With the eyes of the world on the race for the Venezuelan presidency, 700 monitors from the United States, the Organization of American States, the European Union, the Middle East and Africa met in Caracas last week to observe the presidential election up close and to see if it was the real thing.
As soon as a group of judges invited to be international observers hit Venezuelan soil, even before we left Simon Bolivar International Airport, we were cornered by some stylish but seething Venezuelans who themselves were returning from visiting New York. One, a former banker, was breathless with fear that armed Chavistas would be shooting up the airport. Another sputtered, "Welcome to Iraq!"
But their passion would prove to be no match for the passion of the supporters of President Hugo Chávez as he was challenged by Manuel Rosales, governor of the oil-rich Venezuelan state of Zulia. (Rosales was generally referred to simply as "the opposition.") While voting is voluntary in Venezuela, a right guaranteed by the Constitution, all but 1.1 million of 16 million people over the age of 18 are registered to vote. There are 11,000 polling centers around the country, even in local jails. In the end, 70 percent of the population exercised their franchise. The only group with minimal participation were 18- to 24-year-olds, most of whom have neither registered nor shown much interest in the process.
The electoral process in Venezuela has evolved from a system of choosing by color-coded cards to using yellow No. 2 pencils to state-of-the-art electronics. With 99.96 percent of the system automated, all political parties, the government and the opposition have approved the technology and the multiple methods of cross-checking and backing up data; there is overall agreement that the margin of error is insignificant.
The process involves registration by national identity card; in heavily trafficked voting centers, there is electronic thumb-printing upon entry and reprinting in a tally book on exiting. At electronic voting machines, the actual vote is cast by pressing a circle next to the candidate's name, photo and party of choice. The image of the chosen candidate appears on a screen that is surrounded by cardboard assuring complete privacy. Under the candidate's picture, the voter is asked to press Si or No, indicating if that is the correct vote. If the voter so certifies, a piece of paper–the elusive and much-discussed paper trail–is issued directly to the voter, who then deposits it in a box. The final step is dipping the pinkie-finger into bluish-purple ink to indicate that a vote has been cast. This finger-painting establishes voting in a manner similar to the heralded election in Iraq.
Some opposition witnesses in Venezuela complained that the ink could be removed with Clorox, thereby defeating the purpose. However, that was not a widely accepted criticism as there was no evidence that voting could be accomplished by the same person more than once. In fact, the complexity of the process–and the long lines at the polls–would not lend themselves to that possibility. Still, some critics suggested before the vote that if Chávez won, it would indicate fraud. Rumors circulated that T-shirts bearing the word "Fraud" had been printed weeks in advance. Others reported widespread purchase of weapons by the opposition in preparation for postelection protests. Mainstream newspapers ran unsigned full-page illustrations of rifle-bearing children alongside Fidel Castro.