Neither State of the Union nor Commonwealth nor Bolivarian Republic: The Republic of Venezuela

The experiment of Jan. 3 leaves open too many possibilities. Some are more dangerous than others, and certainly among the worst is that the 27-year-old regime might end up tightening its reign. Yet there is an even worse possibility: that Venezuela might lose its political and economic independence. As some headlines report, “Trump Again Floats Idea of Venezuela Becoming America's 51st State.” Given the primary importance of oil interests, we could be turned into a political branch of the United States. I imagine some Venezuelans might like that idea, and others might not. Let's consider the issue.

State of the Union?

For those of us who don’t like it — this author included — there are plenty of arguments against it, especially those rooted in our republican history. It seems rather absurd to suggest that, more than 200 years after our declaration of independence, we would agree to set that freedom aside in favor of another state. And not just any state. [Historically], there was Simón Bolívar’s plan, known as Gran Colombia, in which certain principles would be sacrificed by associating with an equal partner in order to become greater and more powerful; however, doing so with a superpower like the United States, a nation forever mired in war and intervention, would lead us nowhere. Ultimately, it makes little sense to engage in struggles that are not our own.

However, for those who favor becoming a political arm of the United States, it would be very interesting to examine the requirements for doing so, starting with the adoption of its constitution, which sets forth the conditions for admission of a new state.*

It reads as follows:

“Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:
“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

According to that document, those aspiring to initiate the process must meet certain requirements that are somewhat removed from today’s reality, such as having reached a sufficient population, not affecting the territorial integrity of another state, promoting a state constitution subject to a referendum, and others, until admission is granted by an Enabling Act of the United States Congress. The process can begin immediately, given the current and sordid state of our country; however, if it becomes too complicated, there is another alternative to try, the one that applies to Puerto Rico.

A Commonwealth?

To even consider this, one would have to accept that Spain lost a war to the United States and ceded several territories, including Puerto Rico,** which set in motion a long process that began with its complete subjugation to that government. The relationship then evolved over time. For example, in 1900, a law was enacted establishing a civil government, with a governor and an executive council appointed by the U.S. president. In 1917, U.S. citizenship was granted to Puerto Ricans and separating the branches of government, even though the governor and the U.S. president still retained veto power over the island’s legislature. In 1950, the U.S. Congress granted Puerto Rico the right to draft its own constitution.

We are all familiar with the history — following those gradual changes — of that country’s recent struggle to achieve full independence, without reaching a consensus on the matter. That is why it remains a commonwealth. In our case, Spain lost the war and Venezuela achieved its independence well before Puerto Rico did; thus, it would be somewhat cumbersome and quite difficult to present this as an alternative for Venezuela, if it cannot be “part of the Union.”

The Bolivarian Republic?

Quite honestly, it is pointless to waste any language trying to find reasons to oppose the continued existence of the Bolivarian Republic, because there have been many arguments demonstrating the magnitude and extent of the destruction it has caused in every aspect of national life. The current facts alone — such as the state of our economy, our society and our republican institutions — would be enough to prevent it from continuing.

However, you can invoke two additional arguments to support continuing as the Bolivarian Republic. On the one hand, the sad reality is that it has begun to play the role of a ward under a foreign government, a situation that already had the precedent of its submission to the Cuban regime. On the other hand — and in my view, an even stronger reason to prevent its survival — is that it has transformed into something it was never intended to be. Today, it has become the champion of opening up the oil and mining sectors to foreign private capital. It is returning to the very institutions that its founder so vehemently attacked. We prefer, therefore, to uphold the values that led us to establish ourselves as a republic.

The Republic of Venezuela

Returning to what we once were is, I believe, what Venezuelans desire and value most — not only because it would mean moving from an autocratic regime to a democratic one, which would already be significant and open the door to fundamental change — but it would also acknowledge our achievements and our failures. The Republic of Venezuela, conceived by those who opposed the colonial system, whose roots lie in April 19, 1810 and July 5, 1811, remained so named for a long time before being given a surname [Bolivariana]. That same republic survived the calamities of the War of Independence, the establishment of the institutional order of the Republic of Páez, the great rupture caused by the Federal War, two military dictatorships — Generals Juan Vicente Gómez and Marcos Pérez Jiménez — the October Revolution, political sectarianism and coups d’état. Ultimately, it survived the establishment of a democratic system.

It survived with significant achievements in the modernization of our country, as well as periods of oil-fueled opulence and related and repeated crises. It withstood good governments, as well as bad governments that led to a loss of confidence in its fledgling democracy, but it failed to survive the militaristic advance that gave it its surname.

Now it is time to fully review what we did wrong and salvage what we did right that paved the way for many years of existence. The only way to do this is, on the one hand, to provide Venezuelans with true prosperity — not the false prosperity revealed time and again by the oil boom — and, on the other hand, to restore a democratic order that includes everyone and prevents, at all costs, any single party or elite from monopolizing political power — just as the Republic of Venezuela once attempted in that experiment known as the Punto Fijo Pact.

If one could speak of destiny in the most structured way possible, we Venezuelans are bound to the Republic of Venezuela by those years of history, traditions, institutions, shared customs and by the reaching of agreements that that ensured its long-term sustainability. That is the lesson we must follow.

*Editor’s note: The constitutional provision cited here addresses the admission of a new state into the United States; it does not apply to absorbing a sovereign nation as a territory of the United States.

**Translator’s note: The Treaty of Paris, signed by the United States and Spain on Dec. 10, 1898, brought the war to an end. Under this treaty, Spain ceded Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the United States.