How is Juan Guaido able to claim the Presidency of Venezuela without an election?












45















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?










share|improve this question



























    45















    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?










    share|improve this question

























      45












      45








      45


      1






      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?










      share|improve this question














      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






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Jan 29 at 17:05









      MachavityMachavity

      16.3k44981




      16.3k44981






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          40














          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.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 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



















          2














          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.






          share|improve this answer























            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            40














            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.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 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
















            40














            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.






            share|improve this answer





















            • 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














            40












            40








            40







            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.






            share|improve this answer















            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.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            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














            • 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











            2














            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.






            share|improve this answer




























              2














              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.






              share|improve this answer


























                2












                2








                2







                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.






                share|improve this answer













                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.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Jan 31 at 15:59









                dan-klassondan-klasson

                1,0531614




                1,0531614






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

                    Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

                    Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents