Archive for January 19th, 2009

The Riddle by Laureano Marquez

January 19, 2009

As usual, Laureano Marquez in Tal Cual writes a humor piece that is not that funny as it tries to explain the infamous question of the upcoming referendum and in the process shows how absurd the whole thing is with his fine humor.

The Riddle by Laureano Marquez in Tal Cual

Do you approve the amendment of Articles 160, 162, 174,192 and 230 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, processed by the National Assembly, which widens the political rights of the people in order to allow any citizen, exercising an elected position, that he can be subject to be nominated as a candidate for the constitutionally established time depending only his possible election on the popular vote?

I don’t know what it is you don’t understand. Everything is extremely clear. The question says:”Do you approve the amendment (…) which widens…” Who is not going to want to approve this widening, if it happens to be everybody’s dream? More so, if it deals with political rights. Which, one must say, is not the same “political right” than a “right politician”. Of the latter you find fewer of them each day. It deals with, the question adds, with the political rights of Venezuelans. Very concretely and very specially that of one citizen: Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias, who has the right -all of the rights- to be not only lifetime President, but also absolute monarch, if the people so decide it. The only disadvantage which handing over absolute power to one man has, using the democratic process, is that there does not exist afterwards the democratic possibility of reverting his mandate, but those are small legalistic things of Constitutional Law, which have nothing to do with the case, because we have the certainty that he happens to be a good man.

Now, the question points out that the widening of those rights is made in the terms contemplated in the amendment. It is not necessary to explain if it is a small amendment, as the President says, or a huge one. An amendment is an amendment and the word itself tells you what it is, thus there is nothing to add on that point. What is it that we want to amend? Well, articles 230,160, 174, 192 and 162. Then, what is the need to say that the referendum seeks to the indefinite reelection of the President if it is extremely clear that it deal with just five tiny articles? Are we asking anyone if they want Chavez to stay forever? Never. Then, don’t say what it happens not be said. You can reach your own conclusion with that hateful word “indefinite”, which sounds absolutely horrible.

A little before it says: “processed by the initiative of the National Assembly”. There you may have the dilemma of what it is that is being “processed”, if it is the amendment, the Constitution or the Bolivarian Republic itself. If you still have any doubts just say it is all of them.

If you are reading the question, when it comes to: “widening the rights of the people,,”, take a breath so that you can happily reach and have some oxygen left at the end, which says:” in order to allow any citizen, exercizing an elected position, that he can be subject to be nominated as a candidate for the constitutionally established time depending only his possible election on the popular vote?

What this part means is that it will be allowed for any citizen, exercising an elected position, that he can be subject to be nominated as a candidate for the constitutionally established time depending only his possible election on the popular vote. That is exactly what it means, you don’t have to look for a malicious angle to it, nor add anything to it. What part don’t you understand? The proposal is clear and transparent. Perhaps the only thing your humble writer would propose at the end of the question, as a way of inviting people to the deep reflection that a participative process of this nature should have,  is that at the end we add a timid, but firm: Uhh?

That is my criteria with respect to this, unless my commander says something different and considers that is not well written. Which I would be in agreement with him, if that were to be his point of view. And I say it with all my responsibility and autonomy of criteria.

P.S. Mi heartfelt congratulation to the comrades of the National assembly for the show of courage during Chavez’ address to the Assembly. The self-control on bodily needs is another achievement of this process that has, as in everything else, the maximum leader as its main exponent. I will only criticize the Deputy that after the slogan “Fatherland, Socialism or Death” with which the President closed his speech, answered: We shall piss! I assume his subconscious gave him away.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 11,832 other followers