April 23, 2019 10:30 PM
Updated on April 23, 2019 22:58 PM
Experts agree that the president in charge of the Republic, Juan Guaidó, has gained security as he has had to address the population repeatedly. The security gained in the last three months, after being sworn in as president in charge, has allowed him to extend the times of his public interventions.
"We can affirm that there is an evolution in the discourse of Juan Guaidó. He has matured in the conception and articulation of the ideas he poses, "explained Nicmer Evans, a political scientist, aligned with dissident Chavismo, and a master's degree in Social Psychology.
He indicated that another of the factors that has affected what in his opinion represents an improvement in the presentation of his ideas is that in each of his speeches there is an underlying objective, which gives coherence and allows him to focus and, therefore, , justify each action before citizenship.
This vision is shared by Félix Seijas, professor at the Central University of Venezuela and director of the pollster Delphos, who assured that after the meteoric rise of Juan Guaidó's responsibilities he has had to address citizens continuously, which has facilitated that, by practice, his verb is increasingly fluid.
"The role he has played is not simple. He fell from one day to the next from being a political leader, not recognized throughout the country, to suddenly having to address millions of Venezuelans in public speeches. That needs some practice and it is precisely what has been happening, it has been gaining experience, security and that allows it to extend more in his speech, "he said.
Carlos Leáñez, a professor at the Simón Bolívar University and an expert in Language and Politics, said that while the duration of Guaidó's speeches has been extended as a reflection of a gradual increase in confidence and security, this has been accompanied by a decline in the content of the message. He affirmed that the president should carry out interventions of shorter lapses because the communication impact is greater.
"The brief and intense messages are more receptive than those long, because you can run the danger that people begin to feel that he is hearing and hearing, and nothing happens because there is a truly strong message," justified Leáñez, time that said that this problem "is beginning to emerge."
Why us instead of me?
In language, using the "I" is associated with a personal and non-inclusive discourse, while the "us" includes the recipient of the message. "Guaidó, with the use of us, seeks balance and includes those who do not necessarily share their position, ideology or political conception," said Evans.
He specified that in the political language, although the use of the "I" is not ruled out, it should be used only in situations that truly merit it and not in an indiscriminate way, an error that in his opinion was committed by the late President Hugo Chávez due to his personalist desire.
Juan Guaidó accompanied by deputies of the National Assembly of Venezuela | Efe
Evans argued that using the term "we" denotes the intention to empower citizens to participate in the construction of political actions necessary to achieve change in Venezuela. He ruled out that its use could come to be associated with a socialist message.
Leáñez stated that the use of "us" could also be linked to an attempt by Guaidó to include the rest of the deputies of the AN in his messages. "Juan Guaidó has to speak with that word" we ", because he is in relation with a body of very specific people that surround him, that do not necessarily support him in a monolithic way," he argued.
Failures in speech
February 23 was a crucial date in the message of Juan Guaidó, because it was the day in which tens of tons of humanitarian aid sent by the United States and the international community would enter the country, from Colombia and Brazil. "The help will come in", was part of the message from Guaidó and the majority of the opposition leadership, but the aid did not arrive.
Evans believes that although it meant an important setback for Guaidó, this served as a teaching of how delicate it can be to make an affirmation of those dimensions. "Having put that yes or yes perhaps is the clearest and only communication error in these three months. There was an achievement, but it did not have the forcefulness that was expected at the time, "he said.
The professor of the Simón Bolívar University pointed out that what happened with the humanitarian aid was not a discursive error, but that it was an error of political calculation because it was thought that only with international pressure, the regime of Nicolás Maduro would allow the humanitarian aid income situation that did not occur.
Seijas said that Guaidó's messages initially aimed at very ambitious short-term objectives, which were difficult to achieve. He affirmed, however, that it should not be considered as a flaw in the discourse but as a political strategy that did not yield the expected results. "That is a clear example that in a first stage was aimed at very large goals in a short time. Obviously it did not work because there were factors that maybe were not taken into account or were not evaluated in the right way and what happened happened, "he said.
Another event that the experts pointed out as an important flaw in the message of the president in charge was the Amnesty Law approved by the AN, arguing that the issue was not properly focused.
Evans described it as a mistake to try to direct the message of amnesty to the high command of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, because most of these are in complicity with the regime, which is why the focus should be placed at the controls means of the various military components.
"I think that there you have to talk to the troop leaders, the colonels, the lieutenants, the captains, those who are not so smeared with corruption. They should ask these military if they are able to look their children in the eye and offer them a future in the country, "he said.
The expert in Language and Politics explained that it is also necessary to urge the military to fulfill its duty to protect citizens, the nation and democracy. He added that they are also called to preserve the balance of powers and the rule of law: "The BANB has a duty to preserve democracy, the balance of powers. That is breaking it rigorously. The point at which, in the first place, we must insist is honor and duty ".
Clarity of the message
Seijas and Evans agreed that the speech of Juan Guaidó is understood and shared by the common opposition citizen, including by the dissident Chavista.
They explain that one of the reasons why their message is understood is due to the language used, which is simple and clear, and moves away from the traditional politician.
The director of the pollster Delphos indicated that a study carried out on young people of university age revealed that they perceive Guaidó's public interventions as being far removed from the traditional discourses of political leaders. They specified that when the interim president of the Republic speaks, they feel that their message is directed directly towards them.
Leáñez warned that Guaidó's message is not coming clearly enough. He said he is trying to act as a tightrope walker to keep the different currents of thought that make life in the opposition happy, which, in his opinion, ends up dragging his progress: "If Guaidó pretends to be good with everyone, he will not be able to give a clear message" .
To achieve the objective proposed by Professor Leáñez, it will be necessary for Juan Guaidó to carry out an analysis within the structure of the opposition, in order to determine which supports he considers necessary to advance his message and those that are dispensable in his mission to achieve political change In Venezuela.