Turning the page would be an unacceptable betrayal of the majority who voted for the change

Carlos Tablante (Maracay, October 29, 1954) was elected Governor of the state of Aragua in January 1990, when he was 35 years old. He had already shown precocity before, when in his mid-teens and as a high school student, he joined the group of founders and leaders of the Movement towards Socialism (MAS), whose first National Convention took place in January 1971 ( Tablante was 16). At 19, he was already a councilor for the old Ricaurte District of the Aragua state and he continued until 1983 when he was elected deputy to the National Congress, at the age of 29.

Now he has just turned 70 and, perhaps also prematurely, has become a reference figure for his honesty in holding elected positions and for his political positions, with proven commitment to the interest of the country, since, among other things, , lacks aspirations for positions and canonries. “Currently,” he says, “I am an activist in the search for political change in Venezuela, linked to the Voluntad Popular party.”

What is right, what is just, what is intelligent

—The strategic objective – says Tablante – is to prevent Maduro from trying to take office on January 10, because he was defeated and the victory, without a doubt, belongs to Edmundo Gonzákez Urrutia (EGU). An attempt to normalize the situation, turn the page or justifying cohabitation would be equivalent to plotting an opposition of plugged-ins whom Maduro, whenever he wants, can unplug. It would be an act of betrayal unacceptable to the majority who voted for the change.

«The historic commitment is with the result of July 28. “Despite the violations of the Barbados agreement and the undemocratic restrictions imposed, María Corina Machado (MCM) and the parties turned a candidacy resulting from extraordinary circumstances into an expression of the desire for change against the continuity of Nicolás Maduro in Miraflores.”

—In addition to an election, what would you say happened on July 28, what does that date mean?

—On July 28 there was a rebellion of votes in Venezuela, which will not end until we manage to consolidate the victory with the swearing-in of EG as president-elect. That date is a plea to those who have control of weapons that they should not allow fraud and a grotesque violation of the Constitution; because the military is not at the service of any person or political party.

In the midst of tensions and threats, this alternative achieved an overwhelming victory, certified with the publication of the minutes of the more than 30,000 voting stations with more than eight million votes. And if we add the votes of Venezuelans abroad, who were denied the right to vote, we would obtain more than 12 million votes. It is the feeling of a country that can’t take it anymore and cries out for urgent political change. This is the historic pact that came out of the voting booths and that the leaders, despite their differences, were able to achieve with a unitary political leadership and the also powerful hinge of MCM, the Democratic Unitary Platform (PUD) and EGU.

—What can happen after January 10?

—In addition to the witnesses at the tables and the PSUV itself, everyone knows that the winner was EGU. As we also know that the National Electoral Council announced a fraudulent result, violating the electoral verification rules, and that the TSJ judicialized this undemocratic coup to impose the loser as de facto president without any legitimacy. Maduro had a precarious legitimacy left from the 2018 elections, but as of January 10, he would be a usurper to whom the FANB would not owe any type of obedience, according to the Constitution.

Through the Republic plan, the FANB has envelope No. 1 of each voting station, where the true result is recorded, which makes Edmundo González the elected president of Venezuela and, therefore, commander in chief of the armed forces. The military knows that EGU devastated all popular sectors and even the barracks. The majority of the military and their families voted for the change. With envelope No. 1, the military has the key to open the door to a negotiation that prevents Maduro, without legitimacy, from assuming the de facto presidency on January 10.

—Even so, Maduro’s intention to be sworn in on January 10 seems to be clear.

—To act as a dictator, Maduro has the weakness that he himself and those around him know that he was decisively defeated. Neighboring countries have already said that they will not recognize it, as have the US and the European Union. Sanctions, isolation and interest on outstanding payments on the foreign debt, estimated at more than 260 billion, will increase; Embargoes on the country’s assets will multiply (Conviasa planes, ships with oil cargo, international official accounts, Citgo, gold reserves in London, etc.).

An entrenchment of Maduro in power would increase the country’s shortcomings and needs: inflation; the collapse of public services; the deterioration of the infrastructure and the destruction of what remains of the productive apparatus, including PDVSA, whose agony began when it was declared “red, red” and turned into a den of corruption. In this distressing scenario, hunger and hopelessness will increase, thus accentuating the migration crisis. In short, if this fraudulent attempt by Maduro is successful, it would turn him into a usurper with the consequent deepening of a serious humanitarian crisis.

—What would you say the attitude of the opposition should be in the current circumstance?

—The strategic priority is the defense of the results of July 28. The international community, the democratic sectors of the country and the armed forces must prevent the Maduro fraud and pressure so that, through negotiation, the swearing-in of Edmundo González is achieved on January 10.

This is the only option to get the country out of the humanitarian crisis and isolation, renegotiate the debt, attract investments and, thereby, increase oil production and other sectors. That is, build an expansion economy, capable of achieving the macroeconomic balances necessary to control inflation with competitive purchasing power, which creates well-being for the vast majority. For this, political change is urgent.

And, of course, work on a major reform of the State to guarantee an ideal Judicial Branch, with an efficient and reliable police system, promote the reform of political parties and the transparency of their financing. The decentralization of power is essential. The management of states and municipalities must be strengthened. Finally, a tax amnesty must be established and, with international cooperation, a plan to recover the assets stolen from the country must be advanced.

The route is clear: prevent Maduro from continuing in power and achieve the change that the country needs. This is not a wish or a matter of convenience, it is the mandate that the people expressed at the polls. The task is to make this change concrete and resist any attempt at fraud, with unity, strength and dignity.

—You have alluded to a historic pact. How do you conceive it?

—In principle, there must be an agreement to prevent the autocrat from imposing fraud. And after January 10, we must build a national pact in defense of the Constitution to address the transition process.

In the days following the change of Government, the institutions will still be in the hands of those who have accompanied Maduro. The National Assembly, the judicial system, the Armed Forces, the police system, the majority of governorates and mayors’ offices, as well as the major media, will continue under its influence. A great dialogue is essential, within the framework of the Barbados agreements, to prioritize the complex humanitarian crisis, the amnesty and transitional justice laws, respect for human rights, and political incentives so that those who leave power Do not feel threatened and facilitate the negotiation for your departure from power.

—How would you describe the arc that the figure of María Corina Machado has traced?

—MCM managed to tune in with the majority feeling of change in the country and, overcoming the obstacles of mistrust, also achieved a political agreement with different political factors, by holding the primary election called by the PUD. With flexibility and breadth, overcoming sectarian traits, a very broad and plural alternative has been built of which it is a very valuable part. As she herself has said, the confrontation in Venezuela is not between right and left but between the regime and those who seek the common good, starting from the victory of July 28.

—What do you think should be the behavior of the various opposition sectors regarding the much persecuted María Corina Machado?

—It is necessary to improve coordination and cooperation between MCM, EG, the PUD and all the social and political actors that we can join in a great national alliance to promote the transition towards democracy. In Venezuela, a new leadership is emerging that will renew politics. Experienced politicians should facilitate and support the promotion of new leaders. Some of these new leaders, whom I appreciate very much and whom I will not name, try to qualify themselves by disqualifying others. In these times of turbulence and uncertainty we must promote constructive debate: there is more that unites us than separates us. If there is any controversial disagreement, it is convenient for each political family to channel it appropriately and democratically. Making disagreements and pugnacity public is contrary to the message of unity and hope that the country expects from its leaders.

—What do you think your teachers would have done in the current circumstance?

—I have been trained in the school of life. My mother’s love for my neighbor taught me to be supportive and this is how I have defined my link with the new socialism and the new left, under the influence of my great teachers, Pompeyo Márquez and Teodoro Petkoff.

I learned from the country’s historical leadership that, despite differences, you must always be able to dialogue and reach agreements for the good of Venezuela. This is the example we must follow today. We need a broad and generous agreement, without exclusions, in defense of democracy and the rule of law in Venezuela. We have already reached a first agreement with the EGU candidacy, which allowed us to win the elections. Now, the challenge is to materialize this victory and maintain unity on the path towards the political change that the country needs and deserves.

The restrictions imposed by the terrorist state through repression, persecution, threats, more than two thousand political prisoners, intervened parties, anti-fascist law to promote censorship, silence criticism and control the media, closure of radio stations and newspapers, detained journalists… all this repression is the insecure and weak way with which Maduro tries to hide his defeat. Despite this, even with a certain secrecy, we must strengthen the unitary articulation.

—When you reach the age of 70, what do you consider the biggest mistake of your career?

—Having participated in the support that the MAS gave to Hugo Chávez’s first candidacy in 1999. Carlos Andrés Pérez, Teodoro Petkoff, Pompeyo Márquez and Rafael Caldera alerted me to the risks represented by Chávez’s neopopulist and militarist project. However, I allowed myself to be influenced by the humanist, supportive and democratic message contained in the Constitution that we made in the Constituent Assembly, which, by the way, was not a suit tailored to the autocrat and that, of course, Chávez, a populist neo-leader, violated in a way systematic. Starting at the end of 2000, we confronted Chávez and his project head-on and on all fronts, always within the framework of the Constitution.