Every time the electricity crisis worsens, people look for a direct cause to explain what is happening. Recently, accusations have been directed at the Attorney General’s decision to suspend the barter system, to the point where this decision is seen by some as the main reason for the fuel shortage and power outages.
However, reducing a crisis of this magnitude to a single decision does not reflect the reality of what happened, nor does it help in understanding the roots of the problem.
The truth that many ignore is that the barter system was not an innovation created after 2011. Rather, it was one of the tools the state relied on for years to meet the market’s needs for petroleum products. But it was not an open system without controls; it was governed by precise technical and financial procedures that determined quantities, the number of shipments, the refineries involved, pricing mechanisms, and the settlement of differences.
Barter was conducted with traditional partners who owned well-known refineries, within a framework of oversight and governance. That is why the experience succeeded.
But what happened later was not a development of the system; it was an emptying of its content. Controls were neglected, the scope of discretionary decisions widened, and intermediaries and brokers entered a file that should have remained governed by technical and economic standards. Deals were made with entities that owned no refineries, at prices exceeding prevailing rates, and in quantities that surpassed market needs. The import bill jumped to billions of dollars, raising legitimate questions about management efficiency and the integrity of procedures.
In light of these facts, the Attorney General’s personal intervention was a swift response to what the law requires in protecting public funds and national wealth. It is natural for him to intervene when there are suspicions of violations or irregularities that warrant investigation and remediation.
As for blaming this intervention alone for the electricity crisis, it ignores a long chain of imbalances that preceded the decision by years.
The real crisis is not the presence or absence of the barter system, but the absence of sound management. A system that succeeded yesterday will not succeed today if the same environment that allowed the encroachment of corruption, weak oversight, and lack of accountability remains.
It is unfortunate that the public debate has turned into calls for the return of the barter system as if it were a magic wand to solve the crisis, while the file itself still faces the same challenges that led to its deviation from its original goals.
Reinstating the mechanism without reforming the system that manages it means reproducing the same causes that brought us to this reality.
The oil sector has lost a lot when the role of traditional partners, who were an important element in the stability of refining and supply operations, declined, and were replaced by arrangements that often lack the standards that ensure efficiency and transparency.
This is not just a technical issue; it is an issue that touches the state’s economic security and the proper management of its most important resources.
The citizen does not care about the name of the mechanism used, nor the form of the contracts signed, as much as they care about the availability of electricity and that their national wealth is managed with efficiency and integrity. This goal will only be achieved by rebuilding the marketing system