With 72 votes in favor, the members of the National Assembly (AN) of Venezuela elected in 2015 overwhelmingly voted on Friday, December 30, in favor of reforming the statute governing the Transition to democracy in its second discussion, which establishes the cessation of the functions of the “interim government” led by Juan Guaidó.
During an extraordinary session held virtually, lawmakers voted to eliminate the interim government, supported by the heads of factions from the Primero Justicia (PJ), Un Nuevo Tiempo (UNT), and Acción Democrática (AD) parties, while Voluntad Popular (VP), the so-called 16th of July Faction (Vente Venezuela, Alianza Bravo Pueblo, and Convergencia), and La Causa R opposed the move. Encuentro Ciudadano, Proyecto Venezuela, and Nuvipa abstained from voting.
The first legislator to speak was the head of the Unity faction, José Trujillo, who noted that the decision to approve the statute governing the Transition to democracy was made with everyone’s support a year ago, and that for the purposes of the current statute, there were no legitimate parliamentary elections in Venezuela in 2020, which rendered the results “null and ineffective.”
“With this strategy of our ongoing fight to regain democracy, we want to make it clear that the reform we propose is that the National Assembly elected in 2015 should continue to operate, and we propose extending its functions for an additional 12 months.”
Next, Biagio Pilieri (Convergencia) spoke, arguing that burying the so-called “interim government” would, in his opinion, have serious consequences for the country both internationally and domestically, reported Gianfranco Ruggiero in El Cooperante.
According to Pilieri, the current situation presents the democratic forces to the public as deeply divided over party or personal interests: “Anything that undermines unity will not be well received by those of us who want change. Failing to reach the utmost consensus on this matter could severely impact the primary election for the presidency.”
“The absence of consensus on something as critical as this would undoubtedly send a very bad signal to those who demand unity. We have ahead of us a highly significant event for the country, the last opportunity we have to escape this tragedy.”
Deputy José Prat (La Causa R) added that his party did not support the reform proposal because it “denies the general spirit of unity” for the international community to assist Venezuelans in their fight to elect a new president.
“This conflicts with the Constitution and the laws, and we consider it politically inconvenient. Giving the dictatorship a victory of this nature and providing international lobbies with a door to recognize Maduro is a grave error that I don’t know what interests respond to.”
He also mentioned that another reason for not supporting the reform is that it “puts the republic’s assets at risk and opens the door to recognizing the dictatorship.”
Afterward, Richard Blanco, a deputy from Alianza Bravo Pueblo, who is part of the 16th of July Faction together with Vente Venezuela and Gente Emergente, cited Articles 233 and 333 of the Constitution to argue his reasons for rejecting the reform: “No matter how many errors have been made, today we want to violate the Constitution by separating the interim government. You will be responsible if by some chance we lose the lawsuits, the gold, and the institutions that the country needs for its complete transformation.”
Freddy Guevara, a leader from Voluntad Popular (VP), condemned the reform proposal to the Statute of Transition, calling it a “shame” and labeling it “impossible” for there to have been a “meeting to discuss alternatives to this disaster.”
According to Guevara, it is unjust to insinuate that important academics in the country have been labeled “corrupt,” and he defended that the position of the orange party was not to refuse any alternative, as long as it allowed the objectives to be met, stayed within the Constitution, and was validated by the international community.
“If we lose the gold, it’s due to the irresponsibility of not wanting to reach a consensus. It’s about knowing that the assets depend on an interim presidency that poses a conflict—those who vote in favor of the reform are the irresponsible ones. I hope this is a lie.”
Guevara stated that Nicolás Maduro’s administration is celebrating the internal divisions within the opposition because “they know we are making a mistake.” He expressed his outrage at the idea of extending the powers of the National Assembly instead of the “interim government.”
“We are on the verge of committing a historic mistake. I don’t think people are being bought, but we are sinning in two important ways: arrogance and putting personal interests above those of the country. Your future aspirations are not above the Constitution. If tomorrow, Maduro emerges strengthened from this process, he must take responsibility. Abstaining from voting favors injustice; I hope we are mistaken, but any ground we concede to the dictator will be the responsibility of those who raise their hands in this matter.”
On behalf of Encuentro Ciudadano, Proyecto Venezuela, and Nuvipa, lawmaker Héctor Cordero abstained from voting, lamenting that they failed to respond to citizens who need to regain trust in the opposition: “The people of Venezuela demand unity and solutions to their problems, yet we are giving divisions and doubts, engaging in a sterile political discussion.”
He clarified that they are staunch defenders of the National Assembly, uphold its legitimacy, and consider it the only tool for resisting the “regime” in the country.
“We have also been critical and will continue to be so; therefore, we want to propose that we continue to support the National Assembly. Encuentro Ciudadano abstains from voting because this partial reform has left serious doubts, has severely damaged unity, and has contributed to the distrust and disappointment that have come to us. We call for the consolidation of unity, a constitutional process that enables the people of Venezuela to trust in an opposition that does not display immaturity.”
On the side of those who voted in favor of the statute reform, Juan Miguel Matheus from Primero Justicia highlighted that the National Assembly has the right and the duty to designate its president every January 5.
Matheus addressed Juan Guaidó directly, stating that “it is not fair to turn him into a scapegoat and accuse the parties of being executioners,” and that it is also unfair for those opposing his leadership to be subjected to undue pressure both publicly and privately.
“If we don’t reform it, the interim government will vanish, the National Assembly and the need to protect the assets. We are not the ones lacking consensus; it is important to know that we do need the reform of the statute. It is not true that the interim government exists in the Constitution; we began working on the statute in September 2018 because the Constitution was insufficient to respond to what was happening in the country. That is why we started drafting it and it was approved. It is not true that the parliament has nothing to do with the interim government.”
Finally, he reiterated that what was supposed to be provisional “has become perpetual” with aspirations for one more year, and that the interim government was conceived when they had the “certainty” that political change was “imminent.”
“It is not true that Article 233 justifies the legality of the interim government. Those lawyers know they are lying and twisting the legal reasoning to protect political interests, and I say this with pain (…) Venezuela does not need its intellectual elites to lend themselves to this.”
The legislator guaranteed that the assets are not in danger because he believes the international community recognizes the National Assembly more than the interim government: “On behalf of PJ, we reiterate that we support the reasons exposed; everything we do must establish a period of struggle to defeat Maduro as soon as possible.”
Another leader who expressed support for the reform was Tomás Guanipa, who refrained from referring to the disqualifications faced by those who approved the decision to dissolve the interim government, limiting himself to criticizing the “arbitrary and arrogant manner” in which the interim government and the presidency of the National Assembly have been exercised.
“It’s disgraceful because the objective is to get rid of Maduro, and the best thing that could happen now is for us to keep wasting time in this sterile discussion over whether the interim government continues or not. We shouldn’t spend millions on litigations when the assets have been protected by executive orders from the United States.”
For Guanipa, the worst thing that could happen to Venezuela is to have the discussion of whether Nicolás Maduro or Juan Guaidó is president for 20 years; hence he believes that what is needed is to elect a new president: “It is not true that if Juan Guaidó ceases to be president, it grants legitimacy to Nicolás Maduro. The interim government was elected to bring about a political change within a short time frame. Don’t seek applause from galleries that you lost two years ago by disqualifying us.”
Votes in favor (72): Julio Ygarza, Tatiana Montiel, Carlos Michelangeli, Oneida Guaipe, Luis Carlos Padilla, Luis Lippa, José Trujillo, Amelia Belisario, Simón Calzadilla, Dinorah Figuera, Sandra Flores, Alejandra Peña, Andrés Camejo, Pablo Moronta, Luis Silva, José Ricardo Salazar, Ángel Medina, Ylidio Abreu, Armando López, Marco Bozo, Romny Fores, Carlos Lozano, Juan Miguel Matheus, Maria Fatima Soares, Jorge Millán, Henry Ramos Allup, José Guerra, Ivlev Silva, Tomás Guanipa, Éliezer Sirit, Juan Manaure, José Gregorio Graterol, Bibiana Lucas, Luis Florido, Alfonso Marquina, Edgar Zambrano, Alexis Paparoni, Williams Dávila, Carmen Sivoli, Milagro Valero, Miguel Pizarro, Mauligmer Baloa, Manuel Teixeira, Julio Borges, Luis Aquiles Moreno, Piero Maroun, Maria Gabriela Hernández, Luis Emilio Rondón, Orlando Ávila, Jony Rahal, Tobías Bolívar, Maria Beatriz Martínez, Leonardo Regnault, Milagros Paz, Robert Alcalá, Karim Vera, Eduardo Marín, Carlos Andrés González, Milagros Sánchez Eulate, José Manuel Olivares, Liz María Márquez, Avilio Troconiz, Elimar Díaz, Nora Bracho, Elías Mata, Juan Pablo Guanipa, William Barrientos, Héctor Vargas, Juan Carlos Velazco, Marianela Fernández, Virgilio Ferrer, Gladys Guaipo.
Votes against (32): Héctor Cordero, Marco Aurelio Quiñonez, Armando Armas, Ismael García, Karin Salanova, Mariela Magallanes, Freddy Superlano, Olivia Lozano, Francisco Sucre, José Prat, Ángel Álvarez Gil, Jesús Abreu, Richard Blanco, Luis Stefanelli, Daniel Antequera, Macario González, Mildred Carrero, Delsa Solórzano, Freddy Guevara, Juan Pablo García, Gilber Caro, Dignora Hernández, Zandra Castillo, Sergio Vergara, Sonia Medina, Fernando Orozco, Juan Guaidó, Biagio Pilieri, José Luis Pirela, Gilmar Márquez, Edwin Luzardo, Romel Guzamana.
Abstained from voting (5): Luis Barragán, Carlos Berrizbeitia, María Teresa Pérez, Ana Salas, Gabriela Arellano.