How is Juan Guaido able to claim the Presidency of Venezuela without an election?
In the last few weeks, Juan Guaido, the head of the Venezuelan National Assembly, has been increasingly referring to himself as the legitimate President, as opposed to Nicholas Maduro who held dubious elections in 2018. Many Western countries are now recognizing Guaido as such. How is Guaido doing this without another election or a coup?
president venezuela
add a comment |
In the last few weeks, Juan Guaido, the head of the Venezuelan National Assembly, has been increasingly referring to himself as the legitimate President, as opposed to Nicholas Maduro who held dubious elections in 2018. Many Western countries are now recognizing Guaido as such. How is Guaido doing this without another election or a coup?
president venezuela
add a comment |
In the last few weeks, Juan Guaido, the head of the Venezuelan National Assembly, has been increasingly referring to himself as the legitimate President, as opposed to Nicholas Maduro who held dubious elections in 2018. Many Western countries are now recognizing Guaido as such. How is Guaido doing this without another election or a coup?
president venezuela
In the last few weeks, Juan Guaido, the head of the Venezuelan National Assembly, has been increasingly referring to himself as the legitimate President, as opposed to Nicholas Maduro who held dubious elections in 2018. Many Western countries are now recognizing Guaido as such. How is Guaido doing this without another election or a coup?
president venezuela
president venezuela
asked Jan 29 at 17:05
MachavityMachavity
16.3k44981
16.3k44981
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Guaido's proclamation is based in several articles of the Venezuelan Constitution and the opposition dismissing the results of the 2018 elections:
The article 233 states that in case of "absence" of the President of Venezuela, new elections must be started and in the interim the Head of the Venezuelan Assembly would act as provisional president.
Last January 9 the previous mandate of Maduro did expire and the new one (based on the results of the 2018 election) began.
Since the opposition dismisses the results of the 2018 elections, they state that the President is absent1 and so Guaido can be proclamed as temporal President.
Another point of contention is that Maduro was sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal while the Constitution (art 331) says that it should have been sworn in at the National Assembly, but Maduro claims that the National Assembly has been found to be in contempt by the Constitutional Tribunal and so he must be sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal.
Additionally, there are references to articles 333 and 350 that claim for individual action in the case of attacks against the Constitution (so the Maduro controlled Constitutional Tribunal would not be the sole deciding power).
If we go back in time, we find issues about how the Constitutional Tribunal members were elected and about changes to the Constitution, that were backed by Maduro supporters but protested by the opposition.
In short, each side has its own "legal reality" and in one of them Maduro is President of Venezuela, and in the other he is not and Guaido has just filled in.
How is Guaido doing this without another election or a coup?
If you side with Maduro it is a coup (although an institutional one), if you side with Guaido it is just following the Constitution and the coup (if any) was effected by Maduro at the elections and before.
Here there is an interview with Guaido commenting on the Constitution articles (in Spanish)
Since all of my links are in Spanish, an article in English.
1 Most likely on the reason of el abandono del cargo, declarado como tal por la Asamblea Nacional (giving up the office, as stated by the National Assembly), but I have found no references specifying the claim.
9
Is this whole affair basically a constitutional crisis, then?
– Michael Seifert
Jan 29 at 17:57
2
See reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/ajsbxo for a very detailed desciription of the history leading up to this, from the point of view of those aligned with the National Assembly.
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:13
15
The reason for the National Assembly claiming the president is absent is because the Supreme Court in exile ruled that the 2018 election was void. The National Assembly views the in-country Court as illegitimate, because it has judges illegally appointed by the lame duck members of the previous Assembly, and whose appointment the Assembly has annulled. Therefore in the view of the National Assembly the presidential term ended without there being any properly elected president, so per the constitution, the president of the National Assembly is interim President of the whole country
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:29
So in order to win an election, all you have to do is dispute the outcome, claim the winner of the election is now absent and then appoint yourself as the new ruler.
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:42
@KevinCathcart You have a source of there being any supreme court in exile?
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:55
|
show 4 more comments
The EU Parliament just voted in favor of this motion:
"Recognises Mr Guaidó as the legitimate interim president of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in accordance with the Venezuelan Constitution, as stated in Article 233 thereof, and expresses its full support for his roadmap;"
(emphasis mine)
This is what's in article 233:
Article 233: The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.
What happened is clearly not applicable here.
Common sense should dictate no country in the world would have a constitution that would allow the opposition to appoint themselves president after disputing the election.
One would also think the EU, and the rest of the world, would be keen to send observers to at least try to ensure a fair election. Rather than outright refusing to accept the outcome afterwards. Especially given that this is not the first disputed election in Venezuela.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38373%2fhow-is-juan-guaido-able-to-claim-the-presidency-of-venezuela-without-an-election%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Guaido's proclamation is based in several articles of the Venezuelan Constitution and the opposition dismissing the results of the 2018 elections:
The article 233 states that in case of "absence" of the President of Venezuela, new elections must be started and in the interim the Head of the Venezuelan Assembly would act as provisional president.
Last January 9 the previous mandate of Maduro did expire and the new one (based on the results of the 2018 election) began.
Since the opposition dismisses the results of the 2018 elections, they state that the President is absent1 and so Guaido can be proclamed as temporal President.
Another point of contention is that Maduro was sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal while the Constitution (art 331) says that it should have been sworn in at the National Assembly, but Maduro claims that the National Assembly has been found to be in contempt by the Constitutional Tribunal and so he must be sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal.
Additionally, there are references to articles 333 and 350 that claim for individual action in the case of attacks against the Constitution (so the Maduro controlled Constitutional Tribunal would not be the sole deciding power).
If we go back in time, we find issues about how the Constitutional Tribunal members were elected and about changes to the Constitution, that were backed by Maduro supporters but protested by the opposition.
In short, each side has its own "legal reality" and in one of them Maduro is President of Venezuela, and in the other he is not and Guaido has just filled in.
How is Guaido doing this without another election or a coup?
If you side with Maduro it is a coup (although an institutional one), if you side with Guaido it is just following the Constitution and the coup (if any) was effected by Maduro at the elections and before.
Here there is an interview with Guaido commenting on the Constitution articles (in Spanish)
Since all of my links are in Spanish, an article in English.
1 Most likely on the reason of el abandono del cargo, declarado como tal por la Asamblea Nacional (giving up the office, as stated by the National Assembly), but I have found no references specifying the claim.
9
Is this whole affair basically a constitutional crisis, then?
– Michael Seifert
Jan 29 at 17:57
2
See reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/ajsbxo for a very detailed desciription of the history leading up to this, from the point of view of those aligned with the National Assembly.
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:13
15
The reason for the National Assembly claiming the president is absent is because the Supreme Court in exile ruled that the 2018 election was void. The National Assembly views the in-country Court as illegitimate, because it has judges illegally appointed by the lame duck members of the previous Assembly, and whose appointment the Assembly has annulled. Therefore in the view of the National Assembly the presidential term ended without there being any properly elected president, so per the constitution, the president of the National Assembly is interim President of the whole country
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:29
So in order to win an election, all you have to do is dispute the outcome, claim the winner of the election is now absent and then appoint yourself as the new ruler.
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:42
@KevinCathcart You have a source of there being any supreme court in exile?
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:55
|
show 4 more comments
Guaido's proclamation is based in several articles of the Venezuelan Constitution and the opposition dismissing the results of the 2018 elections:
The article 233 states that in case of "absence" of the President of Venezuela, new elections must be started and in the interim the Head of the Venezuelan Assembly would act as provisional president.
Last January 9 the previous mandate of Maduro did expire and the new one (based on the results of the 2018 election) began.
Since the opposition dismisses the results of the 2018 elections, they state that the President is absent1 and so Guaido can be proclamed as temporal President.
Another point of contention is that Maduro was sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal while the Constitution (art 331) says that it should have been sworn in at the National Assembly, but Maduro claims that the National Assembly has been found to be in contempt by the Constitutional Tribunal and so he must be sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal.
Additionally, there are references to articles 333 and 350 that claim for individual action in the case of attacks against the Constitution (so the Maduro controlled Constitutional Tribunal would not be the sole deciding power).
If we go back in time, we find issues about how the Constitutional Tribunal members were elected and about changes to the Constitution, that were backed by Maduro supporters but protested by the opposition.
In short, each side has its own "legal reality" and in one of them Maduro is President of Venezuela, and in the other he is not and Guaido has just filled in.
How is Guaido doing this without another election or a coup?
If you side with Maduro it is a coup (although an institutional one), if you side with Guaido it is just following the Constitution and the coup (if any) was effected by Maduro at the elections and before.
Here there is an interview with Guaido commenting on the Constitution articles (in Spanish)
Since all of my links are in Spanish, an article in English.
1 Most likely on the reason of el abandono del cargo, declarado como tal por la Asamblea Nacional (giving up the office, as stated by the National Assembly), but I have found no references specifying the claim.
9
Is this whole affair basically a constitutional crisis, then?
– Michael Seifert
Jan 29 at 17:57
2
See reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/ajsbxo for a very detailed desciription of the history leading up to this, from the point of view of those aligned with the National Assembly.
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:13
15
The reason for the National Assembly claiming the president is absent is because the Supreme Court in exile ruled that the 2018 election was void. The National Assembly views the in-country Court as illegitimate, because it has judges illegally appointed by the lame duck members of the previous Assembly, and whose appointment the Assembly has annulled. Therefore in the view of the National Assembly the presidential term ended without there being any properly elected president, so per the constitution, the president of the National Assembly is interim President of the whole country
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:29
So in order to win an election, all you have to do is dispute the outcome, claim the winner of the election is now absent and then appoint yourself as the new ruler.
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:42
@KevinCathcart You have a source of there being any supreme court in exile?
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:55
|
show 4 more comments
Guaido's proclamation is based in several articles of the Venezuelan Constitution and the opposition dismissing the results of the 2018 elections:
The article 233 states that in case of "absence" of the President of Venezuela, new elections must be started and in the interim the Head of the Venezuelan Assembly would act as provisional president.
Last January 9 the previous mandate of Maduro did expire and the new one (based on the results of the 2018 election) began.
Since the opposition dismisses the results of the 2018 elections, they state that the President is absent1 and so Guaido can be proclamed as temporal President.
Another point of contention is that Maduro was sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal while the Constitution (art 331) says that it should have been sworn in at the National Assembly, but Maduro claims that the National Assembly has been found to be in contempt by the Constitutional Tribunal and so he must be sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal.
Additionally, there are references to articles 333 and 350 that claim for individual action in the case of attacks against the Constitution (so the Maduro controlled Constitutional Tribunal would not be the sole deciding power).
If we go back in time, we find issues about how the Constitutional Tribunal members were elected and about changes to the Constitution, that were backed by Maduro supporters but protested by the opposition.
In short, each side has its own "legal reality" and in one of them Maduro is President of Venezuela, and in the other he is not and Guaido has just filled in.
How is Guaido doing this without another election or a coup?
If you side with Maduro it is a coup (although an institutional one), if you side with Guaido it is just following the Constitution and the coup (if any) was effected by Maduro at the elections and before.
Here there is an interview with Guaido commenting on the Constitution articles (in Spanish)
Since all of my links are in Spanish, an article in English.
1 Most likely on the reason of el abandono del cargo, declarado como tal por la Asamblea Nacional (giving up the office, as stated by the National Assembly), but I have found no references specifying the claim.
Guaido's proclamation is based in several articles of the Venezuelan Constitution and the opposition dismissing the results of the 2018 elections:
The article 233 states that in case of "absence" of the President of Venezuela, new elections must be started and in the interim the Head of the Venezuelan Assembly would act as provisional president.
Last January 9 the previous mandate of Maduro did expire and the new one (based on the results of the 2018 election) began.
Since the opposition dismisses the results of the 2018 elections, they state that the President is absent1 and so Guaido can be proclamed as temporal President.
Another point of contention is that Maduro was sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal while the Constitution (art 331) says that it should have been sworn in at the National Assembly, but Maduro claims that the National Assembly has been found to be in contempt by the Constitutional Tribunal and so he must be sworn in at the Constitutional Tribunal.
Additionally, there are references to articles 333 and 350 that claim for individual action in the case of attacks against the Constitution (so the Maduro controlled Constitutional Tribunal would not be the sole deciding power).
If we go back in time, we find issues about how the Constitutional Tribunal members were elected and about changes to the Constitution, that were backed by Maduro supporters but protested by the opposition.
In short, each side has its own "legal reality" and in one of them Maduro is President of Venezuela, and in the other he is not and Guaido has just filled in.
How is Guaido doing this without another election or a coup?
If you side with Maduro it is a coup (although an institutional one), if you side with Guaido it is just following the Constitution and the coup (if any) was effected by Maduro at the elections and before.
Here there is an interview with Guaido commenting on the Constitution articles (in Spanish)
Since all of my links are in Spanish, an article in English.
1 Most likely on the reason of el abandono del cargo, declarado como tal por la Asamblea Nacional (giving up the office, as stated by the National Assembly), but I have found no references specifying the claim.
edited Jan 30 at 15:14
answered Jan 29 at 17:37
SJuan76SJuan76
19.6k54971
19.6k54971
9
Is this whole affair basically a constitutional crisis, then?
– Michael Seifert
Jan 29 at 17:57
2
See reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/ajsbxo for a very detailed desciription of the history leading up to this, from the point of view of those aligned with the National Assembly.
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:13
15
The reason for the National Assembly claiming the president is absent is because the Supreme Court in exile ruled that the 2018 election was void. The National Assembly views the in-country Court as illegitimate, because it has judges illegally appointed by the lame duck members of the previous Assembly, and whose appointment the Assembly has annulled. Therefore in the view of the National Assembly the presidential term ended without there being any properly elected president, so per the constitution, the president of the National Assembly is interim President of the whole country
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:29
So in order to win an election, all you have to do is dispute the outcome, claim the winner of the election is now absent and then appoint yourself as the new ruler.
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:42
@KevinCathcart You have a source of there being any supreme court in exile?
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:55
|
show 4 more comments
9
Is this whole affair basically a constitutional crisis, then?
– Michael Seifert
Jan 29 at 17:57
2
See reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/ajsbxo for a very detailed desciription of the history leading up to this, from the point of view of those aligned with the National Assembly.
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:13
15
The reason for the National Assembly claiming the president is absent is because the Supreme Court in exile ruled that the 2018 election was void. The National Assembly views the in-country Court as illegitimate, because it has judges illegally appointed by the lame duck members of the previous Assembly, and whose appointment the Assembly has annulled. Therefore in the view of the National Assembly the presidential term ended without there being any properly elected president, so per the constitution, the president of the National Assembly is interim President of the whole country
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:29
So in order to win an election, all you have to do is dispute the outcome, claim the winner of the election is now absent and then appoint yourself as the new ruler.
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:42
@KevinCathcart You have a source of there being any supreme court in exile?
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:55
9
9
Is this whole affair basically a constitutional crisis, then?
– Michael Seifert
Jan 29 at 17:57
Is this whole affair basically a constitutional crisis, then?
– Michael Seifert
Jan 29 at 17:57
2
2
See reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/ajsbxo for a very detailed desciription of the history leading up to this, from the point of view of those aligned with the National Assembly.
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:13
See reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/ajsbxo for a very detailed desciription of the history leading up to this, from the point of view of those aligned with the National Assembly.
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:13
15
15
The reason for the National Assembly claiming the president is absent is because the Supreme Court in exile ruled that the 2018 election was void. The National Assembly views the in-country Court as illegitimate, because it has judges illegally appointed by the lame duck members of the previous Assembly, and whose appointment the Assembly has annulled. Therefore in the view of the National Assembly the presidential term ended without there being any properly elected president, so per the constitution, the president of the National Assembly is interim President of the whole country
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:29
The reason for the National Assembly claiming the president is absent is because the Supreme Court in exile ruled that the 2018 election was void. The National Assembly views the in-country Court as illegitimate, because it has judges illegally appointed by the lame duck members of the previous Assembly, and whose appointment the Assembly has annulled. Therefore in the view of the National Assembly the presidential term ended without there being any properly elected president, so per the constitution, the president of the National Assembly is interim President of the whole country
– Kevin Cathcart
Jan 29 at 18:29
So in order to win an election, all you have to do is dispute the outcome, claim the winner of the election is now absent and then appoint yourself as the new ruler.
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:42
So in order to win an election, all you have to do is dispute the outcome, claim the winner of the election is now absent and then appoint yourself as the new ruler.
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:42
@KevinCathcart You have a source of there being any supreme court in exile?
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:55
@KevinCathcart You have a source of there being any supreme court in exile?
– dan-klasson
Jan 31 at 15:55
|
show 4 more comments
The EU Parliament just voted in favor of this motion:
"Recognises Mr Guaidó as the legitimate interim president of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in accordance with the Venezuelan Constitution, as stated in Article 233 thereof, and expresses its full support for his roadmap;"
(emphasis mine)
This is what's in article 233:
Article 233: The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.
What happened is clearly not applicable here.
Common sense should dictate no country in the world would have a constitution that would allow the opposition to appoint themselves president after disputing the election.
One would also think the EU, and the rest of the world, would be keen to send observers to at least try to ensure a fair election. Rather than outright refusing to accept the outcome afterwards. Especially given that this is not the first disputed election in Venezuela.
add a comment |
The EU Parliament just voted in favor of this motion:
"Recognises Mr Guaidó as the legitimate interim president of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in accordance with the Venezuelan Constitution, as stated in Article 233 thereof, and expresses its full support for his roadmap;"
(emphasis mine)
This is what's in article 233:
Article 233: The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.
What happened is clearly not applicable here.
Common sense should dictate no country in the world would have a constitution that would allow the opposition to appoint themselves president after disputing the election.
One would also think the EU, and the rest of the world, would be keen to send observers to at least try to ensure a fair election. Rather than outright refusing to accept the outcome afterwards. Especially given that this is not the first disputed election in Venezuela.
add a comment |
The EU Parliament just voted in favor of this motion:
"Recognises Mr Guaidó as the legitimate interim president of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in accordance with the Venezuelan Constitution, as stated in Article 233 thereof, and expresses its full support for his roadmap;"
(emphasis mine)
This is what's in article 233:
Article 233: The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.
What happened is clearly not applicable here.
Common sense should dictate no country in the world would have a constitution that would allow the opposition to appoint themselves president after disputing the election.
One would also think the EU, and the rest of the world, would be keen to send observers to at least try to ensure a fair election. Rather than outright refusing to accept the outcome afterwards. Especially given that this is not the first disputed election in Venezuela.
The EU Parliament just voted in favor of this motion:
"Recognises Mr Guaidó as the legitimate interim president of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in accordance with the Venezuelan Constitution, as stated in Article 233 thereof, and expresses its full support for his roadmap;"
(emphasis mine)
This is what's in article 233:
Article 233: The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote.
What happened is clearly not applicable here.
Common sense should dictate no country in the world would have a constitution that would allow the opposition to appoint themselves president after disputing the election.
One would also think the EU, and the rest of the world, would be keen to send observers to at least try to ensure a fair election. Rather than outright refusing to accept the outcome afterwards. Especially given that this is not the first disputed election in Venezuela.
answered Jan 31 at 15:59
dan-klassondan-klasson
1,0531614
1,0531614
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38373%2fhow-is-juan-guaido-able-to-claim-the-presidency-of-venezuela-without-an-election%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown