Negotiations during the Venezuelan crisis

Carmona thinks that the Constitution's specific points that irritated businesses are changing the nature of the armed forces to no longer be up for discussion or with public deliberation; the power granted to the president in terms of military promotions; the elimination of the bicameral Congress; the strengthening of presidential powers and the extension of the presidential term to six years with the possibility of immediate re-election; the loss of the balance between the ministers and chambers; > and the reaffirmation of a national ideology promoting statism and interventionism, which would limit individual and economic liberties.[2] Vicente Brito, the then-president of Fedecámaras, added one more reason when announcing that his organization would support "No" in the coming constitutional referendum: a statement that Chávez had made on 18 November 1999 that had bothered him.The meetings did not bring results: despite the fact that they happened once a week and that Chávez was present at one of them, the government continued to write the controversial 49 laws without sharing their content with Fedecámaras or its agricultural equivalent, Fedenaga.Although originally two thirds of the Assembly were controlled by Chavez, the situation had changed as some deputies had become dissidents; it was unlikely that Chávez would succeed in obtaining another enabling act and so he passed these laws a day before this power expired.According to some historians, its success was greater than that of the general strike that overthrew Marcos Pérez Jiménez in January 1958, bearing in mind that the objective on this occasion was not to overthrow a government, but to request rectifications in a firm, but peaceful, manner; had this been understood, it would have avoided the crisis that was taking shape in the country, before the stubbornness and blindness of the rulers ... From 10 December, the opposition majority felt that they had legal tools to fight against the official outrages and the autocracy.Civil society, encouraged by the result of the strike, began an almost permanent presence on the streets.Indeed, the conflict irreconcilably tore the businesses and the government apart; in the next two months Chávez makes two changes in his cabinet that show that there is no going back.The group consisted of parliamentarians from the United States and Venezuela that agreed to meet outside the country to discuss important issues for both nations in a less polarized environment.Other members of the group were Cilia Flores; Luis Acuña; the vice president of CADIVI, José Salamán Khan; the rector of the National Electoral Council (CNE), Tania D'Amelio; Elvis Amoroso; Enrique Márquez [es]; and Ángel Emiro Vera.The Boston Group dissolved in 2005 after the retirement of opposition deputies during the 2005 parliamentary elections, which coincided with the creation of the official television channel of the Assembly, Asamblea Nacional Televisión (ANTV).[16][18] The Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) announced that it would not participate in the National Peace Conference at that time, declaring that "it would not lend itself to a simulation of dialogue",[19] with Julio Borges, secretary of the Justice First opposition party, adding that the MUD had not participated because it did not know the meeting agenda proposed by the government, and believes that the main points discussed should be around disarmament of armed groups, the release of detained students, the separation of powers, the release of Leopoldo López, among other points.[24] In 2016, the opening stage of the recall referendum was suspended by the National Electoral Council (CNE) on 20 October, citing the decision of the regional courts of Apure, Aragua, Bolívar, Carabobo and Monagas.After Operación Gedeón, in which the dissident Óscar Pérez died during a clash with security forces, the interior minister said he had obtained information for the operation at tables of dialogue.[40] Offering as examples Leopoldo Lopez, the detention of Juan Requesens, the exile of Julio Borges, among others, he said that if Maduro really wanted dialogue, he would free the political prisoners.[50] According to Andrea Gagliarducci, writing for the Catholic News Agency, the Pope accepted the position taken by the Venezuelan bishops, who maintain that Maduro's election was illegitimate, by not addressing him as president.[58][59][60] On 15 September, Guaidó announced that the opposition concluded the dialogue after the absence of the government in the negotiations for 40 days as a protest to the recent sanctions by the United States.[citation needed] In February 2020, the coordinator of the Lima Group, Hugo de Zela, announced that three of its member countries, – Argentina, Canada and Peru – were attempting to negotiate with the Cuban government to find a solution to the crisis.Experts have noted that the deal is similar to earlier proposals but explicitly mentions who would lead a transitional government, something which stalled previous discussions, and comes shortly after the US indicted Maduro, which may pressure him to peacefully leave power.[65] Guaidó accepted the proposal,[66] while Venezuela's foreign minister, Jorge Arreaza, rejected it and declared that only parliamentary elections would take place that year.