March 15th., 2004

The Electoral Coup

1. Constitutional Hall in The Supreme Court orders the calling of the RR.

2. The NEC violated the Constitution and principles of retroactivity; presumption of good faith; conservation of electoral acts; protection of legitimate trust; presumption of innocence and the hierarchy of norms.

3. The New York Times believes that Chávez adheres to rules of constitutional democracy.

4. Events in March question said affirmation.

5. Video communication has allowed people from diverse latitudes to witness scenes of barbaric repression –which only happened in The Southern Cone when “Gorillas” took power-.

6. Antecedents of the RR.

7. The NEC always blocked the possibility of holding the RR.

8. Now, aware of the number of gathered signatures, it wish to void them with extemporaneous norms.

9. The OAS and The Carter Center had attested to the fulfillment of the constitutional demands to call the RR.

10. The NEC maliciously invalidated over 800,000 signatures and said  on 2 March, that the number required by The Constitution had not been collected.

11. The NEC had carried out the true mega fraud.

12. The presence of The OAS and The Carter Center as observer during the recollection of signatures was a definitive factor.

13. “There are unquestionable evidences of the violation of human rights” says Human Rights Watch.

14. Similar statements by CIDH; Amnesty International and IAPA.

15. Victims of injury or torture fail to be examined by police physicians.

16. May God make The New York Times right!

In his last Aló Presidente Chávez denied he had political prisoners.  “They are prisoners of the Constitution,” he said smiling.  Whom now appears to be so is Chávez himself.  The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) in its Electoral Hall (EH), has dictated the call for a Revoking Referendum (RR).  According to Art. 297 of the Constitution:  “Jurisdiction of the contested election belongs to the Electoral Hall.”  Based in this norm, the Democratic Coordinating Group (DCG) appealed to this Court, requesting the annulment of the instruments used by the National Electoral Council (NEC) –for their being in violation of the Constitution- when they announced on March 2^nd  that, those asking for the recall had failed to get the required number of signatures stipulated in the Constitution.  The EH argued that the instruction following the submission of the signatures was in violation of numerous constitutional articles and elementary judicial principles:  irretroactivity; presumption of good faith; presumption of innocence.  That the legality principle and the hierarchy of norms were ignored, while prioritizing an internal, unpublished directive on regulatory norms about the gathering of signatures.  Through the procedure known as amparo cautelar they demanded that:  “the NEC be ordered to verify requests based in the existing judicial order at the time in which signatures were gathered.”  So proceeded the Hall:  it ordered that the verification of signatures from RR petitioners be conducted in keeping with norms dictated for the regulation of said gathering.

This petition cleared the vision conflicting players have of the Constitution.  Vice President Rangel said that it was a new coup d’état, “an electoral coup.”  Two of three members of the EH were rejected for being “open adversaries of President Chávez.”  The  (SCJ) ordered the EH to abstain from meddling in the revoking processes.

THE NEW YORK TIMES RECOMMENDATIONS

The New York Times, (03-09-04), advised the opposition in Venezuela to act in strict accord with constitutional norms, as Chávez –in its view- “himself adheres to rules of constitutional democracy.”

The editorial came out the very day in which Chávez granted the Deltana Platform to Chevron-Texaco.  The EH decision is a litmus test for the prestigious daily and for Chávez, because although the world perceives him as budding dictator, he also argues that all his actions are framed within the Constitution. 

Events this month of March belie said affirmation which the whole world has learned.  Video communications have allowed people throughout varied places to witness barbaric and repressive scenes as those in the Southern Cone, when military boots, helmets and machine guns were the “Gorillas” arguments to impose regimes of force.  The of inflection in the process of the “Bolivarian Revolution” is not surprising.  Repeatedly, Chávez declared  that his revolution  is armed –armed with tanks and rifles-.  These have been his response to citizens asking him to be part of an electoral process foreseen in the Constitution.

We grant significance to the editorial in The New York Times because it sustains a thesis, which if embraced by the international community, would debilitate Venezuelans confronting Chávez with great civic courage.  It might be deducted that as long as he abides by “rules of constitutional democracy” he can go on with his project –even when democratic values are not enforced and there is no respect for human rights.

Since Chávez came to power, the country became scenario of severe clashes generating a serious governance crisis.  The Venezuelan Case was diagnosed as a high intensity conflict, with violent signs and escalating potential bordering a bloody civil war.  The year 2001 was dramatically convulsed.  The OAS asked Gaviria to personally act in the Venezuelan crisis.  He would later admit that it has been the most dangerous conflict he has faced as Secretary General of this organization.  Gaviria suggested a government-opposition accord and early elections.

Towards the end of that year there was a general strike.  Early in 2002 there was an indefinite stoppage in the oil industry.  The country shivers from one to another end amid the sound and noise of pots and whistles by demonstrators.  Before the refusal of early elections, the opposition promotes a consultive referendum in accord with Art. 71 of the Constitution, by which, those matters of special transcendence might be subject of such referendum.  Two million voters requested to ask the citizenry if it agreed  /  disagreed to call for Chávez’s resignation.  The NEC accepted the petition and scheduled the referendum for February 2^nd., 2003.  The EH in the SCJ voided the NEC resolution and ordered it “to abstain from initiating / organizing RR electoral processes or other structures of citizenry participation in public affairs.”

In May 2003, The OAS, UNPD and The Carter Center to get the government to agree with the opposition on calling for the RR in accord with Art. 72 of the Constitution.  Towards this end, a new NEC had to be named.  This should be done by The National Assembly with the vote of  ¾ of its membership and in accord with Art. 296 of the Constitution, by which members of the NEC ought to be “persons not linked to organizations with political goals.”  The Assembly, with an official majority, abstained from naming NEC members.  Before the “institutional vacuum,” the SCJ took action and named three members of officialdom and two independent ones.

THE HAZARDOUS ROAD TO THE RR

Venezuela Today considered the convenience of underscoring the most unusual judicial incidences shaping and coloring the process of referenda.  The Supreme Court had decided that the RR should proceed beginning August 19^th  2003 just half way into the constitutional period.  The opposition presented 3,236,320 signatures of voters requesting the RR on August 20^th .  The first action by the NEC was to declare inadmissible the request, alleging that the signatures had been collected in an extemporaneous fashion for doing it out of time (too early).  On 25 September –the same year-, the NEC dictated new norms regulating recalls.  In accord with them, the opposition recollected signatures anew –on forms elaborated by the NEC- on security paper; in the presence of NEC officials; officialdom witnesses and foreign observers.  On 19 December, collected signatures –over one million- were submitted; 20 % of the electoral registry to allow the RR.  The opposition kept a copy of the minutes and forms delivered –duly signed by NEC officials-.

The NEC had a month to verify the signatures and state whether the RR should proceed.  It did fulfill the time frame.  Súmate –the technical organization- working with the opposition, rigorously examined the copies to cross-reference them with the electoral registry and validate them.  During the REAFIRMAZO, the Administration through one of its lady ministers, told its followers to take part by erroneously signing.  Súmate concluded that there were 3,100,000 signatures beyond reproach.  This coincided with the estimates by OAS, and Carter Center technocrats:  the constitutional demands for the RR had been met.

The NEC began to procrastinate in the presentation of the results.  Chávez and his entourage intensified the campaign about an alleged mega fraud.  On 24 February 2004,  the NEC issued a directive dealing with the signatures.  By this directive it was known of an internal memo –never approved by the NEC nor published in the Electoral Gazette-, assisting transcribers for the rejection of signatures.  Independent members of the NEC refused to approve the directive as it established different norms than those previously authorized towards the recollection and validation of signatures.  It was wrong to add others broadening the requirements.  In the application of the latter, while violating the principle of retroactivity, officialdom members of the NEC, announced on 2 March, that only 1,832,493 signatures had been validated.  The DCG declared that the true mega fraud was being enacted by the NE.  The Carter Center and The OAS issued a joint statement:  in careful diplomatic terms they attested their disagreement with the exclusion of petitions whose data had been written in by those collecting signatures, even when signatures and fingerprints were those of the petitioner.  “In the signature recollection centers visited by the OAS and Carter Center, they were able to attest to the good faith of the assistance rendered to petitioners –in recording their basic information- by recollection agents.”  In this statement, it was clear that the new rules had been utilized by the NEC to deny that the number of constitutionally-required signatures had been collected.  The NEC announcement shook the nation:  protests and demonstrations swept the country.  The most representative institutions made statements.  The Group of Friendly Nations and The European Union joined the parade.  Both independent NEC members threatened to resign.  The NEC said these figures were preliminary and that they were willing to dialogue with players.

CHÁVEZ:  A PRISONER OF THE CONSTITUTION

The press accredited in Caracas have informed on a daily basis the reality of political prisoners; armed aggression vs. the opposition with injured and dead; tortures; disappeared people and the varied modalities of psychological terrorism from security forces into which Chávez has incorporated agents from Cuban intelligence.  “There is evidence –beyond doubt- of human rights violations,” says Human Rights Watch; CIDH; Amnesty International; Inter American Press Society and whatever other human rights group everywhere.

Street demonstrations were smashed with seriously wounded and dead victims.  Public authorities failed to find evidence of said violence and ordered that demonstrators be indicted for disturbing the public order.  Judges were forced to order arrests.  Three of these –who ordered the release of the detainees for lack of evidence- were stripped of their judicial positions.  On his part, the Defender of the People estimated that security forces were merely doing their job with demonstrators and that they were concerned for the environmental damages by demonstrators.  Victims of injury or torture fail to get police physicians to assist them.  These are subject to severe threats.  There are no political prisoners, as those in jail are there by judicial order from militants in the official party who find them guilty –paradoxically- of deeds penalized politically.

It is in this reality that the sentence by the Electoral Hall occurs.  “Chávez Prisoner Of The Constitution.” Chávez “adhering to rules of constitutional democracy.” May God make The New York Times right!!!  It is now the yearning of Venezuelans.