It is not new for Nicolás Maduro to be accused of attempting to steal a presidential election – the US described his claim to have won re-election in 2018 as an “insult to democracy” – but the evidence for such allegations has never before been quite so overwhelming.
Analyses carried out by the opposition, academics and media organizations have offered strong evidence to suggest that the Venezuelan president lost – by a landslide – to the main opposition candidate, retired diplomat Edmundo González.
A number of countries have already recognised González’s victory, and even countries with leftwing governments once seen as sympathetic to Maduro (such as Brazil, Colombia and Mexico) are demanding proof of his alleged victory – something he has promised but seems increasingly unlikely to provide.
For now at least, the incumbent clings to power, having pulled off what one expert has described as “the largest electoral fraud in Latin America’s history”.
Independent observers agree that this election was never going to be fair and free.
From the start, the electoral process was plagued by irregularities, according to the Venezuelan NGO Transparencia Electoral.
The list ranges from blocking candidates from running – such as the opposition leader María Corina Machado, who was then replaced by González – to making it virtually impossible for millions of Venezuelans living abroad to vote.
Dozens of opposition members were arrested during the campaign, and international observers were either blocked or disinvited from monitoring the vote.
On election day, some voters found that polling stations had been moved without warning – sometimes to neighbouring states – while in historically Chavista neighbourhoods, there were reports of polling stations being kept open long after the official closing time.
After years of economic decline and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has spurred about 8 million Venezuelans to leave the country, opinion polls indicated a strong lead for González.
Javier Corrales, a professor of political science at Amherst College and the author of Autocracy Rising: How Venezuela Transitioned to Authoritarianism, said that it seemed clear that the opposition achieved the “most impressive electoral victory in the history of Chavismo and, in fact, one of the most impressive victories in Latin America”.
But this time, the opposition had prepared itself for the fraud to come.
“Everybody knew that Maduro’s last resort might be to refuse to recognise the results and claim some fake numbers. So the opposition designed a system to ensure that they could have proof of how the voting went,” said Corrales.
About four hours after voting ended, the government-controlled national electoral council declared victory for Maduro, eventually saying that the strongman leader had won nearly 52% of the vote to González’s 43%.
But thousands of opposition volunteers had managed to collect about 80% of the voting tallies from polling stations, which showed a clear victory for González, with 67% over Maduro’s 30%. Two different independent analyses, from the AP and the Washington Post, reached similar conclusions.
Walter R Mebane Jr, an election forensics professor at the University of Michigan, analysed the opposition’s voting tallies and concluded that they were legitimate.
He also worked as an independent consultant on another study, conducted through sampling at 997 polling stations, that likewise showed González winning 66% to 31% for Maduro.
US officials concurred that it would have been nearly impossible for the opposition to falsify the voting tallies it published.
“We have examined this evidence and have determined that it would be nearly impossible to falsify the tallies that were rapidly compiled and uploaded,” State Department official Mark Wells told reporters.
Dalson Figueiredo, a political science professor at Brazil’s Federal University of Pernambuco – and another consultant on that study – said that the results show that, “given the number of votes being stolen, it’s the largest electoral fraud in Latin America’s history”.
Despite a legal requirement to disclose the voting tallies, Maduro has refused to do so, claiming (without evidence) that the electoral council had been targeted by hackers.
On Monday, the electoral authority claimed to have sent the tallies to the supreme court, which is also controlled by the government. “But I don’t believe Maduro is going to release the data,” said Figueiredo.
That same day, González and Machado released an open letter urging the police and armed forces to abandon Maduro and “side with the people and their families”.
“We won this election without any doubt … Now it’s up to all of us to respect the voice of the people,” said the letter, which González signed as “president-elect” and Machado signed as “leader of Venezuela’s democratic forces”.
In response, Venezuela’s top prosecutor, Tarek William Saab, announced a criminal investigation against the opposition duo, claiming that they “falsely announced a winner of the presidential election other than the one proclaimed by the national electoral council, the only body qualified to do so”.
The defense minister, Vladimir Padrino, on Tuesday reaffirmed the military’s “absolute loyalty” to Maduro, and Corrales added that opposition hopes that the armed forces might abandon the regime were optimistic. “Since 2020, Maduro has been turning the military – who were always pro-chavista – even more pro-chavista,” said Corrales, then adding: “Any elements … which were mildly disloyal ended up in jail, while the loyal ones were rewarded by the government with huge economic and political favours.”
Meanwhile, diplomatic pressure from countries such as the US, which has recognised González as the winner, is important – but not enough to bring about an actual change, Corrales said.
“More important is the work that governments trusted by the Venezuelan government trusts. Will they persuade Maduro that his time is up? That’s why everybody’s focusing so much of their attention on whether Brazil and, to some extent, Colombia and Mexico can play a role,” he said.
