The Venezuelan electoral system is, according to Jimmy Carter, perhaps the most perfect in the world.
There is hardly a year in which at least one electoral fair is not held. From 1998 to date, there are 25 popular consultations.
It is an automated and transparent system. It operates before witnesses of all trends and observers or rather companions from abroad.
The results are instantaneous, without the embarrassing waits of other countries, incubators of conjecture and self-proclamation.
The system is not fixed by the government. It has suffered harsh defeats: in a constitutional referendum, in elections for authorities of important states such as Zulia, or like Miranda, which covers almost half of the capital city, or in those of the National Legislative Assembly of 2015.
A cheating system would not have revealed these defeats; an complicit government would not have accepted them immediately.
The opposition has alleged fraud in every election it lost; never have provided evidence. The current National Legislative Assembly was elected by the same electoral system that they question; if this was fraudulent, their appointments would also be illegitimate.
This electoral system, which I judge to be reliable, has verified the electoral victories of Bolivarianism and its allies; but it has also proclaimed the triumphs of the opposition.
It has tried everything without results: from the coup d'état to the oil sabotage; from the terrorist wave to the assassination attempt, from the media lynching to the international conspiracy, passing through the paramilitary invasion and the assembly of parallel governments elected by no one.
The only thing that has reported results to the opponents has been the electoral system to which they owe their representative positions and the electoral consecration of their leaderships who denounce and oppose it.
Even the most radical opposition implicitly and grudgingly recognizes the validity of these results, as evidenced by the instantaneous extinction of street terrorism and hooliganism when the CNE announced in 2017 that 8.089.320 Venezuelans had voted for the National Constituent Assembly.
Thousands of arguments can be argued against the popular will thus manifested; As long as it formally adheres to the democratic system, it should be respected.
Recognizing only the elections that are won is fraudulent. It leads to a confrontation on the ground of the facts whose results must be measured before undertaking it.
On more than one occasion, Bolivarianism and its allies have had overwhelming majorities that would have allowed them to prevail, leaving aside the systematic popular consultation. They have never given in to the temptation to eliminate the remaining players in the political game thanks to them.
The electoral route has been and is the only one through which the opposition arrived and can occupy positions. Not only have each and every one of his attempts to assault power through deeds failed: if he obtained it in such a way, it would not be possible to maintain it either.
Whoever has not learned the lesson of February 13, 2002 is incapable of learning and therefore of managing politics. Any new violent attempt could be repelled by proportional and irresistible violence, which has not happened but could happen.
The only way to a stable opposition power is electoral legitimation in the same terms as that of Bolivarianism. This means doing it without designating the OAS or the Southern Command as Grand Elector and supreme arbiter of the results. This last procedure was tested in Venezuela in 2002 and in Bolivia in 2019 and we have already seen what it turned out.
Let us test yet another hypothesis. The massive electoral support for progressivism may also be the shield that has prevented bombs from drizzling in Venezuela, as in Iraq or Libya. The potential veto of Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council may have some value, but that support was not manifested to prevent the unending holocaust of the Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian people.
As much as our foreign enemies pretend to disbelieve our elections, they have never dared to deny them because of the frontal and blatant violence. They have been limited to pathetic attempts to throw the stone and hide the hand, ridiculous stops, offensive gossip, mischief by handsome neighborhood, exploded test balloons before ascending. The adversary knows that an open aggression would meet with a majority resistance, harsh and systematic, which until now has confined him to the corralito of threat and bravado.
There is only one way that the Venezuelan electoral system does not express the will of the people: abstention. Faced with an absent electorate, minorities of one sign or another would rise to power, leaving insoluble unknowns about the legitimacy of those favored by the suffrages and their effective resources to govern.
To speak from the point of view of progressivism, the parliamentary elections of December 6, 2015 were not decided by the opposition, whose flow of votes only increased by a moderate 4%, but by Bolivarians who abstained, due to laziness, fatigue before the sacrifices imposed by the blockade, perhaps in protest against some corruption scandals with impunity or the pretense of deputies who pretended to be Bolivarians to legislate as neoliberals. We are still paying for it.
It is said that whoever is silent grants. In no way was this abstentionist silence translatable as a license for the theft of Venezuela's assets abroad; the systematic sabotage of the economy, the criminal blockade of supplies of food, medicine and spare parts to maintain public services, the economic, financial and sanitary suffocation; the acclaim of a false president elected by no one and voted by none, the incursion of the Insolent Plant of the Foreign Mercenary on the sacred soil of the Homeland.
The abstention punishment self-punishment. It does not lead to anything Bolivarians or opponents.