This afternoon, I received a call from Martin Vennard, who asked if I could comment on the legislative elections in Venezuela for BBC World Service, to which I agreed. We initially discussed the overall situation in the country, and then talked about the format of the show, called Newshour. When he mentioned that my counterpart would be Richard Gott, a pro-Chavez Englishman, I clearly stated that I didn’t understand the relevance of having a discussion about my country’s politics with someone who has neither a voice nor a vote in Venezuela’s affairs.
I must admit that Martin understood my perspective, and called me back later to say he could have me on the program alongside Eva Golinger. I happily agreed. He asked me to focus solely on the subject of debate—namely, the elections—without making personal attacks, which I agreed to.
As part of the discussion, this is a summary of what I remember saying:
Regarding my opinion on the opposition’s participation in these elections, in contrast with the supposed boycott of 2005: I said that the situation in 2005 should be viewed in context, since a sham election in Fila de Mariches—held in front of international observers—had shown that the secrecy of the ballot was compromised. Therefore, the opposition decided to withdraw en masse and leave the field open for Chavez. I added that, undoubtedly, participating this time would represent a shift, as any seat won is one that hasn’t been held for five years. At this point, I remember mentioning the necessity to participate and not to concede ground, give or take a few words.
Concerning the issues on which the opposition focused their campaign—such as insecurity, unemployment, and power outages—instead of engaging in anti-American rhetoric with the Chavistas: I commented that, fortunately, the opposition focused this time on matters that affect daily life for the population, rather than getting into a back-and-forth with the Chavistas over absurd and non-existent issues.
On the number of seats the opposition could win today: I replied that it could be around one-third, enough to ensure representation in a framework where the Chavistas would continue to do as they please without needing to negotiate with the opposition.
Then came the intervention of Eva Golinger, who was introduced as a human rights attorney. Golinger claimed that the system being used this time is the same as in 2005, whose security has never been questioned, and that it’s the best in the world, validated by all the election observation commissions that have visited the country. She added that the election day was proceeding normally, with massive participation and 165 international observers monitoring the elections. She declined to comment on my prediction regarding the number of seats the opposition would attain.
I must admit, I couldn’t contain myself when Golinger said that the safety of the Smartmatic machines had never been an issue. One of my team members reminded me that we had agreed I couldn’t refute Golinger’s comments. Fair enough. And since the goal is to discuss the topic, not the speakers, I would like to pose a few questions to Eva Golinger:
Who are those 165 international observers?
Is any of them officially representing the European Union, the Organization of American States, or the Carter Center?
What authority has stated that Smartmatic machines are “the best system in the world”?
Why did the CNE not invite the European Union, OAS, or Carter Center to endorse the results produced by the so-called “best voting system in the world”?
How many of the recommendations made to the CNE by international election observation commissions have been implemented?
I publicly invite Golinger to discuss this topic.
The entry 26S on the BBC first appeared on El Faro del Morro.