Before we go to sleep.
I leave you comments on today that has been so strong.
Let's start at last: "We have to use the Petro-dictionary.
What did he mean?"
The Colombian president proposes a plebiscite that guarantees the rights of who loses the elections.
He's probably also seen the polls.
With everything and Maduro's cutting operation, the first option of losing it has the ruling chavismo.
For that not to happen, what is being observed happens: an increase in authoritarian actions.
They act worse because to remain in power they must violate more human rights.
To the traditional persecution against the democratic opposition, the other space of dissent that they must control is in the inner ranks.
That's why they launch the Tatequieto operation and seek to take over the Tareck El Aissami case.
They show it as a trophy of disgrace.
Colonel Marino Lugo died today who was in State custody.
The Public Prosecutor ' s Office reports that the cause of death was hanged.
He takes care of saying if he was self-inflection.
He is the third collaborator of the PDVSA Cripto scheme government who dies in less than a year.
Carlos Julio Rojas is arrested and linked to a supposed magnicida plot.
But, on the other hand, the government receives the Carter Center and the European Union to explore whether there is electoral observation in the July 28 elections.
In the same way, today, although the flexibilization of sectoral sanctions is reduced, it actually gives a deadline for the government to handle its actions.
They look like contradictory messages.
Which could lead to infer that reflects the tensions in which the ruling chavism is moving.
I take back Petro.
What he might mean is that he also knows that for Chavismo to remain in power the cost is the violation of more human rights.
The other possibility is that they accept that at this time they do not really have the favor of the majority, therefore it is prudent that they prepare for their departure.
And how to do it?
?
I go with the phrase that has replaced the thesis of the fracture of the ruling coalition: " reduce the costs of departure".
In short: Petro knows that chavismo is weakened, but it remains in power.
To stay there, more and more authoritarianism is resorted to; but that is neither politically nor economically sustainable.
This inviability will also generate an exit from Venezuelans who have as their first destination Colombia.
And we already know what that can mean to the neighboring country and the region.
That's why I'm going to insist that both on the side of the government and the opposition have to prepare for a transition.
At this moment it doesn't seem that the first one is ready to lose and the second to win.
All this paints a scenario of instability after the election of July 28.
And so we return to Petro and his idea of the plebiscite.
It's a sketch yet, but from my understanding, what he did was bring to the public conversation that there's an elephant sitting in the middle of the room.