Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004

← 2000 •• 2007 →
Revoked referendum in 2004 Revocation of Hugo Chávez’s mandate
Date						15 August 2004
Type						Binding referendum
Electoral demography
Population					& fake fake fake fake fake fake fake023 054 210, fake fake fake fake brain023 054 210
Registered						& fake fake fake fake fake sex fake014 037 900, fake fake fake sex14 037 900
Voters						& fake fake fake fake fake brainstorm 815 631, fake fake brainstorm9 815 631
Participation
							69.92 %46.4 %
Valid votes						& fake fake fake fake brainchild die09 789 637, fake fake fake brainchild9 789 637
Null vote						& fake fake fake fake fake fake fake fake brainstorm 994, fake fake fake fake brainstorm25 994
Results
			No.-
			Votes			5,800,629255.4 %
									59.1 %
			Yes.-
			Votes			3,989,008454.8 %
									40.64 %

The Venezuela Recall Referendum of 2004 was a presidential recall referendum held on August 15, 2004 in Venezuela to decide the permanence of Hugo Chávez as head of State, the official result of which was no. revoke it.

Political polarization in Venezuela influenced the name chosen for this referendum, which was called by the Venezuelan opposition "revocation referendum", while on the contrary, the followers of Hugo Chávez's government called it "ratification referendum". The result of the referendum was not to remove Chávez with 59.1% of the vote, but there were allegations of fraud by the opposition. Reports from international observers and other analyses, including former US President Jimmy Carter and his Carter Center, rejected this hypothesis and denied fraud, stating that the process was carried out freely and fairly. Statistical evaluations from 2006 and 2011 differ and some people questioned the Carter Center's support for the electoral process in the referendum; the Carter Center investigated the allegations and published an article and statistical analysis reaffirming its original conclusions.

The request

Background

It was a referendum activated by the opposition to try to democratically remove President Chávez through popular vote as provided for in the 1999 Constitution. What motivated the referendum was the social tension and the political crisis that engulfed the country., and which led to the Coup d'état of April 11, 2002 carried out by the opposition. The result was the overthrow of President Chávez for two days, but this was restored by a countercoup carried out by his followers. That same year the opposition asked for Chávez's resignation and demanded it through marches throughout 2002.

Previously, the same year the opposition, through the main support of the businessmen and union leaders of the CTV, had carried out a strike that was called the Oil Strike, because it affected the state company PDVSA due to its prolonged duration. The consequences of the paralysis of economic activities, especially oil, between December 2002 and February 2003 were serious. The political, economic and social effects were very negative for the population and the country. The Organization of American States (OAS) and the American Carter Center organized a "negotiation and agreement table", where a pact against violence was made between the government and the opposition that was not fulfilled, but served as a preamble to agree to carry out the referendum.

The opposition initially demanded that what was called a consultative referendum be held, which was characterized by not being binding. The government chaired by Chávez stated that it would only accept the holding of the referendum provided for in the Magna Carta, but the opposition was at first against the option accepted by Chávez, alleging that it had to be held in the middle of the presidential term. (in mid-2004) and they would not be willing to wait that long as the country could plunge into civil war. In this regard, Chavismo alleged that instability and confrontation were promoted by the opposition in a malicious manner and assured that if it stopped creating disturbances, the confrontation would end and that in general the opposition did not offer any alternative to the government.

After the end of the strike (an official statement was never made about its end) the opposition remained active, promoting more mobilizations. During 2003, marches, riots and cacerolazos continued, promoted by the Democratic Coordinator, the television channels, the Fedecámaras employers' association and its registered businessmen, in addition to the CTV union and the Catholic Church, to force Chávez's resignation. In addition, pro-Chávez counter-marches occurred, in response to the opposition marches.

Chavista and anti-Chavista demonstrations occurred daily. To stop them, the parties accepted this referendum formula proposed by the aforementioned negotiation and agreement table. Referendum that, as mentioned before, is contemplated in the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999.

Constitutional basis

The call for a referendum is based on two articles of the 1999 constitution

Article 72: All charges and judges of popular choice are revoked. After half of the period for which the official or official was elected, a number not less than twenty percent of the electors or electors registered in the corresponding constituency may request a referendum to revoke his mandate.

When the same or greater number of electors and electors who elected the official or official have voted in favour of the revocation, provided that a number of electors and electors equal to or greater than twenty-five per cent of the registered voters and electors have been held in the referendum, their terms of reference shall be deemed to be revoked and the absolute fault shall be immediately fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution and the law.

The revocation of the mandate for the collegiate bodies shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law.

During the period for which the staff member or staff member was elected, no more than one request for the revocation of his or her mandate may be made.

Article 233: There shall be absolute faults of the President or President of the Republic: death, resignation, dismissal by judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice, permanent physical or mental incapacity certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Court of Justice and with approval of the National Assembly, the abandonment of office, declared by the National Assembly, as well as the popular revocation of its mandate.

When there is an absolute lack of the elected President or President before taking office, a new universal, direct and secret election will take place within the next thirty consecutive days. As the new President or President is elected and taken over, the President or President of the National Assembly will be responsible for the Presidency of the Republic.

When there is an absolute lack of the President or President of the Republic during the first four years of the constitutional period, a new universal and direct election will take place within the next thirty consecutive days. As the new President or President is elected and elected, the Executive Vice-President or Executive Vice-President shall be responsible for the Presidency of the Republic.

In the previous cases, the new President or President shall complete the corresponding constitutional period.

If the absolute lack occurs during the last two years of the constitutional period, the Executive Vice-President or Executive Vice-President shall assume the Presidency of the Republic until it is completed.

Collection of opposition signatures

The electoral law required the collection of a number of signatures from the Venezuelan population in order to activate the referendum and within a period of a number of days to carry out said collection. Thus, the opposition united in the Democratic Coordinator, which is a coalition of political parties, civil associations, NGOs and other types of organizations whose common objective was the overthrow of Chávez, decided to begin the work of collecting signatures where it had massive support. of the national private media, both television, press and radio, which were mostly against Chávez.

The ways of requesting signatures were very diverse. Stalls were created in public places such as squares or streets. People commissioned for this purpose ("itinerant") went house to house looking for signatories. Citizens who wanted to sign had to do so in books designed for that purpose; they had to place their signature, ID number and fingerprint.

In August 2003, approximately 3.2 million signatures were submitted, but these were rejected by the members of the body in charge of elections in the country: National Electoral Council (Venezuela) (CNE); based according to the opposition on a legal technicality: that the signatures had been collected prematurely; specifically before the midterm of the presidential term. In September 2003, the English magazine The Economist reported that the Government had used a rapid mobilization squad to raid the offices of the CNE. Additionally, the magazine reported that the government was punishing those citizens who signed the referendum petition. Likewise, the government and some signatories reported having signed at their workplace, pressured by coercion and against their will by their bosses and threatened if they refused. According to the complaints, these workers belonged to the payroll of private companies that were against the Chávez government, among those mentioned were some transnational companies such as the automobile manufacturer Kia.

In November 2003, the opposition collected a new set of signatures, obtaining 3.6 million of them within a maximum period of four days. In February 2004, Roberto Abdul, one of the directors of Súmate, the NGO that collected the signatures, stated that according to the organization's calculations, at least 8% of the signatures (0.288 million) were invalid. However, the CNE rejected the referendum request, alleging that only 1.9 million of the signatures were valid, 1.1 million presented serious doubts, and about 0.5 million were completely invalid (due to belonging to deceased persons, minors and foreigners). Of the signatures considered dubious by the CNE (1.1 million), 876,017 had their personal data written in the same handwriting with the exception of the signature itself. The opposition alleged that these so-called assisted signatures were signatures in which the person in charge of the collection center assisted the signatories by filling out all the information and then told them where to sign. The CNE decision gave rise to violent demonstrations that resulted in 14 deaths, 200 injuries and 500 arrests.

After an appeal to the Electoral Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela, the court included some 800,000 signatures as valid, bringing the total of valid signatures to 2.7 million; This amount constituted 300,000 more signatures than needed to call the referendum. However, a week later, the Constitutional Chamber of the same court rejected the decision of the Electoral Chamber, ruling that it had acted outside its jurisdiction.

Then the names of the signatories were made public in the so-called Tascón List. The president of the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) told the Associated Press that they had begun to say goodbye to government ministries, public organizations, municipal governments and government companies, those people who had signed the referendum petition. Health Minister Roger Capella also told the Associated Press justifying the dismissals by saying that "all those who signed to activate the referendum against President Chávez should be fired from the Ministry of Health." Days later Capella retracted his statement saying that this was his personal opinion and was not official policy.

Finally, as a compromise to resolve the impasse created, the CNE ruled that it would allow a "reparo" process, consisting of allowing, during a period of five days in May 2004, those people whose signatures were being questioned to confirm that yes. They were indeed authentic. At the end of this period, the number of signatures validated by the CNE reached 2,436,830. In this way, the minimum number of signatures necessary to call the referendum was reached. During these days of signature validation, thousands of false identity cards and equipment for their manufacture were confiscated in the course of police raids. Chávez supporters alleged that this indicated that the opposition had used these equipment to forge signatures; while the opposition pointed out that these teams had been planted maliciously.

Referendum day

In the end the referendum was held on the scheduled date on August 15, it was decided that the "Yes" (demanded by the opposition) was the option that would mean the dismissal and the "No" option, which would mean the ratification of Chavez.

Public schools and high schools authorized to vote opened on the morning of August 15. They were characterized from the first moment by extensive queues of people who were going to vote, the CNE had to extend the deadline for the closing of the voting twice: the first was for four hours, from 6:00 to 8:00Pm, extended then another four hours until midnight. One of the novelties of this election was the possibility that Venezuelans living abroad could also vote in the referendum as if it were a normal vote; The lines were equally long in some voting centers outside the country, such as those located in the city of Miami in the United States and Santa Cruz de Tenerife in Spain.

Results

The preliminary result was given by Francisco Carrasquero, president and one of the five rectors of the CNE, announcing it on national television and radio at approximately 4:00 in the morning on August 16 after having been counted 94 % of the votes, Being:

• The Yes. (in favor of Chavez's dismissal): 3 576 517 = 42 %
• The No. (in favor of Chavez's permanence in power): 4 991 483 = 58 %

But the final results given on August 18 by the CNE were even more favorable due to the "No", all the votes being scrutinized, which reaffirmed the nullity of the request for the dismissal of the Chávez government, with an abstention of 30.08%:

Consequences

At least one person died and five were wounded by gunshots during a demonstration called by the opposition in the Plaza Altamira in Caracas, in a wealthy neighborhood, to protest what they consider a "fraud"

The consequences of the referendum that definitively confirmed Chávez in office were the cessation of demonstrations and riots in the country after the events in Altamira. Chávez emerged very strengthened, he began to carry out an even more active international policy, in addition to greater attention in Latin America, Chávez decided to get even with the US government of George W. Bush, whom he accused of having directly supported the 2002 coup d'état against his government and to finance the opposition continuously throughout that time. To counter alleged US diplomatic pressure to try to isolate Venezuela, Chávez strengthened his relations with progressive governments in Latin America and the world and criticized the "imperialist" foreign policy of the United States. President Chávez also publicly declared that he was a socialist and that he showed sympathy towards international communism.

The consequences of the opposition referendum were the opposite. The alliance of the different groups was broken, the Democratic Coordinator was dissolved, and in general they lost convening power. Some media outlets such as Televen stopped participating in the political diatribe.

Accusations of electoral fraud

The constitutional lawyer Tulio Álvarez, representative of the Democratic Coordinator, published a preliminary report titled "Fraud on Democracy", the result of the work of 40 diversified professionals in 14 thematic areas, "qualitative fraud, continuous, selective, massive", in the manual procedure and in the automated one, which is why the coalition decided to challenge the process. The report explains that it was detected that in Venezuela the scheme of the electoral population averages was broken and in two months the proportion in the electoral population went from 48 points to 53 points, meaning that nearly 1.8 million of people who never voted did so, and according to the report, a non-existent population was mobilized to commit fraud in manual voting. According to the study, a good part of the new registrants went to rural centers or urban areas of manual voting, to try to disguise electronic fraud with a voting tendency favorable to the No option. In the automated process, up to moment a collective manipulation of 28% of the vote, which "compromises officials of the National Electoral Council and the company in charge of automation". Likewise, evidence of "bidirectionality of communication" was found, since according to the data obtained from Cantv there was traffic to and from the machines before printing the tickets, and it is indicated that there was "a communications intervention pattern. At certain times, traffic was concentrated to receive information, send it and manipulate it, transmissions "outside the permitted hours, from 7 in the morning", when it was established that "the machine was not would connect until the process is closed.

The group concludes that the system used "was designed with the intention of fraud," revealing that according to a Cantv report that was delivered to the National Electoral Council, there is evidence of bidirectionality of the communication between the voting machines and the totalization center during voting day and explaining that the machine sent the information before printing the ballot and received the information back and then printed the ballot, traffic is perfectly detailed in graphs of the report. They pointed out that according to the Organic Law of Suffrage, electoral processes are absolutely null and void, meaning that if there is fraud in the formation of the REP, the process is challenged without the need for further evidence. The report recommended challenging the Electoral Registry, objecting to the automated system of the Smartmatic, Bizta and Cantv consortium, urging an audit of the national identification system by international organizations, conditional participation in future processes and finally urging the application of the American anti-corruption law, "which regulates several companies that have intervened in this process and are domiciled in the United States.

A statistical study on the elections, written by María M. Febres Cordero and Bernardo Márquez, was published in 2006 in an international statistics journal. The study concluded that, "these findings lead us to conclude that the Venezuelan opposition has statistical evidence to reject the official results given by the CNE. The irregularities detected were observed consistently in numerous voting centers and the magnitude of the irregularities imply that the official results do not reflect the intention of voters with statistical confidence." The authors' conclusion was that 56.4% had voted “yes” (in favor of Chávez's removal), while the official result was 41%. The international journal of statistics Statistical Science dedicated half of its November 2011 issue (seven of fourteen articles), with an introductory article written by Alicia L. Carriquiry, to analyze the results. of the referendum. Raquel Prado and Bruno Sansó examined the exit polls; Luis Raúl Pericchi and David A Torres analyzed whether the "no" They corresponded to the Newcomb-Benford law; Isbelia Martin discovered anomalous patterns in telecommunications; Ricardo Hausmann and Roberto I. Rigobón analyzed patterns related to exit polls; Raúl Jiménez examined the distribution of valid votes, null votes, and abstentions in each electoral district; while Gustavo Delfino and Guillermo Salas found an anomalous relationship between signatories of the referendum petition and the 'yes' votes. The analysis refuted some of the fraud hypotheses, but not all.

The opposition chaired at that time by Enrique Mendoza declared that there was fraud. In the days following the referendum, various evidence of this fraud was presented in different media, among which the "Yes" limits presented in the state of Bolívar, among others, stand out; none of the tests proceeded. The Bush administration, opposed to Chávez, declared that he had correctly won. However, opposition leaders alleged fraud and claimed that Chávez had stolen their victory. Former United States President Jimmy Carter and his Carter Center, along with representatives of the Organization of American States (OAS) attended the voting and declared that the vote had been fair and free. Some people questioned the Carter Center's support of the electoral process in the referendum. Doug Schoen of Fox Newstold Michael Barone on U.S. News and World Report:

Our internal sources indicate that there was fraud in the Venezuelan central commission. There are extensive reports of irregularities and evidence of fraud, many of which were skillfully reported by Mary Anastasia O'Grady in The Wall Street Journal Last week. Carter is careless about all of this and declares that Chávez "winned with all those of the law."

Some individuals have disputed the Center’s endorsement of the electoral process in the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004. Fox News' Doug Schoen told Michael Barone at U.S. News and World Report, "Our internal sourcing tells us that there was fraud in the Venezuelan central commission. There are widespread reports of irregularities and evidence of fraud, many of them ably recorded by Mary Anastasia O'Grady in The Wall Street Journal last week. Carter is untroubled by any of this, and declares that Chavez won 'fair and square.'"

The Carter Center investigated the allegations and published an article and statistical analysis reaffirming its original conclusions.

Other incidents

Carrasquero recording

Rector Jorge Rodríguez and President Francisco Carrasquero of the CNE announced at 3:00 PM on August 15 on national television that they had found an audio CD where Carrasquero declared that the opposition had won the referendum with a total of 11 436,086 “yes” votes, and that Chávez's mandate was thus revoked. Because this recording was discovered several hours before closing the voting centers and that Carrasquero declared that said recording was used to sabotage the referendum, Attorney General Isaías Rodríguez began the investigation into this fact and thus locate and arrest those responsible for the audio recording. Journalist Fausto Malavé declared to the Venezuelan media that the recording was a parody of the CNE official, which was circulating in Caracas for months and he was surprised that it was only discovered after the referendum was being carried out. The investigation was unsuccessful, since it was proven that the recording was distributed long before the referendum took place and that its humorous nature was notably evident.^{[citation required]}

Súmate survey

During the day of the referendum, the Venezuelan group Súmate published a survey in which Chávez lost by 18 points, the opposite result of what would later be the official one.

Tascón List

After the referendum had passed, the list of signatories for carrying it out was published on the Internet, the so-called Tascón List on the personal website of the deputy of the National Assembly Luis Tascón. There were serious complaints about the use of said list as an instrument against the signatories and the opposition in general.