When Venezuela goes to the polls

 

With a new election just a few days away, and the expectation that Nicolás Maduro – the chosen successor of the late President Hugo Chávez – will emerge victorious, there is much debate about Chávez’s legacy.

There is a particular focus on his economic policies, record on civil liberties and what he has left behind for ordinary Venezuelans.

As is so often the case, views are split ideologically. Unquestionably, Chávez invested heavily in social programs for the poor and this won him adulation among many sectors of society. Poverty has been reduced substantially, healthcare became more accessible, and education rates rose.

Whether the gains under a continuation of Chávez’s economic policies can be sustained is the subject of much debate.

At the same time, Venezuela still struggles with a critical housing shortage and an exceptionally high crime rate. Indeed in polling last year, citizens said that crime was far and away the most important issue facing the country, followed by high unemployment.

It must also be noted that Chávez was widely criticised for suppressing dissent, while dominating and politicising other branches of government. Whether this will continue is also a question for Sunday’s election.

Because the future economic and social conditions of Venezuela will be greatly impacted by the result, it is important to understand how the election will work.

How candidates, government officials, and voters operate within the structure of an electoral framework can say something about broader attitudes towards democracy and liberty going forward.

In Venezuela, the election takes place on one day and voting is not mandatory as it is in some other countries in the region.

The voters’ register will be the same as the one drawn up nearly a year ago. This doesn’t seem to be terribly problematic however, as the CNE (the electoral commission) says that an extraordinary 96.5 per cent of the eligible population is registered to vote.

This gives Venezuela one of the highest percentages of registered voters in the world, an achievement many credit to the Chávez administration’s great efforts to reach out to, provide identity documents for and seek the engagement of all strata of society – whether for political purposes or otherwise.

 

The mechanics

The technical rules of the election will be almost the same as the one held last October.

The biggest and most controversial innovation of the 2012 election, which will also be used on Sunday, was the use of the Automated Authentication System, a biometric process by which a voter certifies his or her identity at the voting machine by entering his or her identification number and scanning his or her fingerprints.

If the voter does so accurately and is verified, the machine will activate for voting. After voting on the computerised system, the voter receives a receipt with his choices indicated which he drops in a separate ballot box.

An ongoing concern about this system is that if the machines are able to record fingerprints, the government will be able to trace how people voted and use that information against them, as it has reportedly done and continues to do with respect to the leaked 2004 list of supporters of a recall of President Chávez.

While in truth matching votes with voters would be technically difficult, attaching personal biometric information to the casting of the ballot has understandably has still led to suspicion.

That this fear exists is another Chávez legacy.

The poll workers are appointed by lottery, and each candidate is entitled to one poll watcher per poll site.

After the voting is completed a number of poll stations, selected by lottery, will be subjected to an audit known as ‘citizen verification.’

The paper receipts are double checked against the machines. The results of each polling station are posted on the CNE website, as a third check on the count.

 

‘Best in the world’

There is a lot to admire about the Venezuelan election system. Former US President Jimmy Carter didn’t call Venezuela’s system “the best in the world” for no reason.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect is the level of citizen engagement among all sectors of society, which is unlike most countries.

The registration rate is arguably as high as possible, and the turnout rate is also very good – in October it was over 80 percent.

Having randomly chosen ordinary citizens, who are known to all parties in advance, to take charge of the polls, is its own kind of check on the credibility of the election and a way of inspiring public involvement.

The high number of polling places – the number rose from 20,202 in 1998 to 38, 239 in 2012 – makes it easier for all citizens to vote, especially for the poor, since many of them were placed in underdeveloped areas.

In some ways, the process is also quite transparent, in keeping with democratic principles. The different checks on the counting, including providing party witnesses with a printout of the electronic tally from every machine and posting individual poll site results online is especially notable and should be extremely effective in ensuring trust in the outcome.

The audit of 53 per cent of randomly selected voting tables is particularly commendable and a model for other nations.

 

Criticisms

That Venezuela has a technically superior election system does not, however, mean that elections in Venezuela are completely fair.

The biggest critique of this election and the last one has been the extreme abuse of state resources by the governing party, especially the use of state media, and perhaps more disturbingly, potential use of the military and other state assets to mobilise voters.

It was not a good portent when, according to The Guardian newspaper, the government’s Minister of Defence explicitly told Venezuelans just after Chávez’s death to vote Maduro, and to give opposition "fascists a good hiding" at the polls. He told state TV that the "mission" of the armed forces was to put Maduro in the presidency.

Transparency International reports that the massive and disproportionate use of the state media of used on Chávez’s behalf in 2012 has continued in the 2013 election.

According to numerous press reports, the government constantly broadcasts pro-Maduro propaganda with impunity.

In 2012, Chávez took great advantage of his right to air presidential addresses and free governmental institutional ads, and as Acting President – a position he holds with some controversy – Maduro has also used state media to expand his presence and to disseminate his message.

In 2012, there were also allegations of use of state resources to mobilise voters, and it is feared this will also repeat itself.

Even the director of the CNE himself stated recently that the election will be "profoundly anti-democratic” in its nature because the conditions among candidates are uneven.

Another problem is the electoral commission itself. The opposition has argued that it is biased– and with some good reason.

According to The Carter Center, “of its five current rectors, four, including the president, are linked to the Chavez government with varying degrees of sympathy, and one is linked to the opposition.”

This is particularly problematic in that a credible, independent electoral authority is considered under international norms to be a lynchpin in upholding the democratic principles of elections.

Finally, there is the problem of the lack of broad independent observation of the election. Since 2007 the government has decided that it will not allow international observation, but rather only “international accompaniment” which only applies to Election Day itself.

As The Carter Center described it, such activities are merely symbolic, and are contrary the Declaration of Principles for Election Observation that most international observation groups have signed to ensure consistent, meaningful observation and assessment of elections.

Indeed, The Carter Center refused to participate in such an “accompaniment” in 2012.

Such an approach only provides fodder for critics who want to call the system into question. The silver lining to this is that the opposition campaign expects to be able to field enough party agents to cover most polling places.

While Venezuela’s electoral system in some ways is a model for the world, certain aspects, especially the practice of abusing the state machinery for electoral advantage during the campaign period and the politicisation of the electoral commission are highly troublesome.

Such practices threaten to undermine the credibility of Venezuela’s otherwise justifiably proud voting system.

Experts from the Washington Office for Latin America believe turnout is the big unknown in this election.

Thus, Election Day itself, when the machinery of mobilisation kicks into full gear, will be revealing as to how the likely next president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, approaches the issue of democratic values.

This abuse of government power was one of the unfortunate aspects of Hugo Chávez’s legacy. Will his party perpetuate this anti-democratic process on Election Day?

This will be telling for the future of civil liberties in Venezuela. While the lopsided campaign environment has opened Venezuela’s voting system up to questions by some, perhaps Election Day itself will provide hope for the country’s commitment to democratic practices in the future.

 

To follow the election, visit to http://venezuelablog.tumblr.com/