I will add my comment in support of those who advocate that George W. Bush is a false pretender to Republican values as expressed so eloquently by Abraham Lincoln. As a fake American, Bush is hardly qualified to condemn a man like Chavez, who was apparently elected in a democratically legitimate fashion, and who seems to express much more concern for the lower classes than the supposedly, but not really, compassionate George Bush. Who is the better man for his country? If we believe the polls, 60% of Venezuelans think Chavez is OK, while as many as 72% of Americans think Bush has smelled like fish for quite some time.

Isn’t it about time for a new analysis of the situation in Venezuela - an analysis a cut above that which Mr Bailey permitted himself to publish on these pages four weeks ago ? A great deal seems to have happened since Mark Cooper led the original dig....

Henri

The people of our own country are the last to recognize that we are gradually falling under the rule of corporate fascism, which will make for a much worse political agenda for the people then socialism or nationalism. In fact we will be screaming for some of that socialism when we come out of our slumber and realize that the nightmare is for real. Delivered by GWB, right hand of the devil.

Comment #48382 by Bill Bailey on 1/17 at 10:29 pm says:

“Hugo Chavez is a big jerk.”

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

Hugo Chavez is a big jerk.

He is not very smart, lacks integrity and intelligence.... and loves looking at pictures of himself.

He is nothing but a coward, who is jealous of the U.S.A. and what it stands for.

He talks smack of the U.S.A. yet owns Citgo gas stations, making it seem like he really cares about America’s poor and oppressed. pA-LEEZE..
If you believe that he cares… you need to see s shrink.

He wants to make money in the land of the free.
He’s nothing but a loser, deep down inside he knows it… but pretends to be a leader to cover his own self esteem issues.

Hugo Chavez.... do us all favor… jump off a cliff!

And next time stay out of America, you’re good enough to step foot in this God Loving country.

With certain obvious exceptions, participants in this dig may find Pepe Escobar’s article (http://tinyurl.com/ydhq8n) placing Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela in a global context of interest....

Henri

Hi Skruff:

Now we are in agreement !

God Bless America & you.

Ken asked me to say something good about these United States.

Happy to oblige Ken:

I’ve lived in Corvallis Oregon, Wyandott Oklahoma, Lawrence Massachusetts, Gallop New Mexico, White Plains New York, Franconia New Hampshire, Whiting Maine, Newark New Jersey, New York City, Yellow Pine Idaho, Rapid City South Dakota, Carson City Nevada, Washington D.C. (Georgetown)

So far, I have never found a place in the US (or Canada) where I could not live out the rest of my life happily!

How’s that?

Scruff:

Sick of your type also !
Another person who enjoys the freedoms & wealth of an American Democracy and at the same time spit on it !
The Indians lived here for thousands of years and stayed pagans and head hunters.
It was the English, French & Spanish who came here with their Judeo-Christian values that changed this land, that we call the United States of America, into the advanced democratic & economic society it is today.
So realize my friend and appreciate being able to live free in this great country !
Oh, and your issue with cutting back on heating oil subsides, tell the democrats in power now to give it back !
They will, and raise working peoples taxes to pay for it !
Also, try to say something good about the United States, which is the last hope for the world and its masses to live free and pray as they wish !

Dear Ken:

You tell ROSA SANTAGADA she should return to where ever she came from… Aside from using very poor English, you ignore the facts:

The Spanish were here way before the English (maybe she was born here?)

Hugo Chavez is the duely elected (by the people) President of his country, no more a “dictator” than George Bush (who stole his election)

The third fact may be a bit harder to accept...Maine recieved its heating assistance from Hugo Chavez’ government and the Bush administration DID cut heating funds to New England last winter leaving some people very cold…

Your vitrol is not becomming, and with your over-riding anger, it is tough to see your point.  accept anyone who disagrees with you should (in your words) return to their country of origion…

I do agree with you about immigrants, my ancestors should have put up a fence to stop you white folks.

To ROSA SANTAGADA - YOUR COMMENT -
There is no “Heating Fund” set up by the dictator Chavez, it is propaganda !
If you don’t like it here, in the greatest democracy the world has ever known, move to Venezuela and see how it is to be really poor and cold!
I am sick of immigrants coming to this great country and say nothing but bad things about life in the USA !
Why the hell did you come to the United States ANYWAY ?
Go back to where you came from if you think its better there !
I was born and raised in the USA and I know its the greatest country in the world, why, because everybody in this rotten world wants to come here !
So be glad you live here and stop talking about President Bush cutting down on programs “ in secret” , if they were secrets, how did you find out about it ?
You are just another one of those individuals who believe anything you are told when it comes to trashing the United States!
Again, No one asked you to come here or is keeping you here, if you don’t like it you should go back to where you came from!

Below the totals from the election of 2000 in Venezuela cut and past from wikipedia.

As you can see President Chávez
was elected by the people with 59% of the vote. 

Summary of the 30 July 2000 Venezuela presidential election results Candidates - Nominating parties Votes %
Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías - Movement for the Fifth Republic (Movimiento V República) 3,757,773 59.76
Francisco Arias Cárdenas - The R Cause (La Causa R) 2,359,459 37.52
Claudio Fermín 171,346 2.72
Total 6,288,578 100.0
Registered Voters 11,720,660
Votes Cast (% of registered voters) 6,637,276 56.63
Valid Votes (% of votes cast) 6,288,578 94.75
Invalid Votes (% of votes cast) 348,698 5.25
No-Votes (% of votes cast) 37,080 0.56
Abstention (% of registered voters) 5,120,464 43.69

The former presidents have shunted oil money to their friends, and their own pockets leaving poor children to pick through the dumps outside Caracus for food… President Chávez has spent (at least) some of the oil wealth to change the social ills that have beset his Nation for at least the past 80 years.

As to the defense of South America being covered by the USA.... Who defends Venezuela from them???

I’m no fan of ANY government, but in Venezuela, Chávez is better than most.

People, Chavez is just another dictator who claims he is for the masses and uses the United States as a scapegoat for the failed economy of his country and South & Latin America in general.
A country with so much oil should not have such a bad economy unless the money from that oil is being pocketed by Chavez and the upper class in Venezuela !
The United States has always served as a large market for South & Latin American goods and because of the Monroe Doctrine, never had to be worried about spending a large amount of their GNP for defense !
So, lets get real about the DICTATOR, Chavez !
Lets see an open election with candidates who are free to debate Chavez in public without fear of being put in prison or losing their lives !
Then we will see if he is still the “President” of Venezuela !

Our (THE USA) history in Latin America is a shamefull tale of greed, exploitation and vengance.  From the Monroe Doctorine (penned by James Madison) to the assination of Salvator Allende, it is a wonder we have any influence left down there.

We should support Hugo Chevez and his attempt to make his country more equal.  For years our oin companies paid dictators for resources while children combed dumps outside Caracas for food.

No updates on this subject since 2005… says a bunch on our respect and concern for our neighbors to the south.... BUT the landscape is changing… Withthe changes in Bolivia and Chile come changes in Nicaragua....maybe the old order is indeed passing....

This dig was last updated on 14 December 2005, and a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then, both in Venezuela, in the United States, and in the rest of the world. Would it be possible to update the dig, perhaps with another author than Marc Cooper ? Those of us whose areas of expertise (if any) lie outside Latin America, but who recognise the importance of that continent in what seems to be a newly emerging world order, would be greatly served by such an endeavour....

Henri

Chavez is anti Israel. End of discussion. It’s the only reason he is news.

Every time you see his name in the American media - its because those who favor Israel over America want us to hate him.

If AIPAC and Rahm Emmanuel have their way, we will be bombing Caracas.

We are an occupied nation. Braveheart tried to tell us, but they hauled him off to a public square, for all his would be followers to see.

Anyone see a pattern here? YET?

How do I access Hugo Chavez’ winter heating fund? When I saw this on TV it gave me hope of a miracle.  Bush has cut all heating benefits to the elderly poor, and cut off housing vouchers by at least 50%.  There are no weatherization programs either thanks to Bush, which would help lower our propane heating bills as well.  He’s cut many other programs, in secret, which he denies. It doesn’t say much for him when a foreign nation has to give help to the American poor, because Bush has a deaf ear and is blind!

Marc Cooper is one of the x left wingers who continue to work at the Nation.  I would call his politics cruse missile liberal or as C Wright Mills called it crackpot realism.  Nine times out of ten he supports the established order or even to the right.

I stopped subscribing to the Nation sometime about 1998 and stopped contributing to it’s Nation Institute at the same time.  They started to move right when its publisher took a course at Harvard Business school.

M Henri Day,

I’ve enjoyed reading your elegant logic.

John M

To my mind, Jonas South in his recent postings on the «MVR machine» comes closest to the kind of discourse for which we should strive on this forum. When he writes that «[t]his is the reason why people drift away from el proceso, for they sense that the choices are being made in smoky back rooms, and that their voices count for nothing», he is both being very concrete about the situation (as he understands it) in Venezuela today and at the same time touching upon one of the major problems with what we call «representative democracy» all over the world. Democracy means that the demos has to work hard to keep the kratia in its own hands, and to prevent it from accruing to a professional class who usually evolve to become the servants of those who control the economy. But the members of the demos have a lot of other matters on their minds, and generally speaking don’t give this struggle much priority, which leads not only to «smoky back rooms» in Venezuela, but also to such examples as the K Street dance in Washington.  Anyone who believes that we’ve got the solution to this problem down pat lives in a very ivory tower indeed ! I should very much like to hear (read) more input on this matter, from people like Professor Scruggs and Mr Delacour, and also from Mr Boyd, even though he resides in England (so does my elder daughter, but I listen to what she has to say on the situation in Denmark - distressing ! - anyway). Would it be too naive to hope that we then shall find ourselves able to hold the argumenta ad hominem under reasonable control ?....

So if I read the latest comments correctly, it’s fitting to question the view of a Venezuelan citizen, who happens to travel to his country -at least- once a year, yet the views carried by some visiting professor and that of a PhD candidate that, need be stressed, are not Venezuelan, do not speak the language properly, do not know the culture -aside from what they’ve gathered after reading a few papers, have never lived in the country permanently, are to be respected as the ultimate source of Venezuelan knowledge. Your logic defies me…

M Henri Day, my opinion about the referendum is a logic one: a candidate that wins an election with a 20% spread has nothing to hide, yet Fidelito didn’t allow his electoral yesmen to help dissipate the many doubts that the other 41% -as you call it- had at the time. Furthermore the Carter Center produced a series of recommendations after the recall (Sep 31), that were endorsed by the OAS, alas none of the said recommendations, to do away with the sheer lack of confidence vis-a-vis the CNE, have been implemented by a CNE, that again need be stressed, trusted and celebrated the electoral reports published by international electoral observation missions last year, yet, last time round, read the plebiscite of Dec. 4, these very same entities that observed the charade have become “pawns of the Empire...”

Whatever you chose to believe is entirely your prerrogative, however I think is a bit rich to be demanding facts for these are everywhere to be found.

I’m writing from Caracas, where I mentioned Mr. Boyd’s putting my name in quotations to someone who then pointed out that Mr. Boyd hasn’t lived here in Venezuela for some time.  Mr. Boyd you just posted:
“...arguments put forth by those who, from afar, think they can figure out and compartmentalise the crisis in my country.”
But another person here claims that you have actually been running your website on Venezuela out of London, England, where you relocated some time ago.  Aleksander, is this true?

Post #133, BOYD: “...those who, from afar, think they can figure out and compartmentalise the crisis in my country.”

Your country maybe, but aren’t you thousands of miles in England, and many years away from home yourself? Come and visit some time.

A huge voter turnout is being engineered for the election-cum-acclamation of Chavez in December 2006. The effort has the feel of desperation, a need to affirm Chavez’s mandate following the low voter turnout last December.

Recently, Walter, a friend of mine who lives in Caracas, told me that he thinks the 25% turn-out for the AN elections last December (with almost all of the votes going to MVR and its affiliates) means that the anti-Chavez people have a chance to influence the other 75%.

I think he is following the pipe dream of the opposition parties. Seventy-five percent of the electorate stayed home not because most of them are anti-Chavez, or that it was rainy, or dangerous, and certainly not because the leaders of the opposition parties, which together cannot influence more than 25% of the voters, called for an ill-considered boycott.

Fifty percent of Chavez supporters stayed away from the polls in December (75% overall support minus the 25% Chavez supporters who voted) did so for one reason: They were bored. For them, the revolution is becoming boring. The food is on the family table (Mercal), the Cuban doctors are there when needed (Barrio Adentro I), and education is now freely available. For this large group, the fight had been won. There is no longer any point in being personally involved. Without saying that their support was bought and paid for (it is not), nevertheless, their participation is no longer a fervent, do or die thing.

Anyone who witnessed the rally and marches in Caracas in the last few months can sense this, if they looked around the edges. Or if they simply talked to the common people in the barrios. (Sociological, scientific, statistically valid opinion studies would be better.) People are bored with machine politics.

Ah the well-oiled machine. This is the part of the Bolivarian revolution the outside world does not often see. This is the seamy part. This is the part where MVR party bosses engineered a legislative coup of sorts, by putting up twice as many candidates for office as the constitution intended to allow. (A detail the Constitutional Court decided to overlook.) This is the part where MVR candidates out of favor with the party bosses were sidelined, because a fair primary election system is not in place.

This is the reason why people stayed home, why this promising experiment in participatory democracy is endangered in its infancy. This is the reason why people drift away from el proceso, for they sense that the choices are being made in smoky back rooms, and that their voices count for nothing.

As diligently as Chavez works to improve the lives of a majority of his people, as courageous as he is in dealing with geopolitical issues, his crowning achievement must be that, more than anyone in modern history, he brought the levers of government closer to the sovereign people. For this part of his legacy to survive, he must turn his attention to machine politics, and soon.

Come, come, Mr Boyd ! In a serious discussion, surely it serves no useful purpose to distort the names of those participants with whom you happen to disagree - T M Scruggs remains Professor Scruggs and I, alas, am M Henri Day. Nor is it meaningful to refer to the purported «ignorance» of your interlocutors on the subject of Venezuela ; while that does adequately describe my own situation (which I hope to correct to some little degree by participating in this forum), you risk descending into total irrelevance when you ascribe this quality to people like Professor Scruggs and Mr Delacour. Please remember that our task here is not to create «sound bites» in order to sway an ignorant electorate, but rather to attempt to understand developments in Venezuela. To this end I have looked at the Sobranía web site you recommended, and in particular at the article «Deslegitimación del poder constituido», but found there nothing new - the argument that the low turnout (according to the election authorities approximately 25 % of the electorate) in the parliamentary election of 4 December 2005 («4D» for aficionados) after the opposition declared a boycott at the last moment delegitimises the whole system is one you have maintained in several previous posts. This is a difficult question - surely refusal to participate in an election can, in certain cases be used by the electorate as a means to demonstrate that they do not regard the election as legitimate, which is why, in some countries, voting has been obligatory, with fines, etc levied upon those who do not perform their «civic duty». But is this always the case ? Cannot this tactic be used, as Mr Delacour notes in a posting above, by an opposition that realises that it is unpopular and has no chance in a fair poll, to manipulate perception of an election round ? Should the fact that in the referendum of 15 August 2004, which had a voter turn-out of over 60 % and was held under a provision of the Venezuelan Constitution established under the Chavez government, Señor Chavez won 59 % of the vote as against the 41 % who wished to remove him from office be interpreted to mean that, on the contrary, he is indeed the legitimate president of Venezuela ? These questions are of great interest, but somehow I doubt that further discussion of them will lead to greater unity of view among participants in this forum - indeed, greater unity of view is perhaps not even desirable. What I personally should like to see is more information on the questions that I proposed some time ago, viz, do there exist Constitutional safeguards against excessive centralisation of power (a «unitary Executive», if you will) and does the present Venezuelan administration seem disposed to follow them (relevant, not least, against the background of recent events in the USA). To my mind, the existence of a provision for a recall referendum midway through a president’s term (thus the election of 15 August 2004) is such a limitation, but are there also other, more structural ones, dealing with, e g, the relation between the president and the parliament ? Justin Delacour has promised me an analysis (Justin, having written one myself, I fully understand how much time and energy a PhD thesis can devour, but I should very much like to hear from you in this regard) ; perhaps you, too, Mr Boyd, could weigh in on this matter with the type of documentary research you exhibited in your postings nos 117 and 118, supra ? And just maybe our dig leader Marc Cooper could also be induced to comment on the structural limitations found (or not, as the case may be) in Venezuela’s current constitution on the power of the holder of the office of president ?…

M Henry Day, I do not know whether you are able to read Spanish, if so I would strongly advice you to visit [url=http://www.soberania.org]http://www.soberania.org[/url] to gain a glimpse of what Venezuelan leftists are thinking. Pay especial attention to the article “Deslegitimación del poder constituido.” You could also visit the pages of Tal Cual, run by erstwhile guerrilla and Fidel friend Teodoro Petkoff.

I will tell you Qui bono: the bunch of chavistas at the top, who, just as Delacour, purportedly feel revulsion towards petit burgeois customs insofar as being unable to enjoy and bask in it. Once in power, they forget all principles and behave as the most decadent sibarite.

I won’t even bother in replying to Mr. Schruggs, his ignorance on all things Venezuela almost equals that of ‘Venezuela pundit’ Delacour, hence the comparison.

You may also wish to check a post of mine detailing jobs given in civil admnistration to 87 military officers, something that the aforementioned pundit -even though brave enough to claim “It would be interesting to see if you could point folks to one measly factual error in anything I’ve ever written about Venezuela” has failed to recognise, report or write about.

As I have said elsewhere, there’s enough evidence to disarm each and every one of the arguments put forth by those who, from afar, think they can figure out and compartmentalise the crisis in my country.

Mr Boyd, you are certainly «entitled» to hold any opinions you please - moreover, you are equally entitled to express them. But neither your holding them nor your expressing them is in itself sufficient to make them convincing to others. If you wish to use your superior knowledge of things Venezuelan to enlighten participants in this discussion with regard to what you call the «illegitimate» nature of Señor Chavez’s presidency, you will have to be more explicit and produce evidence for your conclusions. As to whether Señor Chavez’s government is good for «us», I suspect that depends very strongly upon one’s position in Venezuelan society - although you have provided no information on your own status, given the vehemence with which you express your position, I am willing to accept your view that his government is not good for you. Here we touch upon the fundamental problems of democracy - when can a government be said to be «good» for a country ? (Cui bono ?, the Romans asked.) Is a government «illegitimate» if, in a country with a population of over 25 millions, there exists at least one individual who is unhappy with it ? Or does it suffice that a (simple) majority support it, or should that majority be qualified in some way ? Or does «legitimacy» have more to do with the process by which the government came to power, and less with its popularity ? It seems to me that the Venezuelan experience offers a new window on these questions ; thus my frequent visits to this thread and the questions I pose, despite the unlikelyhood of my ever having the opportunity to visit the country. I am not convinced that Professor Fukiyama was correct in postulating the end of history ; nor do I think that we, in what you refer to as «so called [why so-called ?] industrialised societies», have yet created the ultimate model for social and political interaction. Perhaps the Venezuelan experience has something to teach us all ; it is, I suggest, too early to say whether the lesson will prove positive or negative or, as is usually the case, an admixture of both. I find it unfortunate that some, who by their efforts might be able to push it in a positive direction, seem rather disposed to do the opposite....

“why did you put my last name, Scruggs, in quotation marks?”

Because he thinks you are me.  He’s a conspiracy nutter.

Yes, the post on PDVSA speaks for itself.  Remember that the plan developed within PDVSA and the then-government in the 1990s was for an “apertura”, and opening to de-nationalize Venezuela’s oil resources and privatize them primarily in foreign hands.

Anyone who’s gotten this far on this blog already knows the responses that can be made to Mr. Boyd’s last post. I think this blog has pretty much run its course.
But I do have a question for Mr. Boyd, I’m at a loss to guess the reason for this: why did you put my last name, Scruggs, in quotation marks?

Bear with me here, this is a little dry, but I recently found this credit watch report on PDVSA, filed this week by Fitch’s bond rating services. Draw your own conclusions.

Fitch Upgrades PDVSA Corporate to ‘BB-’; PDVSA Finance to ‘BB+’
CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 23, 2006--Fitch Ratings has upgraded the local and foreign currency ratings of Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) to ‘BB-’ from ‘B+’. The rating of PDVSA’s export receivable future flow securitization, PDVSA Finance Ltd, has also been upgraded to ‘BB+’ from ‘BB’. In addition, Fitch has assigned PDVSA a ‘AAA(ven)’ national scale rating. The Rating Outlook is Stable. Both rating actions follow Fitch’s November 2005 upgrade of Venezuela’s sovereign rating.

PDVSA’s assigned corporate rating is constrained by Fitch’s ‘BB-’ foreign currency rating of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and is strongly linked with the sovereign’s credit profile. The linkage is based on the company’s nature as a state-owned entity, the shareholder’s ultimate ability to restrict PDVSA’s financial flexibility, and its increasing utilization of PDVSA’s financial resources for quasi-sovereign and fiscal, rather than commercial, uses. Currently, the oil minister and the PDVSA president are one and the same, further illustrating the government’s tight control over the strategy and resources of PDVSA. PDVSA’s Rating Outlook is influenced by three fundamental factors: political interference risk; vulnerability to cash flow redirection to the sovereign; and the company’s ability to attract private investment, all of which support the linking of PDVSA’s rating to that of the sovereign.

PDVSA has not yet filed its 2004 20-F and only filed its 2003 20-F in October 2005, illustrating in some degree the administrative difficulties still affecting the company after the PDVSA strike in 2002-2003. Positively from a credit prospective, PDVSA is estimated to have less than US$4 billion of debt today compared with its 2003 equity balance of US$37 billion of equity and 2003 EBITDA of US$8 billion. Results for 2004 and 2005 are estimated to be strong given the increase in oil prices since 2003. Fitch estimates that despite generating significant cash flow, PDVSA has underachieved its capital expenditure plan and significant financial resources are being directed toward government social spending.

In its 2003 20-F, PDVSA reported crude production totaled 2.5 MMbpd, down from 2.7 MMbpd in 2002 and 3.1 MMbpd in 2001, illustrating the impact of the PDVSA strike in 2002-2003. PDVSA management has stated that production has increased to 2.8 MMbpd level. However, estimates presented by various independent analysts and agencies, including the U.S. Energy Information Administration and OPEC’s Monthly Oil Market Report, suggest PDVSA production levels of 2.5-2.6 MMbpd, which seems more reasonable. It is important to mention that about 0.4 MMbpd of PDVSA’s production come from fields managed by private companies under operating agreements, and the Venezuelan Heavy Oil Strategic Associations located in the Orinoco Belt contributes with about 0.6 MMbpd to the national oil production.

While upstream crude output has recovered since early 2003, concerns regarding the sustainability of Venezuela’s production profile remains. Fitch had previously estimated PDVSA must invest approximately US$2-2.5 billion annually to offset pre-crisis decline rates of 22%. Fitch now estimates these rates may be somewhat greater, requiring increased investment just to maintain production.

In August 2005, PDVSA announced that it would increase national oil production to 5.84 MMbpd and refining capacity to about 4 MMbpd by 2012 as part of its US$76 billion investment program, of which US$20 billion is expected to be invested by third parties. PDVSA is expected to invest approximately US$5-6 billion during 2006, primarily focused on improving production and refineries; investment during 2005 appeared to be somewhat lagging the budget. Given the many uses of PDVSA cash and low leverage of the company, it is possible that PDVSA may seek to raise additional debt to finance its expenditures.

As noted, PDVSA’s capital-investment program calls for significant third-party investments over the ensuing seven years. The near-term appetite from potential sponsors and/or investors for Venezuelan risk is uncertain in the current environment. The Venezuelan government modified in 2004 the royalty rate initially given to the Venezuelan Heavy Oil Strategic Associations. In addition, the operating agreements have been converted to joint ventures as of Jan. 1, 2006, with PDVSA assuming majority ownership. In exchange for its new ownership in these projects, PDVSA could provide additional development opportunities for the projects, limiting PDVSA direct financial contributions. However, many of the details still need to be finalized over the next six months. Despite the many changes in the rules of the game in the Venezuelan energy sector, given high prices, the scarcity of world oil reserves and Venezuela’s proximity to major markets, PDVSA is ultimately expected to attract partners.

The upgrade to PDVSA’s export receivable future flow securitization, PDVSA Finance Ltd., is also primarily a result of the recent sovereign upgrade. Current outstanding debt on the program is approximately $380 million. Cash flow coverage for the securitization remains very strong with an upwardly trend up over the last year. Coverage levels over the last 12 months have averaged over 220 times (x) debt service obligations. Similar to the corporate rating, the rating of the structure is also influenced, although not directly constrained, by linkage to the sovereign. Structural protections, including the legal sale of future receivables and offshore payment mechanisms, help to reduce the risks of sovereign or corporate interference and therefore allow the structure a two notch differentiation over these ratings.

PDVSA, Venezuela’s national oil company, is engaged in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas; the refining, marketing and transportation of crude and refined products; and the production of petrochemicals, as well as various other hydrocarbon-related activities in Venezuela and abroad. The Venezuelan government is the company’s sole shareholder.

Fitch’s rating definitions and the terms of use of such ratings are available on the agency’s public site, http://www.fitchratings.com. Published ratings, criteria and methodologies are available from this site, at all times. Fitch’s code of conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, affiliate firewall, compliance and other relevant policies and procedures are also available from the ‘Code of Conduct’ section of this site.

Justin: Could you please respond to the question posted earlier?
Is he (Chavez) excessively centralizing power and leading Venezuela toward the construction of an authoritarian model (Peron, Castro etc), and do you consider the Cuban model something Venezuela should emulate? Secondly, what is your position on the following people; Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, Oscar Biscet, and Natan Scharansky?

Perhaps it’s worthwhile to use a hypothetical comparison to cross-examine Boyd’s strange claim that low turnout in the December 4 legislative elections signifies low popular support for the Venezuelan government. 

Suppose, for example, that Walter Mondale in 1984 were to pull out of the U.S. presidential race claiming that the electoral process couldn’t be trusted.  Following Mondale’s cue, most of his supporters would stay away from the polls to call into question the legitimacy of the electoral process.  Under such a scenario, what would be the incentive of Reagan supporters to show up at the polls?  Why would the average voter want to go through the hassle of going to the polls if he or she knew that his her candidate would win anyway? 

I can assure you that, under such a scenario, turnout would also be very low in the United States (it’s already quote low, especially in non-presidential elections).  It would be ridiculous, however, to equate the level of turnout --under such conditions-- to the level of popular approval of the winner of the election.

Now, as for Boyd’s assertion that nobody can trust the National Electoral Council’s turnout figures, I would invite Boyd to put on his thinking cap just this once.  If the National Electoral Council were in the business of just fabricating turnout figures to make the government look good, why wouldn’t it fabricate a much higher turnout figure than 25%?  I mean, when taken out of context, the 25% figure looks low.  Opponents of Chavez love to disingenuously point to the 25% figure --without providing the relevant context-- as some sort of evidence that Venezuela’s electoral process is broken.  So if the purpose of the National Electoral Council were to just fabricate turnout figures to make the government look good, they certainly would have fabricated a much higher turnout figure than that.

In other words, Aleksandr, your arguments just don’t make any sense.

My apologies, Henri Day, that I haven’t gotten around to answering your final question yet.  Unfortunately, my time is limited, but I will get around to answering your question soon.

Jonas, demonstrably, it is false to argue that the chavista constitution established health care and education as civil rights for the first time. For those rights were enshrined in the 1961 constitution:

Art. 55. La educación es obligatoria en el grado y condiciones que fije la ley. Los padres y representantes son responsables del cumplimiento de este deber, y el Estado proveerá los medios para que todos puedan cumplirlo.

Art. 57. Las obligaciones que corresponden al Estado en cuanto a la asistencia, educación y bienestar del pueblo no excluyen las que, en virtud de la solidaridad social, incumben a los particulares según su capacidad. La ley podrá imponer el cumplimiento de estas obligaciones en los casos en que fuere necesario. También podrá imponer, a quienes aspiren a ejercer determinadas profesiones, el deber de prestar servicio durante cierto tiempo en los lugares y condiciones que se señalen.

Further, Bolivarians is too vague a term that appears all encompasing of the pseudo revolution spearheaded by Chavez. It also gives the impression that many people are involved in the process, which is, I am afraid to say, completely inaccurate. As you know, the only person taking decisions of any relevance is Hugo Chavez. Best example the candidates proposed to the Assembly, hand-picked by the man.

Ergo Venezuela is no more democratic today than what it was say 10 years ago. Lots of elections does not mean lots of democracy, I can only hope you’ll agree. Replacing a bypartisan power-sharing model for an unaccountable power-hoarding militaristic mono-party regime can hardly make the case for increase in democracy, wouldn’t you agree?

M Henry Day, I think I am as entitled to my opinion of Chavez being illegitimate as you are of believing that whatever is taking place in Venezuela is good for us. Talking about the observation process, it is very telling that so late in the game, in light of the huge amount of evidence, statistics and facts available in the public domain, people in so called industrialised societies still think that Chavez is, first representative of left/socialist values -ignoring the militaristic nature of his regime- and second that his adventure is worth supporting.

RE: T.M. Scruggs 22-1-06 post.

The irony of what you described as the history of U.S. inteference in Latin elections is that the very word democracy has taken on more meaning in the South, in part because the citizens were forced to deal with the pseudo democracies installed by the U.S.

A quick reading of the Venezuelan constitution reveals that it has fortified representative democracy by introducing more citizen participation. The president and legislators can be recalled, the constitution amendment process is made easier, civil rights now include health care and education, etc. In short, contemporary electors are given more power to define the rules of the game, to modify their relationships to the state.

I am by no means starry-eyed about the actual practice of electoral politics here, (see my post about the MVR nomination process) but I hope that the Bolivarians are left alone to continue their noble experiment. To answer Cooper’s question, ‘what should the U.S. do?’, I say, do nothing, nothing at all.

Non Sequitur Mr. “Scruggs.” First of all the 25% comes from the institution everyone and its sister distrust in Venezuela, I am only one of them Venezuelans who don’t take whatever Jorge-Matic says at face value… Second when talking about boycott, since you claim you’re in the country, please do tell the reasons, the real ones, of the boycott. Third, Hugo Chavez, and infatuated apologists, like yourself, used to claim that the Bolivarian pseudo ‘revolution’ enjoyed a healthy 80% of support. Where were these people on December 4 2005?

Since you have an issue with Marc Cooper citing me as an independent, please provide evidence that I belong to any political parties of my country, not yours, or that I am in any way associated with the opposition.

Talking about Nicaragua and other places just demonstrates that, in the face of evidence, you’ve ran out of arguments vis-a-vis Venezuela.

Thank you, Mr Boyd, for the civility with which you inform those of us who don’t happen to live in the country of the basic principles on which you believe observation of events in Venezuela should rest ! While the present thread is not dedicated to talk of thee and me, I hope you will not object if I point out that your principles seem to entail drawing certain conclusions («illegitimate president», «rosy-tinted revolutionary glass») before the process of observation itself has been carried out. Fewer adjectives and ad hominem arguments might make it easier for those of us who don’t know you personally to view your postings with the degree of seriousness which they no doubt deserve. Otherwise, they risk evoking the response given by Queen Gertrude to Polonius : «More matter with lesse Art !»…

As whoever is still following this blog will note, both foreign Dec. 4 election commissions had criticisms and suggestions for future Venezuelan elections, and both validated the elecitons.  At no point do they declare that the winning candidates for the National Assembly are illegimate.  This is the same final conclusion of all foreign electoral observer delegations for previous national elections in Venezuela.

Mr. Boyd wrote: “Hugo Chavez’s hand-picked candidates managed to get less than 10% of the electorate’s support. Ergo Venezuela’s assembly is, as its president, illegitimate.”
As readers can see the vote total was credited at approx. 25% by the observer teams; pro-Bloque de Cambio (Bloc for Change, pro-Chavez) received over 90% of that vote, thus the candidates received over 22% of the vote at the least.  That Marc Cooper quoted Mr. Boyd as an independent, credible voice is one of the many places in his article that reveals a loss of seriousness of investigation and reporting.  All national governments recognize the current Venezuelan government and the validity of the many national elections in the past eight years, as much as the the current U.S. administration would love to successfully negate that mandate as they did in the southern cone in the mid 1970s with their own hand-picked leaders that could never get elected on their own.  Despite the fact that the result the U.S. government (and major multi-nationals) was not favored by a majority of Venezuelan voters, the presidential elections, the presidential recall referendum and now the national legislative elections are all considered legitimate by every government and world body.

It is important to put the last round of national polling here in broader geographical and historical perspective.  Pulling out pro-U.S. govt. candidates before they about to be trounced in national elections is a tactic that the U.S. has used before.  They did this in Nicaragua’s first free 20th cen. elections in 1984, though one candidate refused to go along and publically denounced all the meetings from the U.S. ambassador on down telling him what to do (Virgilio Godoy, PLI=Independent Liberal Party).  The U.S. government has no qualms, and a long track record of directly interfereing in national elections in other countries, however illegal (and immoral) their actions.  When Kirchner, Evo Morales, et al. approach reelection and the opposition looks like it is headed for a resounding defeat, as here in Venezuela last year, no observer informed with this history should be overly surprised if the same tactic is invoked.  Look up the statements repeated many time by George Bush the Elder leading up the 2nd free elections in Nicaragua in 1990 declaring that the elections would be illegitimate.  He and the U.S. State Dept. kept drumming in this position because the two Latin Am. polling companies had reported the Sandinistas would win the elections.  Pro-U.S. politicians and pundits in Nicaragua faithfully repeated this position.  However, these pollsters have a truly miserable track record in Latin America, and again they were off by about 25% and the pro-U.S. candidate won. Suddenly-- magically—the line changed 180 degrees from Washington, and by the same Nicaraguans would had declared the coming elections illigimate: now the election WAS legitimate after all. 

This tactic of U.S. foreign policy (dis)information can be translated: “legitimate” means “we got what we wanted”; “illegitimate” means “the candidate less favorable to our interests won.” Venezuela is only one in a series of instances where this tactice has been invoked, and with the successful mobilization of the majority population that has long been on the losing end of U.S. govt. and corporate domination, we can be assured that this tactic will be employed in the near future again in Latin America. Probably the next opportunity will again be Venezuela, as an anti-neo-liberal presidential candidate is more popular than any pro-U.S. corporate interest candidate on the horizon.

It would be VERY intersting to invite the same UE and OAS to send a proportionate number of observers to the national elections in the United States—there’s a report that’d be worth reading!  Imagine hundreds, thousands of observers fanned out into ghettos in major cities, just in Ohio and Florida for starters.  It would worth taping the ensuing “news reports” on FoxNews, the same network that has been and can be counted on in the future to continue to question national elections in the Third World that don’t ratify U.S. corporate allies, railing about other nations (imagine, the FRENCH!) daring to judge how we run our democracy.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

This would, of course, mean accepting the basic principle that vituperation is not an adequate substitute for reasoned argument and discussion...

M Henri Day, sensible proposition. Pls pass it along to the illegitimate president of my country, his ministers and those, who from afar and deprived of background knowledge, feel that they can insult, aggravate and disrespect people, just like that. Problems tend to have sources, look for the sources of the current deep hatred amongst Venezuelans. Revise our contemporary history, refrain from seeing things through the rosy-tinted revolutionary glass and contemplate criticising, based on facts and evidence, those on your side of the divide as you would the ones on the other.

Mr Boyd is to be thanked for posting the statements by the EU and the OAS observation missions, respectively. The conclusions I draw after reading them were that the elections were carried out in such a manner that the results reflected the will of those who chose to participate in the voting procedure. The election campaign itself reflected - and was marred by - the polarisation of Venezuelan society itself (easily confirmed by a visit to Mr Boyd’s website), but for this very reason, and despite such grave problems as the opposition’s decision, - instigated/supported or not, as the case may be, by the US government - to boycott the elections, a decision announced only four days prior to election day, despite the fact that its major complaints regarding balloting procedures had been successfully addressed, it strikes me that the elections themselves were a success, not least in that in most countries as sharply divided as Venezuela seems to be, political disputes tend to be decided by coups, rather than by electoral processes open to all parties....

The statements of the two observation missions end with recommendations regarding future election campaigns and procedures, as follows :

1) EU mission :

The legal framework that governs the electoral process must be harmonized with the constitutional provisions on the elections.

The National Assembly should appoint a CNE Steering Board composed of independent professionals of various extractions that enjoy the trust of all the sectors of society.

The prohibition of public funding to parties for the electoral campaign should be reconsidered. The electronic voting system should be audited by an independent institution.

The REP should be audited in conjunction with the ID register by an independent institution.

The CNE should launch as soon as possible training and civic education programs aimed at familiarizing electoral officials and the electorate with the electronic voting procedures.

OAS mission :

In the view of the Mission, democratic political coexistence will be possible only through a restoration of confidence. This requires building respect and mutual recognition through a frank, inclusive and good-faith dialogue.

This Mission considers that it would be highly beneficial for Venezuelan democracy if, through such a dialogue, government authorities, political parties and citizens could, in the near future, reach a new democratic consensus. The agenda for this dialogue could include such items as: the election of the CNE, the automated voting system, the electoral law, the Permanent Electoral Registry and the process of issuing identification cards, the development of a political party system with transparent financing formulas, the parliamentary election system to ensure proportional representation of minorities, and the strengthening of the principle of separation, independence and balance of powers—a basic principle of all presidential democracies. The Mission believes that the primary political responsibility to promote such a dialogue rests with the governmental authorities.

(It pleases me to note in particular the OAS stand with regard to «the development of a political party system with transparent financing formulas, the parliamentary election system to ensure proportional representation of minorities, and the strengthening of the principle of separation, independence and balance of powers—a basic principle of all presidential democracies». Perhaps the organisation could be convinced to serve as observer in the elections in the United States this year and in 2008 ?)

Perhaps those thread participants who reside in Venezuela or who otherwise have the opportunity to closely follow events there (Mr Boyd ?) could do themselves and us all the service of monitoring whether and to what degree attempts are made by the governing parties and the opposition to institute the recommendations and eliminate the problems mentioned by the observation missions ? This would, of course, mean accepting the basic principle that vituperation is not an adequate substitute for reasoned argument and discussion, even on personal websites - but that shouldn’t prove beyond the bounds of human ingenuity, should it ?…

I guess readers of this site are intelligent enough to see whether or not the claims made by me have any substance, based on the reports of the EU and the OAS. The interesting aspect is that Mr. Schruggs, who sounds a lot like Delacour, seeks to undermine my opinions by stating that I am rightwinger. If that’s the best argument he can put forth, well I guess I can be at ease.

Equally interesting is that the OAS and the Carter Center made a series of recommendations to the CNE on Sep 31 last year, yet none of them were implemented.

Now then, let us continue with the report of the OAS.

PRELIMINARY OAS OBSERVATIONS ON THE LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS IN VENEZUELA
Press Release

December 6, 2005 | The Electoral Observation Mission of the Organization of American States (OAS) witnessed, over the course of one month, the process to elect representatives to Venezuela’s National Assembly, which culminated in the voting on Sunday, December 4. On election day, the Mission deployed its 45 observers in 22 states of the country to observe the elections through a random sampling of polling centers.

As a result of Sunday’s observation, the Mission would like to underscore the climate of calm that was evident during the elections, as well as the adequate level of preparation and organization at the polling centers. It was verified that, as the National Electoral Council (CNE) had stated, the digital fingerprint machines and the electronic voting notebooks were not in use and the machines were disconnected during the voting. The certification of results was printed out before transmitting, and audits were done after the polls closed. The day ended with a participation level of approximately 25% of all potential voters.

Nevertheless, based on its direct observation on election day, the Mission would like to point out that in several polling centers it was noted that a significant number of voters showed they did not understand or had difficulties with the voting process. A good number of voters asked the poll workers or political party observers present to accompany them and help them cast their votes with the electronic ballot. Such practices could damage the secrecy of the vote.

In the majority of polling centers observed by the OAS, the polls closed between 5 and 7 p.m., even in several cases when no voters were in line, which was not in compliance with the schedule established by law. The decision was taken by the CNE leadership for weather-related reasons in five states, and in the rest of the country on the grounds that the polling centers should remain open for 10 hours. In practice, poll workers and members of Plan República were the ones who decided the time the polls would close. These circumstances helped to create uncertainty and suspicion. It is worth noting that the extension of the voting hours coincided with an intensification of the governing party’s campaign to increase participation in the final hours.

The Mission laments the public statements made by a high-level leader of the governing party that sought to coerce the participation of government employees. This statement was denounced by all sectors of the country.

In terms of the electoral process, throughout its work the Mission confirmed that mutual distrust constituted a central element of the electoral contest. This distrust was particularly evident between an important sector of the citizenry and governmental, electoral and party authorities; between the government and the opposition; between the government and the privately owned news media; and within the opposition parties themselves. A climate of polarization and political tension was also perceived.

In particular, the Mission has observed that there remains a distrust of the CNE on the part of a significant segment of the opposition. This was expressed in terms of criticisms about its origin and composition, the perception that the opposition has of partiality and lack of transparency in the CNE’s actions, as well as in relation to the controversial application of some aspects of election laws. Additionally, certain inconsistencies and gaps in the electoral law were observed, which reduced legal assurances and which suggest the need for a rigorous reflection on these laws.

Despite the important guarantees granted by the CNE, at the request of this significant segment of the opposition, this segment decided in the end not to participate in the elections. It is worth noting that the guarantees that were offered included the elimination of the digital fingerprint machines and of the great majority of the electronic voting notebooks, an increase in audits after the polls closed, the granting of additional space in the news media for electoral advertising, and the presence of witnesses and international observers in all phases of the electoral process.

Similarly, the efforts undertaken by the CNE in fulfillment of its mandate to automate the vote are worth mentioning. Nonetheless, given its complexity, the system requires permanent audits as well as technical and human safeguards, with the effective participation of all political parties, in order to generate the necessary confidence.

Electoral participation is what contributes to the strengthening of democracy and the legitimacy of representative institutions. It is up to the electoral authorities to generate the necessary conditions for the full participation of all sectors. Although the right not to participate is recognized, it is of concern that due to the withdrawal of the opposition, an important portion of the citizenry is left without representation in the National Assembly. Every democracy requires an institutional opposition committed to the electoral process, so that it can loyally participate in the democratic system.

During the election campaign, the Mission observed proselytizing activities on the part of high-level public officials, at the national as well as the state and municipal levesl, and an absence of strict mechanisms to control the use of public and private resources for political and electoral ends.

There was observed, among political actors, an aggressive and discourteous public discourse about the electoral system, which hampered the creation of a favorable climate in which to debate political proposals and to carry out constructive electoral campaigns.

In the view of the Mission, democratic political coexistence will be possible only through a restoration of confidence. This requires building respect and mutual recognition through a frank, inclusive and good-faith dialogue.

This Mission considers that it would be highly beneficial for Venezuelan democracy if, through such a dialogue, government authorities, political parties and citizens could, in the near future, reach a new democratic consensus. The agenda for this dialogue could include such items as: the election of the CNE, the automated voting system, the electoral law, the Permanent Electoral Registry and the process of issuing identification cards, the development of a political party system with transparent financing formulas, the parliamentary election system to ensure proportional representation of minorities, and the strengthening of the principle of separation, independence and balance of powers—a basic principle of all presidential democracies. The Mission believes that the primary political responsibility to promote such a dialogue rests with the governmental authorities.

The Mission thanks the governmental, electoral and political party authorities, as well as civil society, for the warm welcome it received during its stay in Venezuela.

Press contact in Venezuela: Javier Montes, Tel: 58 414 249 9554

Let the reports speak for themselves, shall we?

EU Election Observation Mission to Venezuela Parliamentary Elections 2005
Preliminary Statement

Caracas, 6 December 2005 | Following an invitation of the National Electoral Council (CNE) to observe the Parliamentary Elections (National Assembly, Latin-American Parliament and Andean Parliament) of 4 December, the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) was deployed in Venezuela on 07 November 2005. The Mission is led by Chief Observer Mr. José Albino Silva Peneda, Member of the European Parliament. In total, the EU EOM deployed 160 observers in 20 of the 24 states to follow and report on the electoral process in line with established EU methodology and the “Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation” adopted under the auspices of the United Nations in October 2005.

A Delegation of the European Parliament, led by Mr. Arunas Degutis, and including six MEPs, joined in the EU EOM on 1 December. This statement is issued before the process is completed; the EU EOM will remain in country until 21 December to observe the post-election period, including electoral complaints.

A Final Report will be issued in February 2006. The EU EOM wishes to thank the CNE, the Venezuelan authorities and all the other actors for the excellent cooperation and availability demonstrated throughout its stay in Venezuela.

Preliminary Conclusions

Wide sectors of the Venezuelan society do not have trust in the electoral process 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 monitored showed bias towards 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 a 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.

Preliminary Findings

Pre-Election Environment

The EUEOM takes note of the fact that wide sectors of the Venezuelan society do not have confidence in the electoral process and in the electoral administration. This standpoint, which has its roots in the high polarization that divides the Venezuelan society, became especially apparent during the Recall Referendum in 2004 as well as in the run up to these elections.

The disclosure of a database containing more than 12 million citizens’ personal data and their political preference (the so called “Maisanta” Program) expressed during the signature collection for the Recall Referendum generated widespread fears that this information could be used for intimidation purposes and undue influence on voters. This fact played a significant role in favor of the abstention.

The opposition parties focused their campaign on the perceived lack of neutrality of the CNE and alleged dangers posed to the secrecy of the vote by an automated voting system which was meant to include the fingerprint capturing devices.

Central electoral campaign themes such as economics and tax policies, the importance of social programs, the role of the private sector in the economy or environmental policies were missing from the political parties’ public interventions. The prohibition of state funds for electoral campaign purposes was often mentioned by parties as a factor, which impeded a more public and transparent campaign.

The use of state resources by pro-government parties to mobilize supporters was observed in Trujillo, Monagas, Anzoátegui, Carabobo and Guarico. Violations of the provision for public officials to take part in the campaign was observed in nearly all States and committed by almost all main political parties. The parties included quotes from local officials in their captions as well as pictures of officials in their campaign posters including in some cases, of the President. The violations observed in the last phase of the campaign were mainly carried out by pro-government parties.

Civil society organizations like Sumate and Ojo Electoral played, in different ways, a very important role in the elections. However, only Ojo Electoral sought and obtained accreditation to observe the elections.

In a context of mistrust and extreme polarization, the EU EOM acknowledges the efforts made by the CNE to increase the political parties´ confidence in the process. These measures included reviews of various elements of the automated voting process such as the software of the electronic voting machines, the fingerprint capturing machines and of the results aggregation system, as well as the extension of the audit paper trail to encompass the manual recount of the voting receipts in 45 % of the polling stations.

The discovery of a design flaw in the software of the voting machines, with the consequent remote possibility to violate the secrecy of the vote was dealt with by the CNE in a timely and adequate manner. The possibility of endangerment of the secrecy of the vote was evaluated by EU EOM experts as remote.

The breach of the secrecy of the vote could only be possible if the sequence of both the identification of the voters and the votes cast was reconstructed. This reconstruction would require access to three different dispersed sources of information by a qualified user. These sources are the memory of the voting machines, the memory of the fingerprint capturing devices and the entire code of the encryption key (that was divided among the political parties and the CNE) used in the system to protect the voting data.

The elimination of the fingerprint capturing devices from the voting process was a significant move aimed at restoring the confidence of the parties. It was therefore with surprise that the EU EOM took note at this stage of the withdrawal of the main opposition political parties from the electoral contest without any new additional motivation.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for the elections is composed of the Basic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation of 1998, the Constitution of 1999, the Electoral Statute of Public Power of 2000, the Basic Law of the Electoral Power of 2002. Due to the National Assembly’s inability to find a qualified majority on the adoption of a new Basic Law, crucial aspects of the electoral process have not been harmonized with the provisions of the new Constitution 1999.

These inconsistencies opened room for differing and contradictory interpretations of various aspects of the process (e.g. voter registration, CNE competences), and exemplified the already existing divide between opposing sectors of the society. The current composition of the CNE Steering Board is a contentious issue. Following the inability of the National Assembly to reach the required majority to elect the CNE Steering Board, the Supreme Court, availing itself of the extraordinary powers granted by the Constitution in case where the National Assembly is unable to take a decision, designated the Members of the Steering Board before the Recall Referendum. More recently, one of the members of the Steering Board was nominated by the Supreme Court under a procedure contradictory to the one used for the first extraordinary nomination of the Steering Board.

The system of representation in force in Venezuela is described as one of “personalized proportionality” by the Basic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation of 1998. This ambiguous definition is used to designate a mixed member proportional system. The use of the electoral technique known as Morochas, which allows the duplication of parties in order to avoid the subtraction of the seats gained in the plurality-majority list from the proportional list, certainly defies the spirit of the Constitution, but it is technically allowed by the mixed system of representation laid out in the Basic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation.

The principle of the automated voting system is enshrined in Art. 154 of the Basic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation 1998 and in Art 33, Item 42 of the Basic Law of the Electoral Power of 2002. The current development and applications of the automated voting process have however surpassed in various aspects the legal framework.

Election Administration

The National Electoral Council (CNE) is an institution with significant human and technical resources. The CNE technically administered the process well, and its logistical preparations for the electoral event were adequate. Its performance was however tainted by the accusations of bias and partisanship that have accompanied its work since the past Recall Referendum process. In the election preparations the CNE demonstrated a clear willingness to meet the demands of the opposition parties to increase confidence on the process. Among the main steps taken to reduce the opposition concerns over the automated voting process, the CNE increased the number of polling stations to be audited from an initial 33% to 45% and reduced the use of the electronic voter lists to 2%. However, this was perceived by the opposition parties as insufficient.

The security and transparency measures introduced in the automated voting process are in line with the most advanced international practice. The various types of system reviews put in place by the CNE represented and important opportunity to explain and review various aspects of the automated voting system to experts of political parties and observers. Apart from the paper trail audit on election day, there were four types of reviews that the EU EOM observed including of voting machines software and hardware, results aggregation software, voting machines assemblage and production, and election day simulation. Despite the fact that no proper audit procedures were agreed in advance, a significant disclosure of information was achieved. However, access to information for party experts could be further improved. The political parties were selective in presenting to the media the activities and the findings of the audit sessions.

The voter register ( Registro Electoral Permanente, hereinafter REP), has been the source of continuous debate and several allegations of illegitimate entries. This is not a novelty in the Venezuelan elections; however, the sharp increase of registered voters before the Presidential Recall Referendum cast serious doubts on the composition and entries of the most recent REP. These suspicions were heightened in the pre-electoral period by the refusal of the CNE to make available the address of the voters to political parties due to an unclear constitutional data protection provision. However, political parties were given sufficient access to the voter register. Structural and long standing problems in the REP are likely to exist, and can only be solved in conjunction with the revision of the Identity Card program which is the basis for the voter registration system.

Media Coverage

The Venezuelan media display a great diversity of political opinions However, considered individually, the main media outlets only exceptionally referred to the various political actors in a manner which could be considered both fair and balanced. Most of the private media tended to offer more space to the views of the political forces critical of the Government, and when expressing their political preferences, they often disregarded basic journalistic principles.

On the other hand, state-owned media should provide fair recognition to the views of all Venezuelans and therefore has strong obligations in terms of objectivity, fairness and impartiality. However, it did not fulfill these obligations. The tone of the coverage of opposition parties in the publicly owned media was significantly more negative than the one reserved to the parties in government. Furthermore, the intense promotion of government policies on the state media during the campaign worked as an indirect publicity of the parties in power. The excessive resort to cadenas (addresses to the nation simultaneously broadcast through all the nation’s electronic media) which proliferated in the days prior to the elections could represent a breach of the campaign silence.

The EU EOM notes that the frequent presence of the President on State TV and radio is an unusual practice and did not contribute to the improvement of the political climate. The Mission believes that the excessively inflammatory opinions encountered in much of the Venezuelan media, especially after the withdrawal of most of the opposition parties’ candidates, did not contribute to an informed and calm political atmosphere, but rather agitated further an already tense public opinion which seems to grow increasingly tired and cynical about politics.

The use of images featuring public officials for campaign purposes was widespread and must be condemned as a generalized, flagrant violation of CNE regulations on that matter. Furthemore, the excessive focus on parties and personalities given by the media in its coverage of the campaign has resulted in a striking scarcity of information about the platforms of the contesting parties.

Election Day

Polling stations opened on average between 7,00 and 8,00 am. The delays were mainly due to the late arrival of the staff and a general slowness in the opening procedures. In 70% of the polling stations observed there were missing polling officials replaced by political party agents, reserves or ordinary voters.

The presence of the armed forces of Plan República inside the polling stations was noted in 25% of the polling stations observed. This was contrary to the provision that allowed the security forces to be inside the voting centres but not inside the polling stations. The political party agents were observed in 70% of the polling stations visited. In 68 % of these cases there were only agents from pro-government parties. Domestic observers were present in 6% of the polling stations observed. Their presence was observed in 18% of the polling stations where the EU EOM observed the audit of the count.

The majority of the voters in the polling stations observed experienced problems with understanding the functioning of the voting machines and required assistance. In 41% of the cases observed there were voters unable to complete the process in the prescribed three minutes. This indicates both a lack of adequate voter information and training for election officials on the automated voting system. The assistance to the voters was often provided by the polling station staff, security forces and the political party agents, raising concerns about the secrecy of the vote. Campaign activities in favor of pro-Government parties were noted in the vicinity of a large number of the polling stations observed. The type of campaign activities observed included food distribution, cars with megaphones and posters, information stands and provision of transport for voters. Few cases of intimidation were observed, with party members asking voters to sign and thumbprint on a piece of paper that they had voted and who they had voted for.

The polling hours were extended by the CNE throughout the country. The motivation for this decision was the delays in the opening and the bad weather conditions. This led to confusion and allegations of attempts from pro-government parties to boost the turnout. The paper trail audit (manual recount) of the electronic count was observed in 75 different polling centers. Despite a lenghty implementation of the audit procedure, the results indicated a clear reliability of the results, with few cases of discrepancy observed between the number of voters marked in the voter register and those counted by the machine and between the paper receipts and the votes recorded in the voting machines. The general conclusion of the observers was that the voting machines seemed very reliable. The aggregation of results proceeded with high speed. The announced preliminary results cover almost 90% of the results. The preliminary turnout announced by the CNE is of 25%. However, there is no clarity on the level of invalid votes that oscillate between 5 and 10%.

Preliminary Recommendations

The legal framework that governs the electoral process must be harmonized with the constitutional provisions on the elections.

The National Assembly should appoint a CNE Steering Board composed of independent professionals of various extractions that enjoy the trust of all the sectors of society.

The prohibition of public funding to parties for the electoral campaign should be reconsidered. The electronic voting system should be audited by an independent institution.

The REP should be audited in conjunction with the ID register by an independent institution.

The CNE should launch as soon as possible training and civic education programs aimed at familiarizing electoral officials and the electorate with the electronic voting procedures.

For further information please contact:
Press Officer, Ms. Cathy Giorgetti, Tel. (+58) 0414 6857046
European Union Election Observation Mission to Venezuela 2005
Eurobuilding, Final Calle La Guairita, Chuao - Caracas
Office Telefhone: 212 993 8222
e-mail: info at eueomvenezuela dot org
website: http://www.eueomvenezuela.org

The post on 1/11 by aleksander boyd offers another set of statements that are too typical of what passes for reasoned discourse by the right wing and politically conservative forces in Venezuela: assertions that fly in the face of easily verifiable facts, even when buttressed by a host of outside observers like the large election monitoring teams last Dec. 4.  Mr. Boyd’s opinions here and on his website tend to be so far from what has and is actually happening here that at least it can serve as an example to other readers just how removed from reality is the Venezuela that the opposition portrays on TV and in print daily here.  I doubt many folks reading this, or any other blog, have the time or inclination to wade through the rather long statements by the election observation teams of the Organization of American States and the European Union.  The EU team, especially, was composed of members from politically conservative governments, but even so the facts were so clear that they came to conclusions that are almost the opposite of the opinions stated by Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd’s post reads, with my comments following:

“For the easily duped: the last election in Venezuela was on December 4 2005. Assemblymen/women were to be elected. In spite of the very aggressive official campaign;..”
--hardly.  if anything the campaign was a “sleeper.” It would have be much more lively, and more useful, if some of the opposition candidates had taken up the challenges for debates by many candidates on the reform (Chavez) slate.

“the misuse of funds and media by the Chavez regime;...”
--In fact, no significant violations by “the regime” were noted by either commission. 

“the violation to electoral legislation;...”
--In fact, no claims to that effect were made by either commission.

“irrefutable evidence that the secrecy of the vote was compromised;...”
--In fact, both commissions directly addressed this issue and stated exactly the opposite, that the secrecy of the balloting was secured as anticipated.  The only criticism by the commissions, especially by the OAS, was against the opportunism and plain dishonesty of the opposition.  The main conservative parties insisted in the elimination of the “capta huellas” ["catch the footprints"] part of the machines programming to eliminate duplicate voting by individuals. Although at the time neither commission saw this as a serious threat to secret balloting, nevertheless the National Electoral Commission agreed to eliminate this program.  The next day the 3 major opposition parties announced in national press conferences that all conditions were met for free and fair balloting.
Mysteriously, and just how many phone calls and visits from U.S. Embassy personnel later we may never know, exactly the same three national opposition leaders announced in national press conferences 48 hours following the previous ones that conditions suddenly were impossible for what they had described two days before as positive environment.  No details of exactly how things could have changed 180 degrees in 48 hours were, or have been forthcoming, besides the kind of non-factual broadsides on the par of this one of Mr. Boyd.

“intimidation and public threats to civil servants;..”
--The same commissions’ reports dismissed this charge. 
Those of us glued to the TV screen here had the chance to see one quite vocal MVR (pro-Chavez) politician rave on for 5 minutes, repeated many times on (right wing owned) TV, about how public servants need to go the polls if they’re serious about serving the public.  The MVR leadership immediately reprimanded her.  She was obviously overheated, even somewhat comical sounding, to the point that even hard-right Globovision reporting here portrayed the outburst more as a screwball exception than part of any broader campaign, which it wasn’t, as the monitoring commissions both stated. 

“illegal involvement of the army in the voting process;...”
--Again, not supported by the EU and OAS electoral reports.

“abnormal involvement of chavistas in the voting process...”
--In fact, not substantiated by either electoral commission.

“ -all of the above properly documented and duly reported by electoral observation mission of both the Organization of American States and the European Union-, “
--Simply not verifiable by either report. 
Both reports contained various allegations of irregularities, and both concluded that these were very minor and in no way compromised the validity of the Dec. 4 national legislative elections.

“Hugo Chavez’s hand-picked candidates managed to get less than 10% of the electorate’s support. Ergo Venezuela’s assembly is, as its president, illegitimate.”
--This is getting a bit ridiculous: both monitoring commissions agreed with the official statistics that total turnout of registered voters was just over 25%.

An interesting comparison is with the most recent national legislative elections in the U.S.:
U.S.:
35% total turnout,
multiply by 51% total voting Republican congressional candidates,
equals over 17% vote total for current U.S. Congresspeople supporting current national government.
Venezuela:
25% total turnout,
multiply by about 90% voting pro-Chavez candidates of various parties,
equals over 27% vote total for current Venezuelan National Assembly.

Mr. Boyd’s conclusion repeats the main goal by the right wing both here in Venezuela and in the United States:  the nonsensical pull-out by the opposition’s candidates, many of who were poised to win, was to delegitimize an election that was otherwise strongly verified by all impartial observers.  One can appreciate the right wing’s dilemma:  how can any opposition parties seriously hope to mount a believable program that speaks against the various social programs of the last eight years, when what is now the opposition had been in power and had the chance to produce similar initiatives since the oil boom prices of the early 1970s?

There were several attempts at creating disorder and a semblance of “ungovernability” here around the Dec. 4 elections: two oil pipelines were blown the night before, but quickly fixed, and other plans were discovered and derailed by the government.  We can expect more the same and other activities to do whatever it takes to not allow the Venezuelan electorate to freely choose it’s presidential candidate in the upcoming Dec. 2006 national elections, for the right wing faces the same lack of moral authority and dismal track record that it did before the last elections.  I feel the Chavista-led reform process here would be well served by a strong opposition candidate and a series of debates later this year: the more rational discourse there is, the more untenable will be the hyperbole and baseless assertions that currently typify opposition to the reform movement.