect for the human rights of the detainees.
On Friday the 8th, when JJ Rendón had already reported that Goudreau had been given $ 50,000 in advance for related expenses, he reiterated the “false positive” thesis of which he was a victim. As this text was being written, his communications team reported, in 3 paragraphs, that “President (e) Juan Guaidó accepted the resignation of the officials and thanked them for their dedication and commitment to Venezuela”, second paragraph, and “Similarly, Rendón and Vergara ratified their support for the democratic cause, Interim President Juan Guaidó and called on all national and international sectors to strengthen support for the interim President and the need to constitute a National Emergency Government as the only real way to save Venezuela from an unprecedented catastrophe ”, last paragraph. If the strategy is to turn the page, it will be less effective than on previous occasions.
Although in recent surveys Guaidó has begun to have more rejection than approval, by far he remains, as a whole, the best-valued politician by the population. However, his tenure as president of the National Assembly, which is the source of much of the international support, is numbered. Legally, next December, the new members of the legislative body should be chosen, today, this organ holds an opposition majority, thereby, this comes off as the main obstacle for Nicolas Maduro to obtain new financing from abroad. Its main value, having brought together the opposition universe in January 2019, today seems to have volatilized. His future as a political leader does not depend solely on the recomposition of his personal relationship with the set of political forces, but also on his re-articulation with social actors, a bond that today is surrounded by mistrust.
The distancing of social organizations, at least the most visible ones, with the figure of Juan Guaidó has been progressive. It started as early as February 2019, when organizations doing humanitarian and human rights work questioned the political use of aid that was intended forcibly enter from various points on the border. On April 30th, when the “takeover of the bridge La Carlota” took place, they privately discussed the insurrectional turn assumed by the strategy that sought to achieve the “cessation of usurpation”.
In different forums and assemblies of citizen activism, the need for civil society to have its own profile in the conflict began to be repeated, in order to publicly question the deviations and mistakes of the political leadership for the transition towards democracy.
The start of the dialogue process, facilitated by Norway, generated broad expectations of the possibility to move towards the negotiated and political resolution of the conflict. And when this effort abruptly ended, giving way to a parallel negotiation between the government and a group of opposition parties of minority representation, several activists concluded that this shortcut was a consequence of the exclusions from decision-making mechanisms within the so-called “interim government” and the ambiguity of the concept, without colophon, “All scenarios are on the table”. Then, in regards to the renewal of the board of directors of the National Assembly -which usually takes place during the first days of each year-, the confrontation and the erosion of their powers increased, after Nicolás Maduro stimulated the establishment of a parallel board of directors. That was what we were doing when the coronavirus arrived in Venezuela.
Given the current dramatic circumstances, the argument of “not giving possibilities to Maduro” is weakening as a containment to inhibit legitimate and argued public criticism against the opposition leadership, from those who are part of grassroots organizations, who have been demanding in different tones that a peaceful strategy away from despair and short-termism of violence should be indicated without hesitation. If Juan Guaidó finds himself today at a crossroads, reinventing an alliance with political parties will not be the only path to depart from it, but recomposing his relationship with different social actors, by recovering, first of all, the lost trust, under the conviction that a movement to rescue democracy can only take action in a democratic way.
