Between surprise, disbelief and indignation, the world witnessed the kidnapping, by the United States, of Nicolás Maduro, president of Venezuela, in one of his residences in the country. It is in this context that I write this article. Among the pros and cons, what stands out most about this action has been the idea of the trivialization of the Law, the same thing that humanity had to conquer throughout history and after many uprisings.
When in 1789, in the context of the French Revolution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was drafted – that great milestone in the history of humanity – men became holders of rights and duties and the law was conceived as the expression of the general will of the people. Another great fact marked humanity: from then on the power that was concentrated in the hands of the sovereign was restricted. The king stopped doing and undoing as he pleased, his actions should not violate the rights of his fellow citizens.
When the United States entered Venezuela and kidnapped Maduro, the term “capture”, spread by the international media as soon as the news became known, was quickly replaced by “kidnapping.” Given the surprise and indignation caused by the sudden action, everyone wondered how it had been possible for one State to invade another and kidnap its highest representative. Among these and other questions, one prevailed: what about the Law?
It is not about Nicolás Maduro, it is about questioning the permissiveness and impunity of this act. It is about questioning the permissiveness and impunity with which the Law is trivialized. It is about questioning the limits imposed on the power of the “sovereign.” It is about questioning the permissiveness with the setbacks of acquired rights that is occurring around the world.
But this goes beyond the case of Venezuela. In Mozambique it is about questioning the imbalance of our educational system due to global demands. It is about questioning the permissiveness with which we witness the demographic imbalance in our country. It is about questioning the permissiveness with which we witness crime on the streets of the city of Maputo. It is about questioning the permissiveness of alcoholism in our adolescents. It is about questioning the permissiveness of the lack of water in our health centers and our public schools. It is about questioning the same permissiveness with the successive cases of kidnapping that we witness almost weekly in the capital.
It is not only about questioning the impunity of this act committed by the United States, which is, in essence, the same impunity that fuels the kidnapping industry in the city of Maputo, the same impunity that sustains the obstetric violence that is cultivated in our maternity hospitals. It is about questioning the impunity of the successive cases of sexual violation with the death of women that increase every day in our neighborhoods.
It is not about Nicolás Maduro. It is about questioning the consequences of this practice. It is about questioning the consequences of the widespread culture of the trivialization of Law. It is about questioning the risks of returning all power to the “sovereign.” It is about questioning the future of minorities, the future of humanity.
Where are we going?
