Issue #193: Venezuela's Democratic Backslide and how to Rig an Election
Maduro lost, and everyone knows it
On July 28th, 2024, voters in Venezuela went to the polls for their Presidential election. The contest was considered a major test for the nations dictator, Nicolás Maduro. While Venezuela is not one-party state like other authoritarian regimes, the abuse of power to tilt electoral results has resulted in the nation’s elections being considered neither free nor fair. Nevertheless, a coalition of opposition forces was united to contest the election and put Maduro in a spotlight if/when he decided to rig the vote. Independent polling showed Maduro with support hovering in the 30s at most, losing badly to opposition candidate Edmundo González.
Despite this, the results reported by the government have claimed Maduro secured a “modest victory” of 51% to 43%. This announcement came after most international observers were barred from the nation; and the Carter Center, one of the few invited, openly quested the results. Opposition leaders meanwhile have pointed to collected data showing a landslide for Gonzalez. In the days since the vote, a large majority of nations offering an opinion have said they don’t recognize the results. Venezuela meanwhile has largely seen support from other authoritarian states or those with weakened Democracies.
The situation is currently developing in Venezuela. The government has not released any polling or district level voting data, and their initial reports were considered statistically impossible. Protests and riots have continued across the nation since the results were announced.
So how did we get to this point? To answer this, I want to use this article to look at the democratic backsliding that has occurred in Venezuela since the early 2000s; starting with Hugo Chavez and then moving into Maduro. The current authoritarian state did not jump up over night. Instead, it was a gradual eroding of democratic norms.
Venezuela under Hugo Chavez
Up until the 1990s, Venezuela was considered one of the strongest democracies in South America. However, despite this and its oil wealth, mismanagement and corruption would still lead to a nation with large poverty issues and lack of trust in government. With the government undergoing austerity measures to secure foreign loans after an economic downturn, public anger exploded; leading to a failed 1992 coup attempt; led by Hugo Chavez. This coup also came after government forces had so brutally cracked down on protestors that it killed hundreds if not thousands of people; leaving many to view the coup in more favorable light. The coup failed, but Chavez used his popularity among disaffected citizens to win the 1998 Presidential Election; which came after several more years of the ruling parties not dealing with the major social and economic concerns of the country.
Chavez was a strongman, this cannot be denied, but his economic policies played well with a population that was over 50% in poverty when he came to power. He showed little regard for Democratic institutions, but by all accounts won his elections freely. I think this video covers the full view of Chavez’s rise, the conditions that allowed him to rise to power, and his actions as President.
Of the course of his reign, Chavez would maintain a strong base of support and win several elections. However, he also worked to undermine the democratic systems; using the powers of the government to put pressure on opposition forces and elevate his supporters. He worked to repeal term limit rules, shut down opposition press, and generally see the nation slide backward on democracy scales. In 2007, voters rejected a referendum that would have expanded his powers. Despite this, Chavez would weaken institutions to eventually secure the broad authoritative power he desired.
Under Chavez’s reign through the 2000s, the Democratic institutions of the nations were weakened. Chavez’ administration was also filled with plenty of corruption and mismanagement. However, his administration still did more practically for the impoverished citizens than the former ruling parties ever had, leading to him retaining his bases of support among the poor. His personal charisma also aided his popularity.
It is easy to imagine a further erosion of democratic governance under his reign, but before this could happen, Chavez would die of cancer in 2013. With his passing, his vice President, Nicolás Maduro, Chavez’s preferred success, assumed the Presidency. It would be under Maduro that the nation’s already weakening democracy would slide further toward authoritarianism.
The Rise of Nicolás Maduro
When Maduro assumed the Presidency in 2013, he was already sitting on an economic timebomb. For any credit Chavez deserves for aiding in poverty, he’d also done little to fix the broad economy of the nation. The country relied almost entirely on oil prices for its revenue and the nation never built a proper reserve of funds or diversified. When oil prices fell in 2013, a massive economic spiral occurred in the nation; leading to inflation, shortages, and mass exoduses from the nation. The economic collapse was considered worse than the ones from the 1990s that led to the failed 1992 coup.
Maduro never had a strong base of support to weather this economic crisis; nor the charisma to sway voters. He’d won a April 2013 special election by just 1%, with the opposition questioning the legitimacy of the results. Even if we assume Maduro had won it fair and square, this still showed a drop in support for the ruling party. In 2006 Chavez had won 63%, then just 55% in 2012. Maduro, meanwhile, was little known before taking the office and many of Chavez’s backers did not give him the benefit of the doubt during economic hardships. A good summary of events can be seen here.
Maduro held office thanks to strong support from the military. As he clung to power, he used increasing authoritarian tactics to stifle the embolden opposition block. As the economic crisis in Venezuela got worse, again driven by worldwide oil prices, Maduro clung to increasingly anti-capitalist and anti-foreign rhetoric to frame the problems entirely as a global conspiracy against a left-wing nation. This meant no international help would come, and as Maduro further cracked down on his population, sanctions on the country would only make things worse.
It must again be stressed the sanctions, which no doubt make the situation worse (and I’m hardly an expert on their value), don’t change the fact the situation in the country was already dire well before then. Maduro, instead of trying to restructure the nations economy and systems, has made it worse as he clings to power.
Then, in 2015, the opposition forces won a majority in the parliamentary elections. Rather than work with the new majority, Maduro sought to undermine it as much as possible. The lame duck legislature worked to stack of the courts which then ruled to strip the assembly of much of its power. This led to waves of street protests and critiques, which continued through 2016 to 2017. Then, Maduro organized a vote for a Constituent Assembly, which would be elected to re-write the Constitution. Opposition forces boycotted this vote and turnout was only an estimated 20%. Following this election, increased arrests of opposition leaders occurred and Maduro worked to crack down further heading into the 2018 Presidential campaign.
In the 2018 Presidential campaign, opposition forces, still in control of a weakened National Assembly, boycotted the vote due to the authoritarian moves by Maduro. This included the barring of several candidates, arrests of activists, and state controlled media being heavily in the Maduro camp. This boycott allowed Maduro to easily “win” against token opposition in a low turnout contest. Following this, the National Assembly refused to recognize Maduro’s election and instead proclaimed Juan Guaidó, the then-President of the Assembly, as the acting President o the nation. The United States and many western democracies viewed Guaido as the legitimate ruler of the nation; the only person with something close to a democratic mandate.
This whole saga led to dueling claims of power in the nation, which was becoming increasingly rife with crime and poverty. Millions would flee to other nations, leading to a massive refugee crisis in South America and up through to the US/Mexican border. Maduro, meanwhile, abandoning any real left-wing policies and instead just using leftist rhetoric, clung to power.
Competitive Authoritarianism to Dictatorship
Maduro continued to cling to power, often using sanctions and western governments as a scapegoat for his authoritarian tactics and economic mismanagement. Elections continue in the nation, but often with boycotts or strong arm tactics, and amid a massive refugee crisis that has seen millions flee the country. Local elections in 2021 were marred with intimidation, boycotts, and credible claims of ballot rigging. Turnout numbers were inflated to give the air of legitimacy.
Venezuela stands currently as one of many nations that have elections but are considered broken democracies or flat out rigged democracies.
A good rundown of Venezeual’s slide can be read here. In that article, political scientist Steven Levitsky, author of How Democracies Die, highlighted that Venezuela under Chaves and early Maduro was “competitive authoritarianism” - also known as a hybrid regime. In these systems, the ruling party abuses its powers to win, but elections occur and the potential for change exists. However, its been argued, I think clearly, that Maduro has further taken Venezuela into flat out rigged votes; no more real competition. The article also highlights how Maduro has abandoned any notion of the Chavez-style socialism, instead focused entirely on maintaining his own power, and in exchange buying support from businessmen and industries.
Currently, according the Economist Democracy Index, Venezuela ranks 142 in the Democracy scale, just two rungs higher than Russia. A score of 10 is perfect, and is based off several criteria. Venezuela’s current score is 2.31; which is notably down from the 5.0 is was just back in 2015.
Compare the Democracy Index with that map of who recognizes the results of the 2024 vote and you will see a pattern. Notably the lone South American country to recognize Maduro’s recent “win” was Bolivia, a country in the hybrid regime category and has likewise seen its democracy score slide with time.
A Last Great Democratic Push?
With Maduro’s increasing authoritarianism, it seemed unlikely the 2024 election would be anything even worth watching. However, events in 2023 showed the opposition was determined to make a real push to oust Maduro at the ballot box; or at least put a greater spotlight on the rigging of votes. In 2023, the Biden administration agreed to lift some of the most serious sanctions on the country in exchange for promises to hold a free vote. While politically controversial, this was essentially a “foot off the gas” moment to see if Maduro would play ball. Sanctions can always be re-started.
In October of 2023, the opposition forces, under the banner of the Unitary Platform, held primaries to decide their nominee. These primaries were held independent of the election commission, and were marred by violence and intimidation from the Madoruo forces. María Corina Machado, the popular opposition leader, easily won these primaries, despite the fact she was already ruled ineligible to run for President by the Maduro government. This ban on running would hold and as a result the US eventually brought back several sanctions.
Then in late 2023, Maduro announced a plan to ANNEX part of western Guyana, the nations neighbor. Why was this? Well the official reason was an argument that old treaties meant that portion of Guyana belong to Venezuela. The real reason is oil discoveries in the area. Maduro needs money and he needs a distraction from his own failures. Yes this can be viewed similar to the Putin invasion of Ukraine. A good backstory is here.
In December 2023, a referendum was held on the annexation. In a low turnout race with a guarantee of rigged votes, a supposed 98% supported the annexation. No one believed these results. Then following the vote, the the government issued arrest warrants for several opposition leaders, claiming their boycott efforts for the referendum amounted to treason. The annexation is still on pause, as Maduro moved to focus on the presidential election.
The election campaign was marred by constant repression, sparking the re-imposition of sanctions. While María Corina Machado was officially barred from running, the opposition nominated diplomate Edmundo González in her place. However, Machado was the main figure on the campaign trail. Through this, violence and intimidation were a common occurrence, and Maduro warned of a civil war if he lost.
“The destiny of Venezuela depends on our victory,” —— “If we want to avoid a bloodbath, or a fratricidal civil war triggered by the fascists, then we must guarantee the biggest electoral victory ever.”
One would think Maduro knew he would lose a fair vote, as independent polling showed the opposition with support in the mid 60s and Maduro down in the 20s or 30s. However, everyone knew ballot rigging was a possibility. The question was if he could rig it enough to be in any way believable. On top of this, the opposition made plans to ensure they could offer up tangible election results. I’ll delve into that in a minute. In addition to violent efforts, the ballots themselves were designed to aid Maduro via an abuse of fusion voting.
The ballot features Maduro’s face 13 times, one for each party backing him. González’s face appears three times, surrounded by less popular candidates, including some who critics say have been co-opted by the government.
The big hope of opposition forces was to show a vote so overwhelming against Maduro that he would see the benefit of simply fleeing the nation. Dictators basically going into exile, often with a fat stack of cash, is not uncommon and while it may be unseemly, would be in the best interest of the country. The US and other international forces made it clear heading into the vote that Maduro had an out.
“In a scenario where Maduro does not win the election, the U.S. stands ready to support a peaceful, negotiated post-election period and consider measures that would facilitate a peaceful transition of power,” (US State Department)
Discussion around this was so serious that many commutators speculated what country Maduro might go to and what conditions would need to be met. At the same time it was acknowledged that Maduro had plenty of reasons to cling to power, especially since men like him care more about that authority than just living rich in exile. Worries only increased as Maduro disinvited international election observers that were originally slated to watch the polls. However, one group that remained was the non-profit Carter Center, who had observed past elections and noted the Chavez victories as reflecting voter will. The center had refused to observe the boycotted 2018 vote, but was on the ground for this race AT MADURO’S INVITIATION. Remember that.
So lets look at this vote.
The Rigged Vote & Reaction
Voters went to the polls on Sunday July 28th. All reports on the ground showed strong support for Gonzalez over Maduro, despite intimidation tactics viewed in many polling places. Exit polls released Edison Research showed Gonzalez with 65% of the vote. The opposition forces, meanwhile, braced to see what the state would announce.
Later that night, the National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that Maduro had won with 51.2% of the vote. The raw vote totals released showed a statistically impossible rounding of the percentages; with Maduro’s totals being 51.20000%, only seeing a break on uniformity on the 6 decimal. Statisticians pointed out the likelihood of kind of uniformity is over 1 in 100,000,000, per Columbia University.
Steven Levitsky, the author of How Democracies Die, had this to say
“One of the most egregious electoral frauds in modern Latin American history.”
Since the initial report, the CNE has released more numbers that lead to less 0s, but what was clear to journalist Anne Applebaum, author of the recent “Autocracy Inc” book, is that it reflected the arrogance and laziness of the regime. A great set of details on this can be read in her piece for the Atlantic. Since these initial reports, the CNE has released NO regional or polling place data. They have clung to claims of hacking, but that was a week ago.
It was not long before international condemnation came down. Left-wing Democracies in Latin America did not congratulate Maduro on his victory, either demanding the release of more data to prove a victory or outright saying he lost. The left-wing leaders of Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Columbia have denounced the results. Left wing US political leaders like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have denied the legitimacy of the results; something that is angered the idiotic far-left Tankies of twitter.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, has said “sure Maduro is a dictator, but he keeps the country safe.” This comes as a shock to Venezuela who site crime as a major problem.
I highlight this to emphases this is not a left v right issue; this is democracy vs autocracy. Strongmen like Trump, or the increasingly authoritarian Bolivian leaders, give Maduro praise. Real left-wing democratic governments, from Brazil to Germany, say Maduro most go.
The Carter Center, which I remind you Maduro invited, had nothing nice to say about the election count or campaign.
The Carter Center cannot verify or corroborate the results of the election declared by the National Electoral Council (CNE), and the electoral authority’s failure to announce disaggregated results by polling station constitutes a serious breach of electoral principles.
Venezuela's electoral process did not meet international standards of electoral integrity at any of its stages and violated numerous provisions of its own national laws. The election took place in an environment of restricted freedoms for political actors, civil society organizations, and the media. Throughout the electoral process, the CNE demonstrated a clear bias in favor of the incumbent.
The Tally Sheet Results
Now, as I mentioned already, the opposition was ready for fraud. To counter this, they worked to collect as much polling place data as possible to show the real results. Venezuela elections offer a paper receipt of returns, which opposition forces encouraged voters and activists to photograph and send in. This was from the Atlantic piece.
AltaVista, a parallel-vote-tabulation initiative—a project aimed at tracking votes in case the regime cheats—also produced an estimate of the national vote using methodology that organizers had explained in advance, posting it on the Open Science Foundation website. On the day of the election, AltaVista obtained real results from about 1,000 polling stations, photographed them, analyzed them and then sent the results around the world. They also showed a landslide: 66 percent for González, 31 percent for Maduro. By Monday evening Machado announced that her team had received voter tallies from more than 70 percent of the country’s precincts. The result, again, was a landslide for González.
These paper sheets have been tallied and documented online, you can even see individual scans via Wikipedia commons. More details on the tally sheets can be read about here. The tally sheets represent 10,000,000 voters, an estimated 81% of the total vote cast; covering over 70% of polling stations in the country. They have been aggregated into a easy-to-view results portal here.
So what do these results show? They show Edmundo Gonzalez with a commanding 67% of the vote. I mapped out the results by region, which show Gonzalez taking every area. These results show geographic variation; there were Maduro supporting areas, but the vast majority of the country wants him gone.
Many have wondered why Maduro’s rigging effort seemed to obvious and last-minute; namely the issue with the many 0000s and the lack of even fake regional results. One would think the regime was preparing thousands of forged ballot papers to counter the data collection of the opposition. Well this quote from the Atlantic piece sums it up best.
“I think he miscalculated the people, misunderstood the sentiment for change. I think he thought he was going to regain legitimacy with the election. Dictators make mistakes.” (Leopoldo López - national director of Voluntad Popular)
This is not an uncommon occurrence; dictators becoming complacent and not believing how unpopular they really are. Then the results come in and suddenly you need to do some quick rigging.
What Next?
Maduro seems eager to cling to power. Whether this will change remains to be seen. Protests and riots have broken out across the country. However, there have been defections from within Maduro’s inner circle. Pressure will continue to mount, sometimes its enough and other times it isn’t. I cannot say for sure what will happen.
Lets hope Maduro sees the writing on the wall. Someone give him a bag of cash and get him on a flight. It is time for Venezuela to pull back from the autocracy that Chavez started and Maduro accelerated.