The EU Election Observation Mission to Venezuela Preliminary Statement

[Piotr]

for the 2005 Parliamentary Elections.

http://www.eueomvenezuela.org/pre_statement_en.pdf

This document was written before the close of the election process and published on December 6th. It is the preliminary result of a month of observation by the European Union Election Observation Mission to Venezuela, which came to observe the process on the CNE's (the body in charge of organizing all electoral processes in Venezuela) request. The Mission will remain in Venezuela until December 21 to continue observation of the result of the process, and after departure will publish a final statement on February 6th 2006.

Its Preliminary Conclusions are:

"Wide sectors of the Venezuelan society do not have trust in the electoral processes and in the independence of the electoral authority.

The legal framework contains several inconsistencies that leave room for differing and contradictory interpretations.

The disclosure of a computerized list of citizens indicating their political preference in the signature recollection process for the Presidential Recall Referendum (so-called "Maisanta Program") generates fear that the secrecy of the vote could be violated.

The CNE, in a positive attempt to restore confidence in the electoral process, took significant steps to open the automated voting system to external scrutiny and to modify various aspects that were questioned by the opposition.

The CNE decision to eliminate the fingerprint capturing devices from the voting process was timely, effective and constructive.

The electoral campaign focused almost exclusively on the issue of distrust in the electoral process and lack of independence of the CNE. The debate on political party platforms was absent.

Both State and private media showed bias toward either of the two main political blocks.

The EU EOM took note with surprise of the withdrawal of the majority of the opposition parties only four days before the electoral event.

Election Day passed peacefully with low turnout. While the observers noted several irregularities in the voting procedures, the manual audit of the voting receipts revealed a high reliability of the voting machines.

These elections did not contribute to the reduction of the fracture in the Venezuelan society. In this sense, they represented a lost opportunity".

[jsamuel]

1. In other words, everything went fine?

just low turnout due to opposition boycott of the election

[ShockediSay]

2. Opposition boycott inspired by CIA/right wing

whackos.

See

http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

http://www.johnperkins.org/prologue.htm

Frankly I'd rather see this kind of "low turnout" than we did in our own US presidential undercounted votes due to the efforts of Karl Rove and the like. Both Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 had a high degree of voting "irregularities" with the result being what we have in the White House today.

[Piotr]

3. No...and what does this have to do with the statement?

The boycott is a result of widespread distrust in the voting system. The CIA does not fit anywhere there- nor is there a need for it to. I find it insulting that you see any resistance to any "left-wing" government in Latin America as backed by the CIA. As if people were dependent on the US for their own ideas! Is it inconceivable that resistance is entirely domestic?

[Skink]

4. It's not like I...raq.. where going to the polls can get you killed

The guys that lost knew they were going to lose.

[Piotr]

5. Which explains the 75% abstention rate?

Doubt towards the validity of the voting processes in Venezuela have been around since before the Recall Referendum (use of state funds to mobilize pro-government voters and hamper opposition voters are an example of why; another is the violation of the secrecy of the vote and the intimidation of both sides, mostly by the government, to vote one way or another. Also, remember that 3 out of the 5 members of the CNE are seen as biased towards the government. It's only recently that abstention has been embraced as a policy; before, there were still those who clung to the belief that elections would not be manipulated, that opposition members could not afford to lose "political spaces" or that voting is a civic duty, regardless of conditions. Now it's seen that voting only serves to give the government the tools it needs to both legitimise their own hand-picked candidates (through vote manipulation) and proclaim the "democratic nature" of the regime. 75% of the electorate did not go to vote in a country supposedly rife with a "newfound" political activism!

[Solon]

7. You forget one thing...

This is an off year vote. What percentage of the population in the United States votes in off year elections? We are lucky to get 50% of eligible voters to vote in Presidential elections, the percentage for off year voting is probably much lower, in fact, I would probably bet on that. Also, this time they actually had the greatest percentage of voters for an off year election in Venezuela than in the previous decade or so. As to your other assertions, prove it, we expect links to credible sites here, not assertions with no proof.

[Piotr]

8. Read the Statement from the link I posted.

The assertions from the opening post are taken from there.
Also, this is not the United States we're talking about. This is Venezuela, which has been undergoing levels of political change (new Constitution and all) for about seven years. Most people found newfound hope in Chávez when he was running and on the changes he was implementing. Voting was for several years seen as an expression of political will (theoretically) where 20 years before it had served no real purpose...Chávez has encouraged people to go vote every time new elections come up. And now that there is this high abstention rate, he calls it a criminal US/CIA backed plot to undermine his legitimacy.

[newyawker99]

6. Hi Piotr!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Piotr]

10. Hello, newyaker99

Thanks for welcoming me, although I've posted before and am actually rather certain that you've also welcomed me before.

[killbotfactory]

9. The CIA is heavily involved with the opposition

And the media. I don't see how you can honestly say they have no influence.

[rman]

11. Interesting that "fracture in the American society" is never mentioned

and apparently is not considered to be a problem in the context of US elections. After all if it isn't even an issue, it certainly can't be a problem...

Also i'd be curious to know just how "wide" the "wide sectors of the Venezuelan society" are that "do not have trust in the electoral processes". Did anything substantial change since the previous landslide electoral victory for Chavez? If not then "wide" definitely does not mean "majority" - which is probably the reason why it's not called "majority". But "wide" is a bit ambiguous and leaves room for interpretation as "majority", which is a bit disingenuous.

on edit:
I mean, how many "wide sectors" (plural) can you have without them making up a majority? Then again if it is a majority, then that'd be significant enough to mention it, would it not. But it is not mentioned, it is being suggested.

Reality probably is that there is one sector of Venezuelan society that do not have trust in the electoral processes - namely the opposition, which is a minority and consists mainly of the wealthy, previously ruling class.