Venezuela's Voters Have Spoken
The Wall Street Journal
August 24, 2004
I would like to respond to Mary O'Grady's recent column ("Observers Rush to Judgment in Caracas," Aug. 20) about The Carter Center's role in the Venezuela recall referendum.
The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 troubled democratic elections, all of them either highly contentious or a nation's first experience with democracy. We are familiar with potential fraudulent techniques and how to obtain a close approximation to the actual results to assure accuracy.
One of our prerequisites for involvement is to be invited by all major political parties and by the central election commission, so it is necessary for us to remain absolutely neutral. These criteria obviously apply to Venezuela.
In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela. There was a subsequent referendum to approve a new constitution, and in 2000, another nationwide election for local, state and national offices, with Mr. Chavez prevailing by close to 60% in both presidential elections. Accuracy of results was accepted, ut the opposition remained determined to remove him from office.
A military coup against Mr. Chavez was successful in April 2002, but an aroused Venezuelan public and condemnation of the coup by Latin American governments resulted in Mr. Chavez being restored to office after two days in custody. The next attempt to depose him was a series of nationwide strikes that shut down oil production and almost destroyed the nation's economy. The government survived, but the political confrontation continued.
In January 2003, I proposed that a provision in the new constitution be implemented, providing for a referendum on whether Mr. Chavez should leave office or complete his term. Both sides agreed to this proposal, and the Organization of American States joined our Center in monitoring the gathering of necessary petitions and observing a recall referendum. An organization known as Súmate served as the opposition's driving force in encouraging signatures to depose Mr. Chavez and providing technical advice for their campaign efforts.
The Aug. 15 vote was the culmination of this process, and extra care was taken to ensure secrecy and accuracy. An electronic system was developed by a Venezuelan-American consortium led by SmartMatic that permitted touch-screen voting, with each choice backed up by a paper ballot. International machines were tested in advance, and we observed the entire voting process without limitation or restraint.
During the voting day, opposition leaders claimed to have exit-poll data showing the government losing by 20 percentage points, and this erroneous information was distributed widely. Results from each of the 20,000 machines were certified by poll workers and party observers and transmitted to central election headquarters in Caracas. As in all previous elections, paper ballots were retained under military guard. As predicted by most opinion polls and confirmed by our quick count, Mr. Chavez prevailed by a 59% to 41% margin.
Subsequently an audit was conducted to assure compatibility between manual ballots and electronically transmitted data, but opposition leaders insisted that their exit polls were accurate and that all other data were fraudulent. We met the following morning with Súmate, and they reported their own quick count showing a 10% government victory. Since their only remaining question was the accuracy of the audit, we developed the procedure for a second audit. Súmate and election commission members (government and opposition) agreed with our proposal. The second audit revealed no significant disparities.
Our responsibilities do not end when votes are counted. We seek acceptance of the results by all sides, and reconciliation if distrust or disharmony is deep. We have already begun efforts to establish a dialogue between the Venezuelan government and the still-antagonistic opposition leaders.
When local citizens or foreigners disapprove of a political decision made in free and fair elections, the only legitimate recourse is to honor the decision, cooperate whenever possible, and promote future leadership changes through democratic means.
Jimmy Carter
Atlanta
The Wall Street Journal
August 24, 2004
I would like to respond to Mary O'Grady's recent column ("Observers Rush to Judgment in Caracas," Aug. 20) about The Carter Center's role in the Venezuela recall referendum.
The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 troubled democratic elections, all of them either highly contentious or a nation's first experience with democracy. We are familiar with potential fraudulent techniques and how to obtain a close approximation to the actual results to assure accuracy.
One of our prerequisites for involvement is to be invited by all major political parties and by the central election commission, so it is necessary for us to remain absolutely neutral. These criteria obviously apply to Venezuela.
In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela. There was a subsequent referendum to approve a new constitution, and in 2000, another nationwide election for local, state and national offices, with Mr. Chavez prevailing by close to 60% in both presidential elections. Accuracy of results was accepted, ut the opposition remained determined to remove him from office.
A military coup against Mr. Chavez was successful in April 2002, but an aroused Venezuelan public and condemnation of the coup by Latin American governments resulted in Mr. Chavez being restored to office after two days in custody. The next attempt to depose him was a series of nationwide strikes that shut down oil production and almost destroyed the nation's economy. The government survived, but the political confrontation continued.
In January 2003, I proposed that a provision in the new constitution be implemented, providing for a referendum on whether Mr. Chavez should leave office or complete his term. Both sides agreed to this proposal, and the Organization of American States joined our Center in monitoring the gathering of necessary petitions and observing a recall referendum. An organization known as Súmate served as the opposition's driving force in encouraging signatures to depose Mr. Chavez and providing technical advice for their campaign efforts.
The Aug. 15 vote was the culmination of this process, and extra care was taken to ensure secrecy and accuracy. An electronic system was developed by a Venezuelan-American consortium led by SmartMatic that permitted touch-screen voting, with each choice backed up by a paper ballot. International machines were tested in advance, and we observed the entire voting process without limitation or restraint.
During the voting day, opposition leaders claimed to have exit-poll data showing the government losing by 20 percentage points, and this erroneous information was distributed widely. Results from each of the 20,000 machines were certified by poll workers and party observers and transmitted to central election headquarters in Caracas. As in all previous elections, paper ballots were retained under military guard. As predicted by most opinion polls and confirmed by our quick count, Mr. Chavez prevailed by a 59% to 41% margin.
Subsequently an audit was conducted to assure compatibility between manual ballots and electronically transmitted data, but opposition leaders insisted that their exit polls were accurate and that all other data were fraudulent. We met the following morning with Súmate, and they reported their own quick count showing a 10% government victory. Since their only remaining question was the accuracy of the audit, we developed the procedure for a second audit. Súmate and election commission members (government and opposition) agreed with our proposal. The second audit revealed no significant disparities.
Our responsibilities do not end when votes are counted. We seek acceptance of the results by all sides, and reconciliation if distrust or disharmony is deep. We have already begun efforts to establish a dialogue between the Venezuelan government and the still-antagonistic opposition leaders.
When local citizens or foreigners disapprove of a political decision made in free and fair elections, the only legitimate recourse is to honor the decision, cooperate whenever possible, and promote future leadership changes through democratic means.
Jimmy Carter
Atlanta
Nice try Jimmy. They will not be satisfied. They cannot have Chávez, with his populist policies, in power.
Chavez makes appeal to the rich
The Houston Chronicle
August 23, 2004
CARACAS - President Hugo Chavez told his opponents Sunday they should not fear his left-wing "revolution" after his victory in a national referendum and pledged to respect private wealth. In a television broadcast, the populist leader sought to dispel fears among rich and middle-class Venezuelans that he planned to launch a fresh ideological offensive against their status and property. "All this stuff about Chavez and his hordes coming to sweep away the rich, it's a lie," he said. "We have no plan to hurt you. All your rights are guaranteed, you who have large properties or luxury farms or cars."
The Houston Chronicle
August 23, 2004
CARACAS - President Hugo Chavez told his opponents Sunday they should not fear his left-wing "revolution" after his victory in a national referendum and pledged to respect private wealth. In a television broadcast, the populist leader sought to dispel fears among rich and middle-class Venezuelans that he planned to launch a fresh ideological offensive against their status and property. "All this stuff about Chavez and his hordes coming to sweep away the rich, it's a lie," he said. "We have no plan to hurt you. All your rights are guaranteed, you who have large properties or luxury farms or cars."
Nice try Hugo. For the umpteenth time. They never accepted it before. They're not accepting it now. They don't want a mulatto Venezuela Native/African any where near power in their country.
These people continue to scream about communism and the president's friendship with Castro, his authoritarian and even dictatorial ways, his oppression of free speech (even though they own and publish five of the seven TV stations in the country and all the major print media, and freely take to the streets regularly to protest). They are simply out of control. And backed by the likes of the U.S. president and presidential candidate.
Commentary: Stop crying foul in Venezuela
Carmen Gentile
United Press International
August 23, 2004
CARACAS, Venezuela, Aug. 23 (UPI)
There must be something perversely appealing about shooting yourself in the foot.
Why else would Venezuela's political opposition leaders continue to balk at the results of last week's presidential referendum? After days of weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth over President Hugo Chavez's victory, they've done nothing but destroy their credibility and deepen the partisan divide while strengthening Chavez's self-anointed profile as the people's leader who gets a bad rap from Venezuela's wealthy elite.
Even though international observers have insisted repeatedly that Venezuelans decided by a convincing majority to keep the leftist leader, the opposition refuses to accept the results and continues to promote it foul-play agenda.
And what an ineffective strategy it's been. While the rest of the country has celebrated or resigned themselves to the results, opposition leaders like Enrique Mendoza, a potential presidential candidate in 2006 and governor of Miranda state, are leading the charge.
It was Mendoza who made the call not to participate in the post-vote audit by observers lead by former President Jimmy Carter, even though it was the opposition that demanded it in the first place and was set to take part in the process. His reasoning? The proposed audit wasn't comprehensive enough to reach a fair conclusion: It couldn't determine that the opposition had actually won and voted Chavez out of office.
Then the governor urged Carter to acknowledge his fraud claims to prevent the a similar result from happening in other countries in the region -- as if losing to the Venezuelan left was an infective disease.
"The observers must understand that what has happened in Venezuela could repeat itself in any other country in the region," said Mendoza in an attempt to steer the conspiracy machine his way.
Carter and others didn't bite, however, leaving Venezuela even further divided along socio-economic lines, much like the rest of the continent.
The opposition's disdain for the president is based largely on claims the president has aspirations to turn the South American country into a communist state and that his authoritarian style of rule is ruining a once vibrant economy. His loyalists -- known locally as "Chavistas" -- call him the "people's champion" and laud the president for sweeping social programs funded by state oil revenue.
The Democratic Coordination, or CD -- an umbrella group of more than 40 political and social activist groups opposed to the leftist Chavez -- had the perfect opportunity to attract some Chavistas to their cause by calmly and competently illustrating the numerous ways Chavez has mismanaged his social revolution these last few years. Although the president has spent billions of dollars on education and food programs, poverty continues to grow in the oil-rich nation.
Even in defeat, the CD could have proven themselves a viable political force with which to be reckoned despite the loss had they accepted the results and built on the momentum of the moment. Just getting a referendum after months of political wrangling with Venezuela's National Electoral Council was a victory in itself and could have been the turning point for the movement.
Instead, they focused their post-election attention on rumors of dumped ballot boxes found in a field and whispers of vote tampering, neither of which were discovered to be true. In a week's time, they've managed to alienate the majority of their supporters, who just want to get on with their lives. They have also portrayed themselves as the out-of-touch rich folks with a vendetta against the working man and poor masses, which by the way make up more than three-fourths of Venezuelan society.
Over the weekend the leadership threatened to boycott September's municipal elections in which a number of key offices are up for grabs. Not taking part in the elections would mean conceding the positions to pro-Chavez politicians and strengthening the president's grip on his office.
Their tantrums have inspired a backlash from Chavez, who earlier extended the olive branch to the opposition after the elections. But on Sunday, the president said he would no longer deal with the CD and called on the international community to do likewise.
Even Washington -- which certainly has no love for the man they characterize as a 21st century Castro -- is urging the opposition to move beyond fraud charges.
Every public allegation of fraud and slander against Chavez further alienates the opposition leadership from their followers and those who voted to keep Chavez in office, spraying their political enemies with another round of bad publicity buckshot and worsening their chances of winning in September and possibly regaining control of the presidency in 2006 when Chavez is up for re-election.
But hey, where's the fun? Why work toward your goals when you can have a foot full of lead?
Carmen Gentile
United Press International
August 23, 2004
CARACAS, Venezuela, Aug. 23 (UPI)
There must be something perversely appealing about shooting yourself in the foot.
Why else would Venezuela's political opposition leaders continue to balk at the results of last week's presidential referendum? After days of weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth over President Hugo Chavez's victory, they've done nothing but destroy their credibility and deepen the partisan divide while strengthening Chavez's self-anointed profile as the people's leader who gets a bad rap from Venezuela's wealthy elite.
Even though international observers have insisted repeatedly that Venezuelans decided by a convincing majority to keep the leftist leader, the opposition refuses to accept the results and continues to promote it foul-play agenda.
And what an ineffective strategy it's been. While the rest of the country has celebrated or resigned themselves to the results, opposition leaders like Enrique Mendoza, a potential presidential candidate in 2006 and governor of Miranda state, are leading the charge.
It was Mendoza who made the call not to participate in the post-vote audit by observers lead by former President Jimmy Carter, even though it was the opposition that demanded it in the first place and was set to take part in the process. His reasoning? The proposed audit wasn't comprehensive enough to reach a fair conclusion: It couldn't determine that the opposition had actually won and voted Chavez out of office.
Then the governor urged Carter to acknowledge his fraud claims to prevent the a similar result from happening in other countries in the region -- as if losing to the Venezuelan left was an infective disease.
"The observers must understand that what has happened in Venezuela could repeat itself in any other country in the region," said Mendoza in an attempt to steer the conspiracy machine his way.
Carter and others didn't bite, however, leaving Venezuela even further divided along socio-economic lines, much like the rest of the continent.
The opposition's disdain for the president is based largely on claims the president has aspirations to turn the South American country into a communist state and that his authoritarian style of rule is ruining a once vibrant economy. His loyalists -- known locally as "Chavistas" -- call him the "people's champion" and laud the president for sweeping social programs funded by state oil revenue.
The Democratic Coordination, or CD -- an umbrella group of more than 40 political and social activist groups opposed to the leftist Chavez -- had the perfect opportunity to attract some Chavistas to their cause by calmly and competently illustrating the numerous ways Chavez has mismanaged his social revolution these last few years. Although the president has spent billions of dollars on education and food programs, poverty continues to grow in the oil-rich nation.
Even in defeat, the CD could have proven themselves a viable political force with which to be reckoned despite the loss had they accepted the results and built on the momentum of the moment. Just getting a referendum after months of political wrangling with Venezuela's National Electoral Council was a victory in itself and could have been the turning point for the movement.
Instead, they focused their post-election attention on rumors of dumped ballot boxes found in a field and whispers of vote tampering, neither of which were discovered to be true. In a week's time, they've managed to alienate the majority of their supporters, who just want to get on with their lives. They have also portrayed themselves as the out-of-touch rich folks with a vendetta against the working man and poor masses, which by the way make up more than three-fourths of Venezuelan society.
Over the weekend the leadership threatened to boycott September's municipal elections in which a number of key offices are up for grabs. Not taking part in the elections would mean conceding the positions to pro-Chavez politicians and strengthening the president's grip on his office.
Their tantrums have inspired a backlash from Chavez, who earlier extended the olive branch to the opposition after the elections. But on Sunday, the president said he would no longer deal with the CD and called on the international community to do likewise.
Even Washington -- which certainly has no love for the man they characterize as a 21st century Castro -- is urging the opposition to move beyond fraud charges.
Every public allegation of fraud and slander against Chavez further alienates the opposition leadership from their followers and those who voted to keep Chavez in office, spraying their political enemies with another round of bad publicity buckshot and worsening their chances of winning in September and possibly regaining control of the presidency in 2006 when Chavez is up for re-election.
But hey, where's the fun? Why work toward your goals when you can have a foot full of lead?
Indeed.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Previous Venezuela posts
More on Venezuela
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!