London, March 3, 2012 | After the latest presidential election, the electoral map of Venezuela was looking very red. Out of the 73,129 registered voters in Amazonas state, 78% voted for Chavez. In Bolivar, of 785,924 registered voters, 68.8% supported Chavez. Among the 1,960,118 Maracuchos registered, 51.5% voted for Chavez. And of the 1,452,985 Caracas residents, 63% went with the ailing leader. Seeing the map is quite worrisome, and for that reason, I genuinely fear what might unfold in October. Eljuri recently announced the results of the new census: 27,150,095 Venezuelans counted. Of those, 18,197,344 are registered in the REP. This means that roughly 67% of Venezuelans are eligible to vote.
When was the last time an independent audit was conducted on the REP? How can we be sure that these 18 million people are actually real individuals living where their REP data claims?
My wife, who rarely comments on political matters, told me recently: “What you wrote about the futility of the primaries is irresponsible. We must vote for whoever becomes the opposition candidate. Anyone is better than Chavez.” She’s got a point, and while I admit I went too far by saying I wouldn’t vote in the primaries or in October, I still explained my reasoning to her.
In the last presidential election in 2006, the opposition had no table witnesses in 40% of the centers. Leopoldo Lopez told me this days after the election in a meeting with Benigno Alarcón. That was equivalent at the time to about 12,000 polling places without opposition representation. 12,000 places where it’s unclear whether what the Chavez-led election ministry reported was an accurate reflection of reality. Some people believe the figures published by the CNE. Others want to believe them. I do not belong to either group. I would prefer that all nationwide results be validated by witnesses from both sides to ensure everyone is satisfied.
Parish Francisco Aniseto Lugo: 99.7% of voters chose Chavez in 2006. Manuel Renaud: 96%. Santa Rita de Manapire: 91.5% voted for Chavez. Florida (Edo Portuguesa): 92.7% pro Chavez. San Miguel in Boconó: 93.9%. Tuñame in Trujillo: 90.6%… I can already hear some arguing: “But that area is remote; only a few people vote there…” Yes, a few here, a few there, and then Chavez suddenly garners 7 million votes. The troubling part is that we don’t even know if those few actually exist or if they truly voted for Chavez. And that worries me. Opposition candidates are often overlooked in rural Venezuela. We already know Chavez will have a tough time stealing elections in the larger cities (remember 2007 and the parliamentary elections). But what about the so-called “remote” areas?
There lies the crux of the matter. Until I see the MUD announcing who will oversee the integrity and reliability of electoral results in rural areas (name and surname please), I won’t be at ease. And let’s not even mention the votes of thousands of Venezuelans living abroad: our votes aren’t even counted.
Therefore, I summarize my position: elections? Sure, but they must be conditional, not like sheep to the slaughter. Conditional. Knowing that the state is completely against us. Conditional. Ensuring we have witnesses present at all voting stations nationwide. In every single one. Rural Venezuela, south, where nobody pays attention, holds, more or less, 7 million votes. It reminds me of Alejandro Toledo, who faced circumstances similar to the opposition against an administration almost as criminal as Chavez’s. And he won. Forced the game’s hand. He made Fujimori practically steal the election, leading to the OAS declaring him a dictator, illegitimate.
The same approach should be applied to the ailing leader if he reaches October. Elections can be won. But winning them requires much more than just wishing. We need to work, and the work we cannot be prevented from doing is safeguarding the votes everywhere. Only then will we know if Chavez wins or if he steals the elections.