The US-backed opposition pulled all available strings to derail Venezuela's legislative elections, writes Faiza Rady Following the four main opposition parties' pullout from Venezuela's legislative elections last week, President Hugo Chàvez's party the Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR) won 114 of the new National Assembly's 167 seats on Sunday. The remaining seats all went to pro-Chàvez parties. The opposition parties -- Acción Democràtica (Democratic Action), COPEI (Social Christian), Primero Justicia (Justice First) and Proyecto Venezuela (Venezuelan Project) -- who had boycotted the elections and thus effectively excluded themselves from parliament, then cried foul play -- claiming that the freshly-elected National Assembly lacked legitimacy because only 22 per cent of registered voters went to the polls. "From a multi- party parliament we pass to a mono-party parliament that does not represent the broad sectors of the population. Today a National Assembly is born that is wounded in its legitimacy," said Maria Machado, one of the directors of Sumate, a virulently anti-Chàvez opposition NGO that coordinated last year's failed recall referendum against the Venezuelan president. Chàvez was quick to dismiss the charges and denounce the Bush administration for being behind the opposition's schemes to destabilise his government. "Another conspiracy is being acted out against Venezuela, and I am not going to blame the dogs but the masters, the government of the United States," said Chàvez. He was referring to the fact that Sumate, like other contra groups, is funded by the $20 million the US government has generously granted the Venezuelan opposition over the past five years. The money is channelled by the International Republican Institute, which receives congressional funding through the National Endowment for Democracy -- a notorious CIA conduit. The International Republican Institute admits to training opposition cadres, political derailment being presumably on the agenda. Following the elections, Minister of Justice Jesse Chacon rejected the opposition's claim that Sunday's turnout had been particularly low, saying that previous legislative elections had even lower voter participation. In 1998, the social-democratic Acción Democràtica (AD) became the National Assembly's governing party with only 11.24 per cent of the registered vote, explained Chacon. And in 2000 Chàvez's MVR took over from the AD, with 17 per cent of the vote. Thus, Sunday's estimated 22 per cent turnout tops those of previous elections, giving this parliament greater -- not less -- legitimacy. The opposition parties justified their withdrawal from the political process on the basis of their lack of confidence in Venezuela's electoral authority, the National Electoral Council (CNE). The CNE was appointed by the Supreme Court, after the National Assembly failed to garner a two- thirds majority vote required to appoint the council. Following the CNE's appointment, the opposition charged that the council was "unconstitutional" because it was controlled by Chàvez supporters. However, as clarified by political scientist Gregory Wilpert in Venezuelanalysis.com, such criticisms "are of little value since it is the court and not the opposition that determines constitutionality." Still, the CNE bent over backwards to satisfy opposition demands for greater electoral transparency. Among other concessions, the CNE agreed to remove finger print scanners to protect voter anonymity, and -- as a guarantee against fraud -- the council also agreed to compare 45 per cent of ballot boxes nationwide with computer printouts listing voter participation. On 28 November, one week prior to the elections, The Electoral Observation Mission of the Organisation of American States (OAS) in Venezuela expressed their satisfaction with the voting system, and the CNE's compliance with opposition demands. "The mission is satisfied that the efforts of the political parties and the CNE produced important advances to generate confidence in the electoral process... and the current automated system is sophisticated and complex and represents an important advancement towards this end," reads the OAS statement, adding that " [opposition parties] expressed that save an extraordinary event, the guarantees offered to this date permit the elections to proceed as scheduled without any new requests." Did anything major happen after 28 November? On the surface, no discernible event explains the opposition's last-minute turnabout, with the exception of behind-the- scene US arm-twisting and manoeuvring. Both independent and Venezuelan government sources point the finger to the Bush administration's public support for the boycott. US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, for example, expressed his concern that the right to free and fair elections "is increasingly jeopardised in Venezuela", this despite OAS assurances of their confidence in the electoral process and the deployment of 400 OAS and EU observers in Venezuela's 24 provinces. The opposition's attempt to derail the legislative elections only forecasts things to come, says Chàvez, warning that until the presidential elections in December 2006 there will be further attempts to sabotage democracy in the country. Other more sinister possibilities also loom ahead. The US-backed opposition's boycott sets a dangerous precedent in Central America, opening the door to potential invasions by the US in other recalcitrant "renegade" nations such as Cuba, Bolivia, and Ecuador.
