Months before Venezuela’s opposition coalition called for abstention in Sunday’s presidential election, college student Ana Romano had already decided not to vote.
While volunteering as a witness in October’s election for state governors, Romano said she lost count of the number of times activists for the ruling Venezuelan Socialist Party walked into voting booths on the pretext of “assisting” voters — a tactic the opposition has said is illegal intimidation.
Romano said pro-government workers at the voting center in the rural state of Portuguesa also refused to close its doors at 6pm, as per regulations, keeping it open for an extra hour while Socialist Party cadres rounded up votes.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
Her experience illustrates why some in Venezuela’s opposition have said they will boycott Sunday’s presidential vote, despite anger at the South American nation’s unraveling under unpopular Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
“It was four of them against me and I was 20 years old: I couldn’t do anything,” Romano said.
She did not file an official report because the other poll center workers would not have signed it — and because there was no paper available to do so, Romano said.
“I don’t want to have anything to do with this upcoming election,” she said. “We’ve already made that mistake.”
Reuters could not independently verify details of her account. The Venezuelan National Electoral Council — the government body in charge of organizing elections — did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
Venezuela, a once-wealthy OPEC nation, is suffering hyperinflation and widespread food shortages as its economy collapses, leading hundreds of thousands to flee into neighboring countries.
Yet despite popularity ratings languishing around 20 percent, Maduro is expected to secure a second six-year term in his deeply divided country, in part due to low opposition turnout.
Some opposition members said that participation would be pointless in the face of efforts to tilt the playing field in favor of Maduro, a former union leader who was elected in 2013 after the death of his mentor, late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
They cited tactics ranging from the kind of small-scale tricks at the polls described by Romano to the detention of the most prominent opposition leader, Popular Will party national coordinator Leopoldo Lopez, the coercion of government workers to vote for Maduro and the heavy use of state resources in his campaign.
Many in the opposition said there are inadequate guarantees of a free and fair vote: They point to a ban on Western election observers.
The government has said observers would violate its national sovereignty.
The Venezuelan Electoral Observatory, an independent local election monitoring group, has also flagged problems, including an inadequate timeframe to update the electoral register and develop a network of poll center witnesses, and a reduction of real-time audits of results.
Washington, which has imposed sanctions on Maduro’s government, has said it would not recognize the results of Sunday’s vote.
Breaking the opposition boycott is former Lara State governor Henri Falcon.
Opposition leaders have said that Falcon — a former Chavez ally or “Chavista” — is a stooge who is only running to legitimize Maduro’s re-election.
Falcon, an ex-soldier and two-time governor, has said that they are ceding power to Maduro without a fight and insists he would win if discontented Venezuelans turned out to vote.
“So now I’m a ‘Chavista’ just because I have common sense, because I take a clear position and because I act responsibly toward my country?” Falcon said when asked by reporters about the opposition’s criticism.
Falcon’s camp was not immediately available for comment for this story.
Maduro and allies have denied that the elections would be unfair and have said the fractured opposition was beaten in October because its voters did not participate — an argument supported by statistics showing low turnout in its strongholds.
“We have an advantage, which is the strength of the people. That can’t be called an unfair advantage,” Maduro said last month.
Participation forecasts vary, but, in general, pollsters have forecast that the turnout for Sunday’s vote would be far lower than the 80 percent in the previous presidential elections in 2013, when Maduro narrowly defeated opposition candidate and then-Miranda State governor Henrique Capriles, who is banned from running this time.
One survey by respected pollster Datanalisis showed that the number of people who said they were “very likely” to vote — its most accurate indicator of how many people will participate — had fallen to close to 30 percent in March.
In the Caracas slum of La Vega, Jose Vasquez, 49, said the election would be too unfair to warrant participation.
“It’s like a game in which the referee is a family member of the other team’s captain,” said Vasquez, who was selling 40g bags of coffee and sugar on a small table in the street. “Why would I waste my time?”
During his 14 years as president, Chavez racked up repeated ballot-box victories thanks to his charisma and generous spending of Venezuela’s oil revenues — much of it on popular health and nutrition programs, as well as on his own electoral campaigns.
The opposition has cried fraud in the past without demonstrating evidence of it, including after a 2004 recall referendum that Chavez won.
However, October’s vote included one incident that some opposition sympathizers see as a tipping point: Election officials manually changed results at several voting centers in Bolivar State to tip the result in favor of the Socialist Party candidate, election center witnesses said.
The witnesses produced official poll statements from their voting centers showing that the number of votes for the opposition candidate was higher than those reflected in the National Electoral Council figures for the same centers.
The council — stacked with Maduro’s supporters — has never clarified the issue and did not answer reporters’ questions regarding the incident.
Maduro’s government has never commented.
More commonly, the opposition has complained of obstacles that reduce the likelihood of their supporters voting, but are difficult to classify as fraud in a traditional sense — such as last-minute changes to the location of voting centers.
In central Lara State, Alfredo Alvarez learned just days before the October vote that the elections council had changed his voting center — along with that of an estimated 700,000 Venezuelans in 200 voting centers in predominantly opposition areas.
Alvarez, a 62-year-old journalist, had to drive around the city of Barquisimeto for several hours, because he could not get a clear answer on where he was supposed to vote.
“I had to investigate: I had to go to five different voting centers. Who can vote under those conditions?” asked Alvarez, who said he ultimately cast his ballot in a polling center run by Socialist Party activists that had no opposition witnesses. “I’ve been voting since 1973, but I’m not voting in this election. Not under these circumstances.”
Election officials said the changes were necessary primarily because of security concerns, given that some of the centers were near sites of violent opposition protests. Those protests had ended nearly three months before.
Council officials were not immediately available to explain that discrepancy.
Additional reporting by Miguel Angel Sulabaran, Maria de los Angeles Ramirez and Vivian Sequera
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing