by A. Shaw

The bourgeoisie and the bourgeois media argue that that the current Venezuelan Government is not a democracy because the government doesn’t respect the principle of rule of law, a principle that is fundamental to all democracies. The capitalist forces point to Article 233 of the Constitution as an instance of proletarian and revolutionary disregard for the rule of law.

The bourgeois media in Venezuela as well as abroad argue that, under Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution, the chair of the National Assembly, not the vice president of the country, becomes acting president for the 30-day period that precede the election of a new president to replace the old president who is permanently unavailable to serve as president.

Since D.Cabello chairs the National Assembly, reactionaries insist that Cabello, not former vice president N. Maduro, should be the acting president of Venezuela until a new president is elected in 30 days.

There is no question that the second paragraph of Article 233 says something like this. Here’s how the second paragraph of 233 puts it “When an elected President becomes permanently unavailable to serve prior to his inauguration, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the President of the National Assembly shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.”

Unquestionably, the death of a president is a permanent unavailability to serve. Hugo Chavez died on March 5 before his inauguration. Indeed, Chavez was never inaugurated for the current constitutional term of office — Jan. 2013 to Jan 2019. So, it seems that the second paragraph of Article 233 supplies some support for the view of the bourgeoisie.

The revolutionary proletariat and the mass of the proletarian media that has addressed the question point to the third paragraph of Art. 233 which says “When the President of the Republic becomes permanently unavailable to serve during the first four years of this constitutional term of office, a new election by universal suffrage and direct ballot shall be held within 30 consecutive days. Pending election and inauguration of the new President, the Executive-Vice President shall take charge of the Presidency of the Republic.”

So, the second paragraph of the article says the chair of the National Assembly becomes acting president when the the president-elect becomes permanently disabled before inauguration. The third paragraph of the article says, on the other hand, that the vice president becomes acting president if the president becomes permanently unavailable during the first four years of his constitutional term.

In another article, the Constitution mentions Jan. 10 of the first year of the constitutional term of president as BOTH a possible date for an presidential inauguration and as the date on which the first year of the constitutional term begins whether or not an inauguration occurs..

This suggests a reason for some of the confusion over Article 233. Hugo Chavez became permanently unavailable to serve BOTH before his inauguration and during the first four years of his constitutional term of office. So, both the second and third paragraphs of 233 are applicable to Chavez’s succession.

This situation can’t require the appointment of two acting presidents — that is, the appointment of the chair of the National Assembly due the absence of an inauguration and the appointment of the vice president due to the presence of the first four years of the constitutional term. The idea of appointing two acting presidents for a period of 30 days is ridiculous. Since both second and third paragraphs are applicable.

Thus, either paragraph can be applied.

The National Assembly and supreme court had to choose between the second and third paragraphs of 233. Both the Assembly and the Court chose the third paragraph and picked the vice president for acting president.