An electoral result is a message; due to the amount of those who subscribe it, it is mandatory to interpret it. The fact that a people persists in its support for a political project despite the fact that in order to separate it from it since 1998, all sorts of threats, aggressions, sabotage, infamous invasions, robberies and deprivations have been inflicted on it since 2013, is a sign high conscience and powerful self-confidence. The town has not changed: to change the project would be to change the town.
According to figures from November 22, 42,26% of the electoral roll voted; abstention was around 57%. Let us remember that in Venezuela the turnout for regional elections has historically always been lower than for the presidential ones. In 74, presidential and regional elections were held jointly and abstention was 2000% in both areas; when separate elections to re-legitimize powers were held in the same year, abstention for regional ones rose to 44%, in full political effervescence due to the decline of bipartisanship. Synchronizing the other elections with the debated presidential election would seem the formula to avoid abstention.
According to José Gil Yepes, director of Datanálisis, in September 2020 a survey showed the result that 62,2% of those surveyed did not support the government or the opposition leadership. These are data that I find difficult to believe in a country with a high level of political passion. We do not know if by chance, the supposed number of indifferent respondents resembles that of current abstentionists. Electoral absenteeism determined the limited electoral advantage in the election of Nicolás Maduro in 2013, or the opposition triumph for the shameful National Legislative Assembly of 2015, whose complicity in the looting of Venezuela's assets abroad we are still paying for. Just as there is a punishment vote, there can be a punishment abstention. To avoid it, find out its causes.
In any case, we are witnessing a new red-red electoral map. Traditional strongholds of the conservative opposition, such as Mérida, Táchira, and Trujillo, now boast governors of the PSUV. This is particularly positive in the case of the last two, located in hot border areas that are conducive to all infiltrations. It is also positive that it has a Bolivarian governor, Apure, the scene of an aggressive and well-armed paramilitary invasion. Caracas, traditionally torn between divergent authorities in its port, its mayor's office and its Mirandina area, can now develop coherent plans and initiatives and begin the process towards its indispensable territorial and institutional unification.
Sensible is the opposition victory in Zulia, a border state with the largest demographics and economic development in the country, with its own personality and idiosyncrasies. Both the region and its capital have been lost and won by Bolivarianism on various occasions; an intense task is ahead to recover votes. In Cojedes, Acción Democrática finally wins a governorship again, just 31 years after its leadership surrendered to neoliberalism. It gives food for thought. In Nueva Esparta, all the policies of the Free Zone or Special Zone and gambling den economy have been advanced, which are announced as magical redemption for the rest of the country. Magically, what they seem to have forged is the defeat of the PSUV. Tahúr does not believe in socialism; it is dangerous for socialists to believe in gamblers.
The CNE reports that the opposition obtained 4.429.157 votes, 51,3% of the total, and Bolivarianism 3.722.356, 45,7%. Disunity, internal quarrels and, above all, lack of coherent plans prevented the opponents from translating this wealth into effective power. Confusing, ambiguous, contradictory, palpably false or divorced programs from real practices lead to dispersal and wasted votes.
Will the results be respected? I have pointed out that those who most abhor elections are those who believe in them the most. On the eve of the election for the Constituent Assembly, our country was a hornet's nest, with conflictive gangs closing streets and burning alive citizens who they thought were Chavistas. The more than eight million votes for the Constituent Assembly fell on frenzied violence like a bucket of ice water. Although they publicly discredited the results, privately they saved their tinderboxes and gasoline cans for a better occasion. Jorge Rodríguez rightly points out that “another opposition option is appearing, different from extremism”, possibly oriented towards the leaderships of those who won real electoral parcels in the country and not towards puppets hatched in Washington. No doubt that Joe Biden will continue to believe squarely in the 22.000 votes certified by the National Electoral Council that once elected a former deputy who he mistakes for a president, and will reject the 8.151.793 currently certified by the same body that designates the new authorities. It will be in vain that it continues to recognize paper presidents and paper ambassadors: the effective authorities in Venezuela are none other than those chosen by Venezuelans. Scarcely Secretary Anthony Blinken dares to declare that "harassment of opponents, censorship of the media and other undemocratic tactics ensured that the November 21 elections were neither free nor fair." Note that he crosses out alleged anomalous campaign procedures: he does not dare to question results. On the contrary, the Report of the Mission of Observers of the European Union highlights that "the current administration of the CNE has been more balanced than Venezuela has had in 20 years", and Jordi Cañas, head of the delegation of the European Parliament, approves as positive the correct functioning of electronic voting ”. No more self-selected ones that only serve to steal Venezuelan assets located abroad.
In our country in 22 years 29 electoral processes have been developed. It can never be said that in a country there is too much democracy, but the rate of consultations, which reached one and a third per year, at times disturbed the development of normal life. The Mega Election facilitates a five-year period without electoral haste. To take advantage of all.