An article on Skwawkbox makes some eyebrow-raising claims about the validity of elections in Venezuela:
claims that Venezuela’s election was rigged and that right-winger Juan Guaido’s self-proclaimed presidency is therefore somehow valid, simply do not stand up to any kind of scrutiny.
source: https://skwawkbox.org/2019/01/28/video-neutral-election-observers-explain-venezuelas-world-class-election-system-is-unriggable/
This is what is known, in technical terms, as bollocks.
I’m dealing here with the narrow claims that Skwawkbox makes about the (I presume) presidential elections of 20th May 2018. None of that should detract from the appalling situation in Venezuela, or the Maduro regime’s culpability for the situation. The narrow claims that Skwawkbox makes about recent elections being legitimate are, I think, instructive.
The technical arrangements for elections in Venezuela are, indeed, impressive. The system is provided by Smartmatic. Smartmatic’s parent company is SGO, whose chair is none other than Mark Malloch-Brown, the former deputy secretary general of the UN and foreign minister in Gordon Brown’s government. Smartmatic are rightly proud of their achievements in Venezuela.
In a post linked to from the one at hand, Skwawkbox link to an article on the Forbes Leadership Forum setting out how good the Venezuelan election system is. Unfortunately, that article is from 2013. Things have changed since then.
Smartmatic are less happy with the 2017 Venezuelan elections.
It is, therefore, with the deepest regret that we have to report that the turnout figures on Sunday, 30 July, for the Constituent Assembly in Venezuela were tampered with.
source: https://www.smartmatic.com/news/article/smartmatic-statement-on-the-recent-constituent-assembly-election-in-venezuela/
Indeed, thereafter, Smartmatic stopped working in Venezuela.
After 15 years of service and 14 elections assisted providing a secure and auditable voting system, Smartmatic closed its offices and ceased operations in Venezuela.
source: http://www.smartmatic.com/news/article/smartmatic-announces-cease-of-operations-in-venezuela/
Why did Smartmatic, after a long and successful history in Venezuela, stop working there?
The reasons for the closure are widely known. In August of 2017, after the elections to the National Constituency Assembly, Smartmatic publicly stated that the National Elections Council had announced results that were different from those reflected by the voting system. This episode lead to an immediate rupture of the client-provider relationship.
source: http://www.smartmatic.com/news/article/smartmatic-announces-cease-of-operations-in-venezuela/
In short, despite the use of impressive election equipment, it was still possible for the elections to be rigged. The 2018 elections were not even conducted with Smartmatic there to audit the process; nor were the regional and municipal elections of the fourth quarter of 2017.
It took a few minutes on Google to find this information. I question why Skwawkbox has published an article claiming that the Venezuela electoral system has integrity – indeed, that “its mandate is far more foolproof than governments in the UK and US can currently claim” – without mentioning that the company providing the election machines has said that an election was rigged even though its kit was being used, and has pulled out of the country because the elections are manifestly unfair.
In case there is any doubt, the Venezuelan National Electoral Commission (CNE) currently says that they are using Smartmatic technology.†
Who is maintaining and setting up these machines? Who is verifying that it’s all done properly? What are the audit procedures? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How do we know that the fraud, identified by Smartmatic, that was perpetrated at previous elections was not repeated?
In case it needs clarifying, the company that provides the election machines has said a previous election was rigged, and has pulled out of the country. However, the integrity of the democratic process relies on more than just counting votes, and the legitimacy of a regime relies on more than just having been elected.
I was going to put here a list of the various outrages against democracy and human rights committed by the Maduro regime – the fraudulent elections, the imprisoned opposition leaders, the abrogation of the National Assembly’s powers, the removal of government critics of Maduro, the prevention of opposition parties from contesting elections, the extra-judicial killings. The information, for anyone who cares to find it, is freely available. There is a useful briefing paper from the House of Commons library; I found the timeline of political developments particularly useful. You could follow what the UN OHCHR or Amnesty or Human Rights Watch say.
To put such a list would be pointless.
It’s pointless, because Skwawkbox either does not care about reality, or has chosen to ignore it in service of its political aims. It is perfectly reasonable to say that there should not be a military intervention by foreign powers, and particularly not the United States, in Venezuela. It is defensible to say that there should be no intervention of any sort, and, again, particularly not by the United States. You could even say that Juan Guaidó has acted wrongly.
That is not what Skwawkbox has said. In its final comment, the editor of Skwawkbox says
The evidence is clear that the Establishment is selling politically-motivated snake-oil.
Maduro’s government may be imperfect, but its democratic validity is beyond question – and the process that gave it its mandate is far more foolproof than governments in the UK and US can currently claim.
source: https://skwawkbox.org/2019/01/28/video-neutral-election-observers-explain-venezuelas-world-class-election-system-is-unriggable/
Maduro’s government is not ‘imperfect’. It is a dictatorship that has reduced its population into penury and hunger.
Its democratic validity is not beyond question; the imprisoned opposition figures, the abuses of human rights, and the flood of refugees from Venezuela are testament to that.
The process that gave Maduro’s government mandate is held to be flawed by the company that set the system up.
None of this matters to Skwawkbox. The information is readily available, but they choose either not to look for it or to ignore it. Criticising the Maduro regime in Venezuela does not make one a neoconservative or liberal interventionist or even mean that you’re proposing a particular course of action. Skwawkbox are not criticising other people’s solutions to the crisis in Venezuela; they are acting as apologists for the Maduro regime by giving a false impression of the reliability of the process by which Maduro was most recently elected.
They are ‘selling politically-motivated snake-oil’.
† the first two paragraphs of the article read in English
“The voting system in Venezuela is totally automated and can be audited through all of its phases. In 2004, Venezuela became the first country in the world to hold a national election with machines that print the vote validation. Recently, in 2012, Venezuela returned to set the pace when it held the first national election with biometric authentication of voters before activating voting machines.
The electoral technology’s provider is the multinational, Smartmatic, which was chose in 2004 after having scored the highest results in system security and auditability compared to its competitors”.
good call DLC
Thanks 🙂