Parliamentary elections were held in Venezuela on Sunday, December 6, with a turnout of 31%. These numbers have been used as an argument by politicians, countries and regional organizations to describe this electoral process as “illegitimate,” which they had already vetoed even before the date of its holding was known.
"It seems that the participation is very low," said the High Representative for Foreign Policy of the European Union, Josep Borrell, who assured that the Venezuelan electoral process "did not meet democratic conditions."
This statement, which seeks to associate abstention with illegitimacy, has been used on several occasions against Venezuela to justify the promotion of policies contrary to international law, such as so-called "sanctions" and the blocking of Venezuelan assets in their countries.
Abstention in Europe
Borrell's arguments contrast with the electoral reality of Europe, where the parliamentary elections have had the highest participation rate that held in 1979 where they obtained 63% attendance at the electoral act, a figure that in the last 20 years has not been exceeded 50% except for the last process in 2019 where it stood at 51%.
But this average close to 50 is driven by countries the high participation that is registered in countries such as Belgium, Italy, Germany and France, hiding that in Eastern European countries, these indices are usually up to 10 points below the average percentage. .
Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Estonia and the Czech Republic, since joining this organization have yielded participation percentages whose peak has been 47% and where the average does not exceed 30%, being one of the most emblematic cases Slovakia, where these elections have failed to attract the attention of even 20% of its voters and whose historical average is 16,45%.
Despite these numbers, the election of European parliamentarians has not been the object of criticism or ignorance by any international body, this because no European law limits the legitimacy of a process to a minimum rate of participation.
The Lima Group and participation
Chile, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador have pointed to the low turnout in Venezuelan elections as an argument to maintain their line of ignorance of the institutions and the will of the Venezuelan population.
This discourse contrasts with the reality of their countries where -except for Peru whose voting is compulsory-, participation in parliamentary elections in the last 20 years has been around just over 40%.
One of the emblematic cases is Chile, where, as a result of compulsory voting, an average of 87% was declared, and after voting was declared voluntary in 2010, turnout fell by almost 40% in the 2013 and 2017 elections.
Despite this fact in Chile and Colombia's inability to reach 50%, no organization or country in the world has objected to the parliamentary processes of these nations, which in the case of the New Granadan country has been characterized by being plagued by complaints of irregularities as a consequence of an electoral system where citizens vote in the streets without an authentication mechanism that guarantees the premise of "one vote, one elector" and where photocopied ballots are used that do not contain any security element that prevents their falsification.
Reflection of discontent and mistrust?
This argument of low participation has been described by politicians and the media as a reflection of the discontent and mistrust of the population towards the Government and the Venezuelan electoral system.
This thesis is opposed to what happened in processes such as the parliamentary elections of 2005, where after the opposition decided not to participate and the forces of Chavismo launched themselves into the electoral arena, there was an abstention that exceeded 75% despite the campaign that then-President Hugo Chávez led, calling for participation.
This electoral event was described as a sign of rejection of the majority of the population to Chavismo and a support for the abstentionist opposition, thesis that was destroyed the following year in the presidential elections of December 3, 2006, where with the participation of the 74,69% of the population, the candidate Hugo Chávez won with 62,84% of the votes.
Another example of the incomparable nature of the electoral processes is the 2010 parliamentary election, where 66,4% of the population voted, who gave a large part of their votes to the opposition that was very close to Chavismo. This, which was interpreted as a symbol of Chavismo's wear and tear, was demolished again in 2012 when with a turnout of 80,56%, the candidate Hugo Chávez triumphed with more than 55% of the votes, remaining 11 points above the candidate of the opposition alliance, the same one that two years earlier had been just one point away from matching Chavismo.
Another election that is used as an argument for the “fall” of Chavismo and the “growing strength” of the opposition is the electoral process of 2015, where with 74% participation and united under one card, the anti-Chavez party obtained more than 56% of the votes that gave them the majority in parliament. This whole panorama of supposed “collapse of the Government” changed in 2017 during the regional elections, when with 61% participation, Chavismo obtained 55% of the votes, placing itself 11 points above the opposition and obtaining 18 of the 23 governorships.
What do the laws say?
According to the Venezuelan Constitution, the election of the National Assembly only depends on the deputies being elected "in each federal entity by universal, direct, personalized and secret vote with proportional representation, according to a population base of one point one percent of the total population of the country."
It also states that "the deputies of the National Assembly will remain in office for five years and may be re-elected," meaning that after the constitutional period of the AN elected on December 6, 2015 was completed, the election of a new parliament became imperative, which, according to the same constitution, must be installed on January 5 following its election.
This entire legal framework that supports the election and installation of the new National Assembly, with no other predispositions than that of being elected by secret, universal and direct vote, has been silenced by Europe, the United States and its Latin American allies, who have decided to bet on giving continuity to the project of "regime change" promoted by the outgoing administration of Donald Trump, using for this a parliament that has already completed its constitutional term and that, contrary to all laws, intends to prolong its existence under the blessing of Washington and Brussels.
