By Sankara Rawlings
The ridiculous failure to wrestle power from long time Venezuelan leader, Nicholas Maduro by one Juan Guaido a few days ago, is a remarkable example of the dangerous consequences of overzealous politicians aiming for the seat of power.
From the onset, the military approach by the opposition to unseat the obdurate incumbent leadership of the oil economy reinforces the idea that coups have once again become fashionable in post-cold war states as the disillusioned electorate continue to be frustrated by a lack of socio-economic progress.
It thus is by no doubt a direct warning to the powers that be that they cannot continue their relentless hiding behind the constitutions and empty rhetoric in the pursuit to disenfranchise, manipulate and control the mass out of the centre of state resources.
Generally, coups are deemed an aberration in this part of the continental bloc, a double-pronged indication of partly paranoia on the part of those that rule and a general pursuit to uphold the democratic ends of peaceful transitions of power, at both intra and inter-party levels.
And this is why the Zimbabwean military played PR with its takeover, labelling it a mere exorcism exercise protracted against enemies from within who were around Robert Mugabe.
Critics were left scratching heads on whether it was a soft coup or Zanu PF simply readjusting itself back to default settings.
But at what point does a coup not become a coup, is the question for another day.
Back in Venezuela, Maduro has become a cancerous tumor (at least by western media standards) that ought to be plucked out at all costs off the American political fabric.
He has been demonized as a dictator boogey-man that has stood in the way of democracy, and whose stay can no longer be entertained by the elite global prefects of western democracy.
What this has done is to fuel excessive dosages of zeal on the part of this opponent, the self-proclaimed President Guaido much to the point that he thought he could take over power buoyed by a band of run-away soldiers.
Flanked by gun-toting men in uniform, he took to social media and called for the rest of the military force to throw its weight behind his effort to bring about the last phase of his usurpation of power.
But alas, all was in vain.
By Thursday the 2nd of May Maduro had easily demonstrated that he retained army loyalty and grass root support.
Guaido’s ship hit an iceberg.
Even the fake news from the US that Maduro was planning to flee to Cuba but only got advised against doing so by the Russians turned out to be mere blue lies and an information war-fare to blindfold the world.
This international fiasco has all the hallmarks of political frivolity lacking substance, it turned out to be a fuss and a show that exposes Guaido’s power hunger and how much he is willing to challenge fundamental democratic principles instigated by his American handlers at Washington.
The critical question to pose here is, if the politician’s political maneuverings are contained within the pockets of the John Boltons and Donald Trumps of the world and their jingoistic attitude, how will he be able to reconcile national interest and those of his funders in the event that he comes to power?
Such is the ill-fated Odyssey of a pseudo-democrat and sell-out.
His fretting about a usurpation of power buoyed by a middle-class urban support shows how much Guaido is ill-advised about the extent of his influence in this revolutionary socialist state.
One does not plan a successful coup because Americans have said they can support it.
One does not put an entire city in the line of danger when an effort to wrestle power does not have the pontificating hand of vital state organs together with their leadership.
In the case that state apparatus are in the way of such an endeavor, one ought to retain the unequivocal support of both the urban and rural folks such that the bid to take over the reins of power is in the interest of the grassroots custodians of the land.
From the looks of things, Guaido lacks these, and while western media has successfully smeared the image of Maduro, he still wields power and has the trust of the people at heart.
The fight in Venezuela rises above the rhetoric of social justice; it stinks of the ravenous appetite of empire and its unquenched expansionist aptitude.
It is the epic struggle of ideologies that splits the world into two, a hangover of cold war politics that continue to linger on with subtlety beyond the fall of the Soviet Union.
The US’s bid to torpedo legitimacy from the structures of democracy while it poses as the custodian of a libertarian world is one paradox that ought to be savagely exposed and resisted with the force and contempt it deserves.
If Maduro is the Gorgon that he is projected to be by blinkered biased corporate media’s reportage, surely by no Guiado’s treasonous acts should have generated the repugnance of the Venezuelan leadership brace, so much so as to drive them into locking him up.
Yet he has been unscathed, given room to mobilise.
Venezuela’s unshakable resolve to stand against the legendary undoing of Uncle Sam is a bold illustration that money and power cannot buy a people’s revolutionary spirit even when such a spirit is subjected to uncertainty and adversity.