The Struggle for the Spirit:
Defining the Venezuelan Political Conflict

By: Max (pseud.)

 

“He who believes in beautiful things but not in beauty itself, and who is also unable, if someone guides him, to follow that person to the knowledge of it — do you think that such a person lives in a dream or is awake? Consider carefully: what else is dreaming, if not when someone, whether asleep or awake, does not take what is similar as the likeness of its similar, but as the very thing to which it is similar?” Plato (As expressed through the voice of Socrates, The Republic, 476c)

08 September 2024

 

This piece is, above all, an anecdotal perspective that is conditioned by the subjectivity of the writer. That being said, I believe it is important to remember that everything in life is, in a certain sense, subjective, for it is through our individual existence that reality is, as our own interpretation of everything that surrounds us. Without falling into absurd perspectives like that of Protagoras, who claimed that all subjective realities are true, there is value in subjective interpretations of objective realities.

The degradation of republican life in Venezuela is a deeply personal process for me, as I not only grew up immersed in it, but also had the privilege of sharing spaces and moments of struggle with several of those who today lead a terribly unequal fight in defense of the democratic ideal. And here the first caveat must be made: the battle taking place in Venezuela is, above all, an existential confrontation between completely dichotomous ideas.

On one side, there is the confluence of hard left-wing ideologies with the everlasting pseudo-Bolivarian nationalist-militarism, which share a chauvinistic vision of Venezuelan civil and military history, along with a desire to control and “mold” society to ensure its “guidance” according to that historical-political idealization. This movement found itself in a unique position with Hugo Chávez, as the figure of the commander allowed it to be articulated into a vertical, disciplined structure capable of turning the liberal-democratic state into a tool of absolute control, with the mission of reshaping reality through the construction of a new geometry of power, the fourth of his so-called constituent engines, and a term developed in the proposed reform of Article 16 of the Venezuelan Constitution, presented in the draft of the Constitutional Reform by Hugo Chávez. This reform was, in turn, based on the figure of the new man, although ironically, for a revolution that prided itself on fighting for gender equality, there was little mention of the new woman.

On the other side, the resistance to this hegemonic vision has changed in form and leadership countless times. The first signs of resistance were born from the civil society model with leadership from the active forces of society (Fedecámaras, CTV, and the Church, under the so-called tripartite), maturing into the partial consolidation of a “new” party system (PJ, UNT, VP), and finally reaching a hybrid model between party (or rather, command) and citizen mobilization, represented by María Corina Machado (from now on, MCM) and Vente/Comando ConVZLA. Beyond how disparate its organization has been, all its stages share a central thread that gives them ideological coherence and unity: the desire to maintain a democratic framework firmly anchored in the liberal and social achievements that Venezuela had reached since 1936, especially in everything related to political and social plurality as inherent factors of Venezuelan society.

With both ideas laid out, it becomes more than evident not only their diametrical opposition but also the impossibility of articulating a synthesis between them. It is in this absolute dichotomy where the central cause of the existential nature of the political struggle in Venezuela lies, for where there is hegemony, there cannot be diversity, and where there is diversity, there cannot be hegemony (please excuse the tautology). And it is precisely this existential nature that is least understood by those who have not been directly involved in the Venezuelan conflict, as for citizens of the Western world, the reality of a total struggle whose battlefield is the full existence of every man and woman who is part of the political community we call Venezuela seems abstract, if not incomprehensible.

There is a central concept in MCM’s discourse that reflects the absolute nature of the political confrontation in Venezuela: the spiritual nature of the struggle. Through the use of this concept, MCM has managed to amalgamate the traditional syncretic perspective that the word "spiritual" has in Venezuela—facilitating subjective identification on an individual level—with its deeper and more absolute definition from a political-theoretical perspective, which is the formation (or interpretation) of a profoundly personal and unique worldview regarding reality and our relationship with it. For it is the spirit, as Max Weber reflects, that defines our motivations, our aspirations, and the framework of our actions both on an individual level and as members of society collectively.

By defining the political, social, and electoral actions of the democratic opposition as an expression of a spiritual confrontation, for the first time, the magnitude and scope of the civilizational clash that Venezuela has experienced in recent years is reflected. Transcending the ideological and discursive indefiniteness that ruled for years in the democratic camp, a concept is articulated that is not only capable of acting as a vessel for the aspirations and visions of all those Venezuelans who fervently desire to live a free, dignified life shared with the immense diversity of cultures coexisting in Venezuela but also allows the formation of a shared framework in which that diversity can express itself organically and positively for all members of society.

What characteristics does this spirit have? Answering that question requires a sociological, political, and even anthropological approach that goes beyond the limits (and possibilities) of this article. However, in the actions of the Comanditos—the structures created by the ConVZLA command to articulate citizen action—certain central elements are reflected. From a deep commitment to the idea of participation as the central engine of political action, to the irreverence evidenced by anecdotal stories (resistance to military-police abuse, unrestricted exercise of fundamental political rights), and culminating in a firm decision to build a new political and social order, the will and citizen organization that achieved the overwhelming victory of the democratic alternative is an objective manifestation of that subjective framework shared by millions of Venezuelans.

These “symptoms” seem to reflect the emergence of a new ethos that rejects and transcends the frameworks that have prevailed in Venezuelan society until now. After the collapse of the populist model of conciliation that ideologically reigned since 1958, the response of a majority of Venezuelan society has been to embrace principles once scorned, such as individual responsibility, collaboration, and social subsidiarity when addressing the major political and social challenges it faces. Although it is too early to fully define the real nature or objective consequences of this change, it is undeniable that this process is underway, and it has been the driving force behind the overwhelming victory in the July 28th electoral event.

And here is a reality that cannot be crushed by chavismo, even if it tries to deny and suppress its objective manifestations. For, even in the event that they could stabilize their fraudulent attempt, fighting against a spiritual revolution is truly the equivalent of plowing the sea, as figures from Charles I to Erich Honecker can attest, for the victories obtained in its suppression are, at best, tactical. Once the change lies in the souls of individuals, sooner or later the objective embodiment of that transformation will prevail by the force of their existence and actions, making it impossible to repress it in its entirety.

While there is much left to explore regarding some of the concepts we have discussed, what has already been said serves to begin overcoming a key subjective barrier in facilitating the world's understanding of the Venezuelan issue: the lack of comparative models for those who have grown up in the free world. For those of us who wish to act as spokespersons for the Venezuelan democratic ideal, the spiritual nature of our struggle is a powerful concept, capable of serving as a clear representation that transcends the basic clichés that have shaped the narrative and discursive battle surrounding the Venezuelan crisis.