It is said that the late Hugo Chavez left a political testament, written in two letters and given to the president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, in December.
It is not known if the assumed document has been accepted or officially corroborated by the authorities or family of the late president of Venezuela. One does not know whether it has been exposed to his numerous followers either.
Some signs and movements in the upper power echelon, plus some rumors, have served to lead several analysts and students to evaluate that conjecture as very probable thanks to the events in Venezuela. The only certain thing is that no certainties seem to exist at this point.
One of the favorite tools of the self-oriented regimes is the handling of the political times with rumors and unofficial versions of stories that may or may not be true. Both governments, those of Venezuela and Argentina, cultivate that type of practice with assiduity. This detail is the one that generates an ample margin of doubt on the hypothesis of the existence of Hugo Chavez’s testament.
It is also true, that the hurried arrival of the Argentine president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, to Venezuela, silenced the gossiping for the hours following the death of Chavez in the palace.
It became known that Fernandez carried in hand two letters written by Hugo Chavez in December, before he underwent a new operation for his cancer. One assumes, also, that the text of both letters would be some kind of political testament of the Bolivarian leader.
It was in that moment that the president of the National Assembly and constitutionalist successor of Chavez, Diosdado Cabello, left the way clear to enthrone Nicolas Maduro as the surprising position of “president in charge,” so to speak. The fact is that Chavez had publicly announced his predilection for Nicolas Maduro before traveling to Cuba for his cancer treatment. It is also widely known that Chavez’s eldest daughter, Rosa Virginia, maintained a close bond with Fernandez. Anyway, despite unobjectionable and reliable sources, symbolic attitudes and affection among friends and colleagues, many questions are left unanswered.
What may have led Hugo Chavez to write such a valuable and important document for the destiny of Venezuela and not make its existence public?
The reasons are unknown. Did he distrust his followers’ good faith? Did he not trust the Venezuelan institutions either? He could have trusted the Supreme Court of Justice, so why did he resort to a foreigner as the executor of his supposed testament? Given the proximity of the Bolivarian leader to Fidel Castro, how can it be explained that he trusted his body and life to Cuban science, but not a document to its leader?
They are even more disquieting doubts about Chavez and his supposed testament. What if this Holy Grail was not the thoughts and writings of Chavez at all? When there is too much silence about an official issue, many theories are hatched and many of them are preposterous, one of which is presently the theory that the document may have been made by members near Chavez, but not Chavez himself.
Does Hugo Chavez’s testament only make mention of the designation of Nicolas Maduro or are there other directives? Will that testament transform into another “miracle of Fatima” (a Catholic document whose content, to this day, has never been revealed) with the passage of time?
We all hope that the truth behind Hugo Chavez’s testament is revealed sooner rather than later. While we wait, we can be certain that the rumors will continue to circulate and grow and preposterous new theories will emerge.
Meanwhile, just as the epic Ulysses did, it will be necessary to tie oneself to the mainmast not to be dragged by the songs of sirens. And instead of falling victim to false stories and speculation, let’s continue to live our own truth and be mere observers to the intricate political goings-on of this complicated nation.