A little more than 10 days before the inauguration of the Constitutional President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro Moros, a debate has been generated regarding the legitimacy of this protocol act established in the national Constitution.
Countries subordinated to imperial interests, grouped in the self-called “Group of Lima”, intend to ignore the Head of State and impose their designs on the Venezuelan people, as the National President warned, during a press conference with international media, developed last Wednesday 09 January at the Miraflores Palace.
“The extremist forces against Venezuela have been unleashed, with the sole objective of filling the country with chaos, to lay hands on the riches and change the course of history”, he said.
Maduro denounced that the extreme national and international right “have wanted to convert a formal oath takng into a world war”, for which he ratified that “rain, shine or lightning in Venezuela will triumph again peace, tranquility, constitutionality and we will succeed and clear the way to the future”.
On this subject, the constitutionalist Hermann Escarrá recalled that the elections of May 20, 2018 gave full legitimacy to President Maduro because it was a fully democratic electoral process, in which the popular will of Venezuelans was transparently expressed.
“President Nicolás Maduro is the product of a people’s election, in which he won with 67% of the voting population, much more than -Donald- Trump (president of the United States), much more than the president of Colombia -Iván- Duque and more than -Emmanuel- Macron in France, so this vote is a letter of legitimacy because it has its origin in the exercise of popular sovereignty”, said the legal specialist.
Legitimacy in figures
While the Venezuelan Head of State won the presidential elections with 67.84% of the counted votes, various leaders of Latin America and other countries of the world preside over their governments without the majority of the support of the popular vote.
In the United States, Donald Trump obtained 46.09% of the votes and through the mechanism of elections of second degree, where the congressmen responsible for electing the Head of State, granted him the presidency of that country.
On the other hand, Juan Carlos Varela, in Panama only obtained 39% of the votes. The same situation was seen by Canadians who have an elected president – Justin Trudeace – with only 39.7% of the vote.
For some countries in Latin America, the reality is not different. The president of Argentina, Mauricio Macri, assumed the head of State with 51.4%; Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil with 55.13%; Sebastián Piñera in Chile with 54.57%; Iván Duque in Colombia with 53.98%; Carlos Alvarado in Costa Rica with 60.66%; Jimmy Morales in Guatemala with 30%; Juan Orlando Hernández in Honduras with 42.98%; Mario Abdo in Paraguay with 39% and Pedro Kuczynski in Peru with 50.12%.
The Government of Guyana where David Granger only obtained 50.28% of the votes did not escape from this situation either.
The arrival of the Bolivarian Revolution in the country, in 1999, meant for Venezuelans a restructuring of the political dynamics that had been taking place.
The new practice gave greater prominence to the people and this has been evidenced with the 25 electoral processes developed in these 19 years, in which the democratic character of the country is increasingly ratified, through the vote as a mechanism of expression.