Venezuela--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 15, 2013)

2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s Federal Electoral System

Electoral Fairness Audit Completed October 1, 2012 Revised as of April 15, 2013

Executive Summary

The Venezuelan federal electoral system is very satisfactory as determined by the overall audit score of 78.83 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured

1) one unsatisfactory passing score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (52.5 percent);

2) one very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (77.9 percent);

3) two exceptional scores for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (100 percent) and voters (84.9 percent).

The FDA audit focused on 52 variables, and it utilized matrices, financial analysis, and scoring scales. The most notable areas of the system are Venezuela’s commitment to complete and balanced election coverage, thereby supporting a fair playing field for candidates and parties, and a commitment to people’s right to vote and the act of voting through various innovative and progressive measures. However, electoral finances of candidates and parties are only transparent to the state, and there are no direct caps on campaign contributions and no direct limits on expenditures. The lack of public financial transparency creates the potential for pro-government parties to pursue corrupt financial practices and leave anti-government parties subject to unjust assessments of their finances including targeting their contributors. The lack of caps and limits on electoral finances may create an unfair playing field in the realms of billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events, because these media are not covered by the complete and balanced coverage requirement. The FDA has no evidence of electoral financial wrongdoing, as does no one else, because only the Venezuelan State through the National Electoral Council is privy to party finances. The FDA recommends reforms that will bring about public electoral finance transparency, caps on campaign contributions and limits on campaign expenditures. If implemented these reforms would make the Venezuelan electoral system a model for the rest of the world. As it stands, these limitations have the potential to allow for corrupt financial practices and create unfair playing fields for candidates and parties.

Overall the FDA recommends that the public get continuously and actively involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing.

Prepared By

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Executive Director Foundation for Democratic Advancement, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Purpose of the Venezuelan Electoral Fairness Audit

The purpose of the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA)’s electoral fairness audit (the “Audit”) is to determine a comprehensive grade for electoral fairness in Venezuela at the executive and assembly levels of government. This Audit is an extension of the FDA’s global audit of electoral fairness involving all countries that hold political elections. The purpose of the global audit is to quantify electoral fairness, establish benchmarks for electoral fairness, identify areas of democratic advancement and progression, and encourage democracy reform where needed.

The goal of the FDA's Venezuela report is to give the people of Venezuela and other stakeholders an informed, objective perspective of the Venezuelan federal electoral system and provide recommendations for reform. Venezuelans may want to use this information as a way to help determine their electoral choices. The release of the FDA’s revised Venezuela report just prior to the 2013 Venezuelan Presidential Election coincides with this initiative.

The views in this electoral fairness audit are the views of the FDA only. The FDA’s members are in no way affiliated with the National Electoral Council or any of the Venezuelan registered/non-registered political parties. The Audit is an independent assessment based on objectivity, transparency and non-partisanship. The FDA assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors in the measurement and calculation of its audit results or inaccuracies in its research of relevant Venezuelan legislation.

About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDA’s mission is

to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society.

Overall, the FDA works

1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed;

2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)

Foundation for Democratic Advancement | 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Venezuela April 15, 2013 R1 of 67

To ensure its objectivity and independence, the FDA does not conduct privately paid research. However, if you or your organization has an important research idea or are aware of an important issue on government processes, the FDA is available to listen to your idea or issue and possibly help raise public awareness by initiating and leading change through report research and analysis. Please contact the FDA at (403) 669-8132 or email us at [email protected] for more information.

An online version of this report can be found at: www.democracychange.orgFor further information and/or comments on this report please contact Mr. Stephen Garvey at [email protected]


Table of Contents

Introduction 5

How to Read the Report 7

Chapter 1: Electoral Finance Audit Results 11Analysis 19

Chapter 2: Media Election Content Audit Results 21Analysis 28

Chapter 3: Candidates and Parties Audit Results 30Analysis 42

Chapter 4: Voters Audit Results 43Analysis 52

Chapter 5: Overall Audit Results 53

Chapter 6: Analysis 54

Chapter 7: Conclusion and Recommendations 57

References 60

Appendix: Research Methodology 64

FDA Research and Audit Teams and Observers 69


Introduction

The FDA based its audit of Venezuela’s federal electoral legislation on non-partisanship and objectivity.

The audit process entails three major components:

1) Research of Venezuela's federal electoral legislation and any related legislation and documents.

2) Audit of the legislation and research findings based on audit team consensus, and the FDA’s matrices, financial spreadsheets, and scoring scales.

3) Analysis of findings.

The FDA based the matrix scoring scales on the fundamental democratic principles of legislative neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness. In addition, it based the scales on the comparative impact of variables on democracy. For example, if there is no electoral finance transparency then this result will affect other variables such as caps on contributions. Without financial transparency, it is near impossible to enforce electoral finance laws, which prevent and uncover electoral finance wrongdoing. Consequently, according to the FDA’s matrices, zero financial transparency will lower the score for caps on contributions.

The FDA’s research component is objective as it is simply a compilation of the legislative information and financial data for the Venezuelan system and any related findings based in fact and sound empirical research.

The FDA’s audit component is both objective and subjective. It is objective when determining yes and no facts, such as does country “A” have caps on electoral contributions—yes or no? It is subjective because of the predetermined scores for each audit section, and the scores determined for each section. The FDA acknowledges that there is no absolute scoring system or determination of scores.

The FDA minimizes subjectivity through non-partisanship and basing each score on facts, research findings, financial calculations, and team audit consensus. It bases the scoring scales for each section of the audit on consensus of the FDA auditors and survey results of relevant persons. In addition, the application of core democratic concepts such as electoral legislative neutrality, political freedom, and political fairness, and the comparative impact of variables on democracy inform the scoring scales. Finally, the FDA requires a minimum quorum of five experienced auditors during audit sessions. For further discussion of the FDA methodology, please see the Appendix on page 63.

The FDA is a registered non-profit corporation, and therefore it cannot issue tax-deductible receipts. In addition, the FDA is the sole funder of this report. As a policy to maintain its independence and objectivity, the FDA does not conduct privately funded research projects. The


FDA relies on donations. If you value this report, please consider donating to the Foundation for Democratic Advancement to help cover the costs of producing this report and communicating its content to the stakeholders, and to continue its work on Venezuela.

“Democracy is not a spectator sport.” - Marian Edelman

How to Read the Report


Chapters 1 to 4 focus on the four sections of the FDA’s audit of the Venezuelan federal electoral system. These chapters are formatted in the following manner

1) Chapter summary and table of audit results for the section.2) Audit questions, legislative research and audit findings on each audit subsection.3) Analysis of audit measurements and findings for the section.

Chapter 6, ‘Overall Analysis’, pertains to the measurements and findings from all four audit sections.

Definition of Key Terms

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement characterized the following definitions

Candidates and parties (audit section three)

The opportunity and ability of candidates and parties to campaign in the public domain for elected positions. This opportunity and ability occur before, during, and after an election period. Candidates and parties may involve election content of media, electoral finance, and voters (as defined below). In the terms of the FDA electoral fairness audit, which focuses on electoral process, candidates and parties includes:

1) Registrations requirements for candidates and parties.2) Laws on candidates’ and parties’ access to media and reasonable opportunity to take

advantage of the access.3) Regulations on access to major debates.4) Electoral complaints process for candidates and parties

In the FDA electoral fairness audit, candidates and parties only encompasses laws, regulations, procedures etc. that affect the influence of candidates and parties. For example, candidates and parties does not encompass laws on electoral complaints by voters nor does it encompass laws on voter assistance at polling booths.

Electoral fairness

The impartiality and equality of election law before, during, and after an election period. In the context of the audit, electoral fairness involves concepts relating to election content in the media, candidates and parties, electoral finance, and voters. In particular, this includes evaluating impartiality and balance of political content in the media, equitable opportunity and ability for registered candidates and parties to influence voters and government, equitable electoral finance laws, and equitable opportunity and ability for voters to voice political views and/or influence the outcome of an election.

Electoral fairness does not allow bias through, for example, legislation that gives a distinct electoral advantage to one registered party over another, or laws that allow equitable access to media without facilitating equal opportunity to take advantage of this access. In contrast, electoral fairness would include a broad, balanced diffusion of electoral propaganda by registered political parties during the campaign period, equal campaign finances (beyond equal expenditure limits) for all registered parties according to the number of candidates endorsed, and


the registration of parties based on reasonable popular support (rather than financial deposit or unreasonable popular support).

Electoral fairness in any democratic process must include an equal playing field for registered parties and candidates, distinguishable by voters according to a clear political platform, and a broad and balanced political discourse in where information about electoral choices are clear and available to the voting public.

Electoral finance (audit section one)

Electoral finance laws applied to registered candidates and parties before, during, and after an election period. Electoral finance also encompasses campaign finance which is restricted to the campaign period.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, electoral finance includes:

1) Caps on electoral contributions (or the lack of).2) Caps on candidate and party electoral expenditures (or the lack of).3) Procedures for financial disclosure and reporting of candidate and party electoral finance.4) Procedures for the handling of electoral contributions by registered candidates and parties.

Electoral finance does not include non-financial laws, regulations, procedures etc. such as those relating to candidate and party access to media, civil rights laws such as freedom of speech and assembly, rules on right of reply in the media, laws on the election content of media, and laws on voter assistance.

Special interest-based democracy

A system in where either individual or corporate interests dictate government action and factions with the most economic and political power in society influence policies and legislation. The electoral system is set up to allow special and minority interests to impact election outcomes primarily through electoral finance and media access and exposure.

People-based democracy

A system where power is invested in the people and the population as a whole influence government policies and legislation. The electoral system is set up in a fair and equitable manner so that all citizens, within reason, have an opportunity to influence the election outcome to the same degree.

Media election coverage (audit section two)

The political content of radio and television broadcasters, the printed press, and online news media such as news sites before, during, and after an election period. This content may include news stories, editorials, articles, programs, and group analysis and discussion. It does not include electoral advertisements by candidates, parties, and third parties. Electoral advertisements by candidates and parties are included in candidates and parties, and electoral advertisements by third parties are included in voters and electoral finance.


In the context of FDA electoral fairness audit, election content of media includes:

1) Registration requirements for television and radio broadcast companies and press companies.2) Laws on the ownership concentration of media (or the lack of).3) Laws on the election content of media before, during, and after a campaign period. 4) Laws on freedom of the press and broadcasters.

The FDA defines “balance” in the media as having equal political content of all registered political parties presented during the election period. Voters should receive balanced information on all registered candidates and parties in order for election outcomes to reflect the will of the majority. The FDA does not support the idea that incumbent or previously successful parties should be favoured in media coverage in a current election as this could create bias based merely on past results, and potentially weaken the process of capturing the will of the people in the present. In addition, the FDA does not support unlimited freedom of broadcast and press media and believes there is a misleading connection between this and democracy. The purpose of democratic elections is to capture as accurately as possible the will of the people from districts. Broad and balanced electoral discourse creates an informed electorate and supports the will of the people. The FDA concedes that media ownership concentration laws aimed to produce pluralistic ownership could cancel out any imbalance in political content and provide equitable coverage of all registered political parties.

Voters (audit section four)

The citizens who are eligible to vote and their opportunity to express that vote and a political voice through articles, letters to editors, blogs, advertisements, spoken word etc. in the public domain. Voter influence applies to the period before, during, and after an election.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, which focuses on electoral process, voters include:

1) Laws and regulations on freedom of speech and assembly.2) Laws on the registration requirements for voters. 3) Laws on voter assistance at the polling booth. 4) Laws on the inclusion of minorities in the electoral process.

In the context of the FDA electoral fairness audit, voters may be impacted by the election content of media, and candidates and parties and electoral finance law. For example, no cap on contributions to candidates and parties will affect voters because no cap favors voters with more financial wealth, and thereby the lack of cap creates electoral inequity and imbalance among voters.


Chapter One: Electoral Finance

This chapter focuses on Venezuelan electoral finance laws and the FDA's audit of them in terms of electoral fairness. Based on the political concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA team audits electoral finance laws according to their equity for registered candidates, parties, and voters (see Appendix on page 63 for further explanation). The FDA team audits from the standpoint of a people's representative democracy. Table 1 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:

Table 1


Electoral Finance Section Variables

% Subsection Audit Weight

Numerical Subsection Audit

Weight

Audit Results

% Results

Electoral Finance Transparency

20% 2.0 0.0 0.0%

Contributions to Candidates & Parties

15% 1.5 1.0 100%

Caps on Contributions to Candidates & Parties

20% 2.0 1.25 62.5%

Campaign Expenditure Limits

22.5% 2.25 1.0 44.44%

Caps on Third-party Expenditures

12.5% 1.25 1.0 80%

Legislative Process 10% 1.0 1.0 100%Variables from Other Sections

n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 100% 10 5.25 52.5%

The FDA chose these subsections because they represent core areas of electoral finance. The audit of electoral finance includes examination of Venezuelan electoral finance legislation and the application of legislative research to the FDA matrices. Matrix scoring is based on an overall score of 0 to 10 out of 10.

What follows are the audit questions, legislative research, and audit findings:

Electoral Finance Transparency Audit Questions

1) Are candidate and party finances transparent to the public?2) Are candidate and party finances transparent to candidates and parties only?3) Are candidate and party finances transparent to the government only?

Legislative Research

The National Electoral Council has the authority to set guidelines for financing and political-electoral advertising and impose penalties when these guidelines are not followed (Election Power Act, Article 33 (20) and Venezuela Constitution, Article 293(3)).

The National Electoral Council has the authority to determine and regulate all matters pertaining to the financing of national election campaigns (Election Power Act, Article 33 (23)).

The National Electoral Council has the authority to ensure compliance with laws on financing of election campaigns of political organizations, constituency, civic groups, or citizens and independent candidates (Election Power Act, Article 33 (24)).


The Committee on Political Participation and Financing has the authority to control, regulate, and investigate funds for political purposes and electoral campaign financing (Election Power Act, Article 64).

Representatives of candidates and the candidates must report in writing to the National Electoral Council the name, identity card or Tax Information Registry of the persons authorized to pay for propaganda (Election Law, Article 74).

The state requires political parties to document and account for their income and investments. Political parties must submit a general ledger or inventory book to the state and must retain those records for five years (Law on Political Parties, Article 25(6).

The state requires political organizations, voter groups, indigenous communities and organizations, and candidates to register in the Electoral Registration Financial Information within five days before the start of an election campaign (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 258).

The state requires political organizations, voter groups, indigenous communities and organizations, and candidates to register through the System Automated information of income, expenses, receivables and accounts payable, within the first five (5) calendar days to the end of each month, and be activated 5 days prior to the start of an election campaign (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 259).

The Commission of Political Participation and Finance may conduct financial research, analysis of accounting, and financial audits to ensure compliance financial regulations (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 260).

The state requires political organizations, voter groups, indigenous communities and organizations, and candidates to maintain a system of accounting that records transactions, and preparation of economic and financial statements that conform to accepted accounting principles (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 265).

The state requires political organizations, voter groups, indigenous communities and organizations, and candidates to use up to two designated bank accounts, and these accounts should be consistent with the accounting books and information transmitted through automated accountability (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 269).

The state requires political organizations, voter groups, indigenous communities and organizations, and candidates to perform monthly updates to the automated system of accountability accounts within the first 5 days to maturity of each month (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043 Article 272).

Within 60 days following an election, the state requires political organizations, voter groups, indigenous communities and organizations, and candidates to submit their final campaign funding reports through the automated system of accountability accounts (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 273).


The Commission on Political Participation and Financing will conduct random audits on campaign funds of parties, organizations, or individuals (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 276).

The National Electoral Council may not disclose financial figures on candidates, parties etc. during the campaign, but releases them after the campaign period (Vergara, 2012).

The FDA researchers found no legislation that requires the National Electoral Council to release publicly financial information on candidates and parties.

Audit Finding

Candidate and party finances are only transparent to the state.

Contributions to Candidates and Parties Audit Questions

1) Are contributions restricted to citizens?2) Are contributions disallowed by foreigners, public institutions, and charities? 3) Are anonymous contributions set at a reasonable level? Legislative Findings The state disallows anonymous contributions (General Election Regulation, Article 257(1)).

The state disallows contributions from public agencies, public foundations receiving funds from governments or foreign agencies, and foreign companies headquartered abroad (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 257).

The state disallows contributions from foreign donors and companies contracted to provide public services (Vergara, 2012).

The state disallows election propaganda to be funded from abroad (Election Law, Article 75(14)).

The FDA researchers found no laws that restrict contributions to individuals.

Audit Findings

Venezuelan citizens and corporations can both make electoral contributions. The state disallows foreigners, and Venezuelan public institutions and charities from making electoral contributions. The state disallows anonymous contributions, and thereby eliminates the possibility of illegal anonymous contributions.

Caps on Contributions to Candidates and Parties


Audit Questions

1) Are the caps on candidates' and parties' contributions reflective of per capita disposable income level?

2) Are the caps on candidates own contributions reflective of per capita disposable income level?

Research

As of October 2011, there are 18,022,710 Venezuelans on the voters list (GDP per capita (current US$), 2012a). The 2011 estimated GDP per capita income for Venezuela is $12,400 (USD) (GDP per capita (current US$), 2012a). The FDA Researchers were unable to find per capita disposable income data on Venezuela.


The FDA researchers found indirect restrictions on contributions through a requirement for “complete and balanced” election propaganda and coverage. These restrictions help offset no legislated cap on contributions and no limit on expenditures.

The National Electoral Council may finance in part or in full the diffusion of electoral propaganda in the media of radio, television, or print in accordance with regulations including ensuring complete and balanced coverage (Election Law, Article 78).

Public and private media election coverage will be complete and balanced without distorting the reality of the campaign. The media must observe “rigorous” balance in terms of space and time devoted to information on candidates and parties (Election Law, Article 81).

The state disallows public and private media from making their own election propaganda aimed at encouraging or persuading the electorate to vote for a particular candidate or party or against particular candidate or party (Election Law, Article 79).

Each candidate is limited to a half page print ad in national newspapers per day, and broadcast ads are limited to 3 minutes per day (National Electoral Council Investigates Campaigns, 2012). Radio ads are limited to 4 minutes per day (Walser, 2012).

The FDA researchers found no direct restrictions on contribution amounts.

The FDA researchers found no direct restrictions on personal contributions by candidates.

Audit Findings

The National Electoral Council has the authority to finance in part or in full the diffusion of electoral propaganda in the media of radio, television, or print in accordance with regulations that require complete and balanced election coverage. In addition, each candidate is limited to a half page print ad in national newspapers per day, broadcast ads are limited to 3 minutes per day, and radio ads are limited to 4 minutes per day. Therefore, FDA auditors concluded that there are in effect indirect caps on contributions to candidates and parties and allowed the scores to reflect


this. The indirect cap does not include billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events. The FDA auditors determined that a cap of 3 minutes per day for the 97-day campaign period is not reflective of per capita gross income of $12,400. For example, if a 3-minute ad costs $250,000, then that works out to $24,250,000 (USD) in advertisement expense over the campaign period, and that does not include ads in other media sectors. The FDA auditors determine that the electoral subsidies through National Electoral Council do not directly create a level playing field, because they do not include billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events, and it is unknown to what extent the National Electoral Council disseminates election propaganda for the distinct purpose of promoting equality among parties.

Campaign Expenditure Limits

Audit Questions

1) If there are campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties, are they set high enough and still reasonably attainable by all registered candidates and parties?

2) If there are public subsidies or other financial instruments, do they create an equal level of campaign finances for candidates and parties?


There are no public subsidies for candidates and political parties (Vergara, 2012).

The FDA researchers found indirect restrictions on expenditure limits through a requirement for “complete and balanced” election propaganda and coverage. These restrictions help offset no legislated cap on contributions and no limit on expenditures.




The state disallows public and private media from making their own election propaganda aimed at encouraging or persuading the electorate to vote for a particular candidate or party or against a particular candidate or party (Election Law, Article 79).

Audit Findings

The National Electoral Council has the authority to finance in part or in full the diffusion of electoral propaganda in the media of radio, television, or print in accordance with regulations that require complete and balanced election coverage. In addition, each candidate is limited to a


half page print ad in national newspapers per day, broadcast ads are limited to 3 minutes per day, and radio ads are limited to 4 minutes per day. Therefore, FDA auditors concluded that there are in effect indirect campaign expenditure limits on candidates and parties and allowed the scores to reflect this. The indirect expenditure limits does not include billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events. The FDA auditors determined that a cap of 3 minutes per day for the 97-day campaign period is not reflective of per capita disposable income of $12,400. For example, if a 3-minute ad costs $250,000, then that works out to $24,250,000 (USD) in advertisement expense over the campaign period, and that does not include ads in other media sectors. The FDA auditors determine that the electoral subsidies through National Electoral Council do not directly create a level playing field, because they do not include billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events, and it is unknown to what extent the National Electoral Council disseminates election propaganda for the distinct purpose of promoting equality among parties.

Caps on Third-party Spending

Audit Questions

1) If there is third party spending, is it restricted to citizens only?2) If there are caps on third party spending, are they high enough and reasonably attainable by

all adult citizens? 3) Are there public subsidies, or other financial instruments, that create an equitable level of

third party spending?

Legislative Research The state only allows political organizations, candidates, and indigenous groups and voter groups representing candidates disseminate election propaganda (General Election Law, Article 203).

The state requires political organizations, voter groups, candidates, indigenous communities and organizations to register through the System Automated information of income, expenses, receivables and accounts payable, within the first five (5) calendar days to the end of each month, and be activated 5 days prior to the start of an election campaign (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 259).

Audit Finding

Only candidates, parties, and indigenous organizations and voter groups representing candidates can distribute election propaganda.

Legislative Process

Audit Question

1) Is there an effective legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws?



The National Electoral Council has the authority to set guidelines for financing and political-electoral advertising and impose penalties when these guidelines are not followed (Election Power Act, Article 33 (20); Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 293(3)).

The National Electoral Council has the authority to determine and regulate all matters pertaining to the financing of national election campaigns (Election Power Act, Article 33 (23)).

The National Electoral Council has the authority to ensure compliance with laws on financing of election campaigns of political organizations, constituency, civic groups, or citizens and independent candidates (Election Power Act, Article 33 (24)).

The Committee on Political Participation and Financing has the authority to control, regulate, and investigate funds for political purposes and electoral campaign financing (Election Power Act, Article 64).

The National Bureau of Financing has the authority to investigate election wrongdoing as directed by the Committee on Political Participation and Financing (Election Power Act, Article 69).

The state has a system of sanctions for individuals and organizations found guilty of electoral misconduct (Election Law, Article 227).

Punitive measures include: 15 to 50 tax units or equivalent of one day of arrest per tax unit for election officials who refuse to accept the vote of electors entitled to vote; 20 to 60 tax units to proportional arrest for impeding the election process or election propaganda or promote a candidate who has failed to meet registration requirements; 5000 to 7000 tax units for public or private media refusal to broadcast election propaganda, public or private media disseminating election propaganda within 48 hours prior to Election Day, or breach the fairness of media coverage; 500 to 700 tax units or proportional arrest for other violations of the Election Law as determined by a competent authority (Election Law, Articles 231-233).

The National Electoral Council is comprised of five persons not related to political organizations, one from faculty of law or political science, one by the Citizen Power, and three nominated by civil society. The members of the National Electoral Council are approved by a vote of two-thirds of the National Assembly and can be removed by the National Assembly after a ruling by the Supreme Court (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 295 to 296).

Audit Findings

Venezuela has a comprehensive legislative process to enforce electoral finance laws that includes an automated system of accounting, random audits, and significant punitive measures for financial contraventions. The fact that the finances of candidates and parties are not disclosed to the public or other candidates and parties places limits on this process; however, FDA auditors did not deduct marks in this particular section, but rather, in the electoral finance transparency section. In addition, a lack of transparency does not necessarily result in ineffective enforcement of electoral finance laws. This is generally contingent on misconduct by the National Electoral Council and sub-committees.


Total score for electoral fairness relating to electoral finance: 52.5 percent out of 100 percent.

Analysis

The FDA auditors measured an unacceptable passing score of 52.5 percent for Venezuelan electoral finance legislation. The FDA auditors identified an innovative process of indirect caps and limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, a strong legislative process for electoral finance including automated filing system, random audits, and strong enforcement mechanisms. However, the absence of direct or indirect limit on billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events, the expense for mass-media advertisements that are not reflective of per capita disposable income, and the fact that electoral finances are only transparent to the state might work to counteract these positive aspects. The potential for financial corruption by pro-government parties, an unequal standard of financial audits, targeting of contributors to anti-government parties by the state, and an unequal financial playing field for candidates and parties are evident.

FDA summaries of the key findings on the Venezuelan electoral finance laws and their impact

1) Electoral finances are only transparent to the state through the National Electoral Council.

Impact

There is the potential for financial corruption by pro-government parties, because only the state is privy to electoral finances.


The state may apply unequal financial accounting and auditing measures, and thereby favor pro-government parties.

The state may target contributors to anti-government parties for discrimination or punishment.

2) No direct caps or limits on campaign contributions and expenditures.

Impact

The state’s indirect caps and limits on contributions and expenditures apply to mass media advertisement; however, advertisement levels are not reflective of per capita disposable income and might favor wealthier parties.

Media limitations do not apply to billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events, giving wealthier parties an unfair advantage in this realm of advertisement.

3) The state allows corporations to contribute to candidates, parties, voter groups, and indigenous organizations.

Impact

Electoral law relating to campaign contributions favors corporations over the electorate. Corporate earnings are clearly higher than per capita disposable income, allowing for a greater impact on the election process and outcome than from the majority.

Venezuela requires significant reforms of its electoral finance legislation. As it stands, there is the potential for electoral finance corruption and an unfair playing field for parties and candidates. To put Venezuela’s score of 52.5 percent in context, in an identical audit the United States received a failing score of 48.25 percent, a score that takes into account zero caps on contributions, no limit on expenditures by non-connected third parties (Super PACs), and no expenditure limits for privately funded presidential and congressional candidates (FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on the United States, 2012).


Chapter Two: Media Election Coverage

This chapter focuses on Venezuelan’s media laws and the FDA's audit of them. Based on the concepts of egalitarianism and political liberalism, the FDA audit team examined media laws according to the standard of broad and balanced political coverage before, during and after a campaign period (see Appendix for further explanation). Table 2 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:

Table 2

Media Election Coverage Section

Variables



Weight

Audit Results

% Results

Broad and Balanced Election Coverage

30% 3.0 3.0 100%

Media Ownership 15% 1.5 1.5 100%Survey/Polls 5% 0.5 0.5 100%Freedom of Media 40% 4.0 4.0 100%Press Code of Practice/Conduct

10% 1.0 1.0 100%

Variables from Other Sections

n/a n/a n/a n/a

Total 100% 10 10 100%

Broad and Balanced Political Coverage


Audit Questions

1) During the campaign period, is the media (private and public) required legally to publish/broadcast broad/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?

2) Outside of the campaign period, is the media legally required to publish/broadcast pluralistic/balanced coverage of registered parties?

3) If the media is legally required to publish/disseminate broad and balanced political coverage, are there reasonable monitoring and penalty mechanisms in place?


The Election Law does not prevent the President from conducting his professional duty during an election, including speeches on all the country’s TV channels and radio stations (Vergara, 2012).

The state requires equal media access to all registered candidates and parties (Election Law, Principles and Rights, Article 72(10)).

The state allows for freedom of political thought and expression (Election Law, Principles and Rights, Article 72(2)).

The state does not allow election propaganda outside of the election period. Venezuela law defines election propaganda as information that encourages or persuades the electorate to vote for a particular candidate or party, or against a particular candidate or party (Election Law, Article 75(1)).

The state requires the promoter of election propaganda to be disclosed (Election Law, Article 75 (5)).

Broadcast media must not refuse to broadcast election propaganda unless directed by the National Electoral Council (Election Law, Article 80).





Publications, radio stations, television stations and other official media may not be used by any political party for their propaganda (Election Law, Article 35).


The state does not view candidates and leaders of political organizations, and any political group or organization participation on talk shows, news radio or television or in social media printed, digital, or other mass media as electioneering communication (During the Election Campaign Propaganda, 2012).

Audit Findings

Venezuela has comprehensive legislation on broad and balanced election coverage during the campaign period. Outside of the campaign period, the state does not allow candidates, parties, and third-parties from disseminating election propaganda. In addition, the state disallows public and private media from disseminating their own election propaganda. Further, the National Electoral Council monitors election coverage, and has strong enforcement mechanisms in place to enforce the laws on election propaganda.

Media Ownership Concentration Laws Audit Questions

1) If there are media concentration laws, are they effective in causing a plurality of political discourse?

2) If there is no legal requirement of media plurality, impartiality, and balanced content or media ownership concentration laws, are there any other laws that are effective in causing a plurality of political discourse before and during an election period?


The FDA researchers found effective and comprehensive antitrust legislation relating to media ownership concentration. The state also requires equal candidate and party access to media, complete and balanced campaign coverage, and impartial media election content. In addition, the National Electoral Council has the power and authority to enforce these laws, including the financial capacity to disseminate election propaganda.

Venezuelan antitrust laws do not allow economic concentrations that have anticompetitive effects and/or create a dominant position. Economic concentration is the result of mergers or acquisitions (Venezuela Antitrust Legislation, 2012).

Venezuela’s new 2012 antitrust laws prohibit, prevent, correct, eliminate, and punish monopolistic and oligopolistic behaviors and practices, and in general those practices that hinder participation by all produces, suppliers etc., (Venezuelan antitrust bill establishes more ways to expropriate, 2012).

Audit Finding

Venezuela has effective measures in place to prevent media ownership concentration through its antitrust legislation.


Surveys/Polls Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable public disclosure requirements on surveys and polls in terms of their methodology, data, and funder?


The state prohibits the disclosure of results of polls or surveys, which aim to present electoral preferences or voting intentions, seven days prior to Election Day (Election Law, Article 82).

Any publication of a political nature must have a corresponding imprint (Election Law, Article 34). Opinion polls and surveys disseminated in the media must include the names of the persons registered to perform the polls or surveys, and the technical specifications and methodology of the polls or surveys (During the Election Campaign Propaganda, Article 219).

Audit Finding

Venezuela has comprehensive disclosure requirements on opinion polls and surveys, which include information on date, methodology, and pollster and/or surveyor.

Freedom of the Media

Audit Question

1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of the media (including journalists)?



The state allows communication and information on elections to be free, diverse, plural, accurate, and timely (Election Law, Principles and Rights, Article 72(3)).

The state supports respect for different ideas, and promotion of tolerance, transparency, and peaceful coexistence (Election Law, Principles and Rights, Article 72(8)).

The state disallows public and private media from making their own election propaganda aimed at encouraging or persuading the electorate to vote a particular candidate or party or against particular candidate or party (Election Law, Article 79).

The state requires for equal of media access to all registered candidates and parties (Election Law, Principles and Rights, Article 72(10)).




Any political party for its propaganda may not use publications, radio stations, television stations and other official media (Election Law, Article 35).


The National Electoral Council will monitor election propaganda to ensure compliance with Election Law (Election Law, Article 89).

The National Electoral Council has the authority to order media to withdraw election propaganda if it violates Election Law. Offenders or alleged offenders may object orally or in writing within 5 days of notification. In case of dispute, within 5 days a hearing will open and a decision made within five working days of the hearing (Election Law, Article 90).

In cases of access to information, the confidentiality of journalists and other professionals will be retained as determined by law (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 28).

Every Venezuelan has to right to freedom of thought and expression by any means of communication and diffusion. Non-anonymity, war propaganda, discriminatory messages or those promoting religious intolerance will not be tolerated (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 57).

Communication is free and plural and comes with rights and responsibilities. Every citizen has the right to timely, accurate, and impartial information (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 58).

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is irrevocably free and independent, basing its values on freedom, equality, justice, and international peace (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Fundamental Principles, Article 1).

Freedom is an inherent right of Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Fundamental Principles, Article 1).

Venezuela holds political pluralism, liberty, justice, social responsibility, and democracy as some its superior values (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Fundamental Principles, Article 2).

Under the Law for Social Responsibility in Radio, Television and Electronic Media (2010), electronic media including internet must not transit content that will “foment anxiety in the


public or disturb public order”, “incite or promote disobedience of the current legal order”, “refuse to recognize the legitimately constituted authority” or “incite or promote hatred or intolerance.” The government broadcasting authority, CONATEL, has the authority to order internet service providers to restrict access to those that violate the Social Responsibility law (Venezuela: Legislative Assault on Free Speech, Civil Society, 2012). The FDA researchers note that there are no restrictions on political content and election campaign content.

Under the Law for Social Responsibility in Radio, Television and Electronic Media (2010), broadcast media that transmit content which violates the prohibitions against ‘fomenting anxiety” and “promot[ing] disobedience” face fines of 10 percent of their gross income and suspension for up to 72 hours (Venezuela: Legislative Assault on Free Speech, Civil Society, 2012). The FDA researchers note that there are no restrictions on political content and election campaign content.

Under the Law for Social Responsibility in Radio, Television and Electronic Media (2010), broadcast media licenses may be revoked for transmitting content which “advocate, incite or constitute propaganda for war” or “induce homicide” (Venezuela: Legislative Assault on Free Speech, Civil Society, 2012). The FDA researchers note that there are no restrictions on political content and election campaign content.

Under the Organic Law of Telecommunications (updated December 20, 2010), the state may suspend or revoke the broadcasting concessions to private outlets if the state thinks it is “convenient for the interests of the nation or if public order and security demands it.” In addition, the assets of privately owned stations or channels whose operating license has expired or terminated by the broadcasting authority will “revert” to the state to ensure continuity of service (Venezuela: Legislative Assault on Free Speech, Civil Society, 2012). The FDA researchers note that these regulations may affect electoral discourse by limiting the diversity of media voices. However, the revoked licenses are largely based on, for example, inciting hatred and violence and not on typical political discourse.

Under the Law for the Defense of Political Sovereignty and National Self-Determination, the state disallows Venezuelan non-governmental organizations from receiving international support (Venezuela: Legislative Assault on Free Speech, Civil Society, 2012). The FDA researchers note that this regulation does not prevent Venezuelan non-governmental organizations from having a voice in election discourse.

Under the Election Law, the state forbids any citizen from insulting public officials (Walser, 2012). Article 72 states that citizens are required to respect the honor, privacy, intimacy, self-image, confidence and reputations of individuals. Article 75 states that election propaganda must respect the honor, privacy, intimacy, self-image, confidence and reputations of individuals and direct obscenities and derogatory statements against the agencies and entities of public power, institutions and public officials or public servants.

Audit Findings

In its constitution, Venezuela identifies freedom of expression as a fundamental principle of the country. Venezuela’s Law on Social Responsibility places limits on freedom that encourage violence and hatred, for example. However, there are no restrictions on the freedom of the media, within the bounds of providing complete and balanced election coverage and not


disseminating its own election propaganda. The FDA auditors did not find unreasonable limits on freedom of the media.

Press Code of Practice/Conduct

Audit Questions

1) Does a Code of Practice/Conduct that supports impartial, balanced electoral coverage guide the press?

2) If a Code of Practice/Conduct that supports impartial, balanced electoral coverage guides the press, is the Code of Practice/Conduct enforceable?


The FDA researchers found no private code of conduct to guide broad and balanced press coverage during election periods.

The FDA researchers found no legislated code of conduct to guide press coverage during the election period. However, Venezuela has other legislation that guides the election coverage of the press including:




Audit Findings

Venezuela has a comprehensive code of conduct for the press’s election coverage, which includes complete and balanced coverage, no dissemination of its own election propaganda, and limits on daily print ads by candidates.

Total score for electoral fairness relating to media content: 100 percent out of 100 percent.


Analysis

The FDA auditors found no deficiency in Venezuela’s media legislation, and therefore it received 100 percent, the highest attainable score, in this audit. Venezuela balances media freedom with complete and balanced election coverage, and thereby puts the Venezuelan electorate first. To allow any public or private media company free reign during elections in the name of press freedom is to act contrary to interests of the people. Democratic elections are fundamentally about the electorate, and the media’s role during elections is to help inform the electorate objectively so that they can make the most informed decision on Election Day. Venezuela recognizes and enacts this fundamental democratic principle.

In contrast, the American media legislation does not mediate electoral discourse. It allows private media to disseminate any election information they choose, ergo such companies determine electoral dialogue and how broad and balanced it is. This approach exposes the American public to biased, subjective, and mis-information, especially considering that the individual ideology and political agenda of owners and profit motivate the actions and position of many American companies. Consequently, in the 2012 FDA United States audit, the American media legislation received a failing score of 42.4 percent as compared to Venezuela’s 100 percent score. Further, the FDA media study on the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election confirmed the potential for narrow and imbalanced election coverage in the United States (FDA Media Study of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election, 2012).

Venezuela does not allow public or private media outlets to create election propaganda, and requires the media to provide “complete and balanced” coverage to the electorate. Media outlets cannot refuse to disseminate election propaganda from any candidate or party unless it violates Venezuelan law. There are no restrictions on media sharing its viewpoint on candidates and parties, as the long as it does not take the form of election propaganda. The Venezuelan state reserves election propaganda for candidates, parties, voter groups, and indigenous communities and organizations. Finally, the state does not allow election propaganda outside of the 97-day election period. The FDA likens these media regulations to a national media code of conduct during elections. In the FDA’s opinion, the Venezuelan approach to media is fair and just. It is not the media’s role or place in democracy to create election propaganda or employ its facilities for election propaganda.

As mentioned in the research on the Venezuela’s media laws, the Law on Social Responsibility has no discernible impact on political expression and campaign coverage. This law pertains to hate speech, speech that promotes and encourages violence, and other forms of malevolent behavior. In addition, Article 72 from the Election Act prohibits slanderous attacks on candidates and public officials, and at the same time, allows constructive criticism of candidates and public officials. Therefore, in the FDA’s opinion, Article 72 has little to no impact on political freedom and election discourse.


Further, the Law of Telecommunications allows the state to suspend and revoke broadcasting concessions to private outlets if “public order and security demands it.” Again, this law pertains to extreme situations where the state may need to assert control. The FDA thinks this law has little or no relevant impact on political discourse or election coverage. In a historical context, there is evidence that the Venezuelan private media aided the attempted coup in 2002. It would follow that the state would adopt measures to prevent a similar occurrence.


Chapter Three: Candidates and Parties This chapter focuses on Venezuelan laws pertaining to candidates and parties. The FDA audit team examines election laws according to their equity for registered candidates and parties (see the Appendix for further explanation). Table 3 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results: Table 3

Candidates & Parties Section Variables



Weight

Audit Results % Results

Campaign Period 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Methodology for Election Winners

2% 0.2 0.03 15%

Electoral Boundaries 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Process of Government 10% 1.0 1.0 100%Registration of Candidates 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Registration of Parties 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Freedom of Expression and Assembly

20% 2.0 2.0 100%

Electoral Complaints 3% 0.3 0.3 100%Presentation of Ballots 1% 0.1 0.1 100%Scrutineers 1% 0.1 0.1 100%Candidate and Party Campaign Advertisement

6% 0.6 0.5 83.33%

Variables from Other Sections

49% 4.9 3.19 65.1%

Total 100% 10 7.79 77.9%

Campaign Period Audit Question

1) Does the length of the campaign period reasonably and fairly allow all registered candidates and parties enough time to share their backgrounds and policies with the voting public?


The National Election Council determines for each election the electoral campaign period (Election Law, Article 71).

The 2012 Venezuelan Presidential Election period is from July 1st to October 5th (Elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela de 2012, 2012).


Audit Findings

The National Electoral Council determines the campaign period and FDA researchers did not find an explicit length for the campaign period. However, in the 2012 Presidential Election, the National Electoral Council has set the campaign period at 97 days. The FDA auditors determine that 97 days is a reasonable length of time for candidates and parties to share backgrounds, platforms, and policies with the electorate.

Methodology for Determining Winners of Districts Audit Questions

1) Is the determination of election winners based on first-past-the-post?2) Is the determination of election winners based on proportional representation closed list?3) Is the determination of election winners based on proportional representation open list?


The Venezuelan Constitution guarantees the principles of personalization of suffrage and proportional representation (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 63).

30 percent of the seats in the National Assembly are determined by proportional representation, and the rest are determined by first-past-the-post (Wilpert, 2010).

Audit Findings

Although the Venezuelan constitution guarantees proportional representation, there are no explicit directives for this process. Currently, proportional representation closed lists decide 30 percent of the seats in the National Assembly, and FDA auditors determined a score of 0.3 (30 percent of 0.1) accordingly. First-past-the-post determines 70 percent of the seats in the National Assembly, resulting in a 0.0 score because there is no value given to first-past-the-post (due to its lack of proportionality).

Electoral Boundaries Audit Question

1) Is the process for determining electoral boundaries reasonable and fair for all registered candidates and parties?


Venezuela electoral district boundaries are based on a minimum of three legislators per state. The total number of legislators varies in proportion to the country’s population. The number of legislators elected is determined by dividing the total number of residents in any given district by 1.1 percent of the national population (Suggett, 2010).


30 percent of the seats in the National Assembly are determined by proportional representation, and the rest are determined by first-past-the-post (Wilpert, 2010).

The National Electoral Council redraws voting district boundaries (Election Power Act, Article 33(11); Venezuelan election law approved, 2009). According to the NCE the districts are redrawn using standard legal method designed not to benefit any party. Rural districts have more voter weight than urban districts (Suggett, 2010). The FDA researchers deem that giving more voter weight to rural districts is reasonable and fair because urban populations are significantly more concentrated. Federal rural districts in Canada may have more weight per voter as compared to urban areas (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 2012). As of 2012, the Alberta federal electoral districts are within 5 percent of electoral population quota, which mean some electoral districts could have 10 percent more population than others (Proposed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries, and Names for Alberta, 2010).

Audit Findings

The National Electoral Council draws Venezuela electoral boundaries according to a standard legal method designed to benefit no particular party. The FDA researchers found no evidence to contradict this decision or process. Although rural districts garner more voter weight than urban districts, this imbalance is relatively acceptable due to discrepancy in population density between the two regions.

Process of Government

Audit Question

1) Within the structure of government do political representatives, individually and as government bodies, have reasonable say in the formation of government policy, legislation etc.?


The Venezuelan President is in power for six years, and may be re-elected with no term limit (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, First Amendment, Article 230).

Deputies to the National Assembly are elected for five years and may be reappointed or re-elected, depending on position, with no term limit (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, First Amendment, Article 192).

The Venezuelan government has four main independent branches of government: National Executive, National Assembly, Judiciary, and Citizen Power (represented by an ombudsmen office). The National Executive lead by the President and Vice-President is in charge of running the country; the National Assembly is the authority of national legislation; the judiciary led by the Supreme Court is authority on the Constitution and enforcing law, and the Ombudsman Office is in charge of protecting the people’s interests and rights (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Articles 72-74, 225-283, 347-350).


Venezuelan people have the power to submit referendum bills to the National Assembly if the people in favor of the bill represent at least twenty-five percent of the electors registered. Treaties, conventions or agreements that could compromise national sovereignty or transfer power to supranational bodies, may be submitted to a referendum on the initiative of the President of the Republic in Council of Ministers, by the vote of two-thirds or the members of the Assembly, or fifteen percent of the voters registered and entered in the civil and voter registration (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 73).

Venezuelan people have to power to submit referendum bills to wholly or partially repeal existing laws if the people in favor of the referendum have support from at least 10 percent of the registered electors (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 74).

Venezuelan people have to power to submit referendum bills to abrogate laws issued by the President of the Republic under Article 236 if those in favor of the referendum have the support of at least 5 percent of the registered electors. The validity of referendum requires at least 40 percent support from registered electors (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 74).

Budget laws including taxation are not subject to referendum nor are laws for protecting, guaranteeing, and developing human rights (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 74).

Audit Findings

Venezuela has four main branches of government: National Executive, National Assembly, Judiciary, and Ombudsman Office. These branches create checks and balances that work to protect the interests of Venezuelans as a whole. In addition, Venezuela allows citizen referendums. The President has no term limits; however, in order to continue his/her period in office s/he must win the election every six years.

Registration of Candidates

Audit Question

1) Are the registration requirements of federal candidates reasonable and based on reasonable popular support rather than finances?


Only Venezuelans by birth may hold the position of President and Vice-President of Venezuela, and President and Vice-President of the National Assembly (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 41). Only Venezuelans by birth or naturalization (15 years of uninterrupted residence in Venezuela) may hold the position of Deputies of the National Assembly (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 41).

Citizens can run as candidates of parties or as independents (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 67).


Presidential candidates must be more than 30 years of age, layperson, registered with Electoral Registry, and not be subject to a disqualification (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 112).

Deputy candidates for the National Assembly must be at least 21 years of age at date of the election, resided for at least four years in a corresponding state, and be registered in the Electoral Registry (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 113).

Independent candidates must have at least five percent support of the electorate in the corresponding territorial scope of position (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 130).

Indigenous candidates must apply through their indigenous communities or organizations. In addition, the candidates must meet the following requirements (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Articles 142-145)

1) Have exercised by traditional authority in their respective Community.2) Having established record in the social struggle for the recognition of their cultural identity.3) Have taken action on behalf of the people and indigenous communities or organization.4) Belonging to an indigenous organization legally constituted a minimum of three (3) years of

operation.

Audit Findings

Venezuela has reasonable registration requirements for presidential and deputy candidates, in which presidential candidates must be at 30 years old, and deputy candidates must be at least 21 years old. In addition, the President must be Venezuelan by birth, while Deputies must be Venezuelan by birth or naturalization of 15 years. There are no financial requirements on candidate registration, and independent candidates must have at least 0.5 percent electoral support in their corresponding election area. Indigenous candidates for three regions must have the support of their communities prior to becoming a candidate.

Registration of Parties Audit Question

1) Are the registration requirements of parties reasonable and based on reasonable popular support rather than finances?



All Venezuelans have the right to associate for political purposes (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 67).

Political parties are required to adopt a name different from other political parties (Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, Article 7).

Regional and national parties must have popular support of not less than 0.5 percent of the population enrolled in the electoral registry of the respective territorial scope of party (Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, Articles 10 and 26).

Parties must submit three copies of the party’s statement, charter, political agenda, and statues, and description and drawing of symbols and emblems of party, and list of party leaders and their roles to the Supreme Electoral Council (Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, Article 10).

Political parties in their charters are forbidden from being subordinate to the directives from foreign entities and associations if the subordination threatens the sovereignty or independence of the nation or bring about change by violence to the national institutions legitimately constituted (Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, Article 6).

Citizen groups who had candidates in the last elections and obtained at least 3 percent of the vote are not subject to fulfilling registration requirements (Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, Article 23).

Anyone can object to or appeal decisions regarding party registration (Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, Articles 13-15).

Renewal of national party registration requires proof of 0.5 percent popular support, or at least 1 percent of votes cast in previous election (Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, Article 26).

Audit Findings

To be registered, political parties need at least 0.5 percent popular support. There are no financial requirements for registration. The FDA auditors deem these registration requirements reasonable and consider a barrier of entry necessary due to the privileges of entry such as media access and exposure.

Electoral Complaints

Audit Questions

1) Do candidates and parties have mechanisms in which to file complaints for electoral wrongdoing/fraud?

2) Are there reasonable mechanisms to enforce candidate and party electoral complaints?



The National Electoral Council has the authority to hear and resolve complaints under the Election Power Act (Election Power Act, Article 33 (31)).

Any electorate may make a claim about his or her electoral registration, and complaint will go through a legal process to determine its validity (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Articles 28-29; Election Law, Article 21).

Any electorate may make claims of electoral wrongdoing. There is specific process in place for electoral complaints, including a detailed written statement of complaint/allegation, investigation, and opportunity for defense against complaint (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Articles 281-288).

The state has specific procedures for public complaints regarding election propaganda. The complaints process involves complaint filing, investigation, appeal process, resolution including removal of propaganda and punitive measures against violator (Election Power Act, 20-33).


Audit Findings

Venezuela has a comprehensive electoral complaints process that is open to all citizens. It involves an appeal process and enforcement mechanisms, including immediate removal of illegal election propaganda.

Presentation of Ballots Audit Question

1) Are electoral lists presented on ballots in a fair, equitable way for all registered candidates and parties?


Since the Venezuelan electoral system is almost 100 percent automated, computer screens display the ballots. When a citizen votes, they get a print out of their vote to confirm that they


voted the way they intended (Electoral technology in Venezuela. 2012, Election Law, Articles 121 and 131).

The NCE reveals the ballots designed for the upcoming presidential elections with the Venezuelan electorate on August 16, 2012, prior to Election Day. The purpose of sharing the sample ballots is for informational purposes. An image of the candidates, their name, and the name of their parties is on the ballot (Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 2012). The FDA researches viewed images of the sample ballots.

Audit Findings

The National Electoral Council designs the ballots. FDA researchers did not find legislation on their design but viewed a sample design for the 2012 Presidential Election. It had an image of presidential candidates, their name, and the name of their party. In addition, the National Electoral Council shares its ballot designs with the electorate almost two months prior to Election Day, and allows the electorate to view the ballots prior to Election Day.

Poll Watcher and Challenger

Audit Question

1) Are candidates and parties allowed poll watchers and challengers at polling stations?


Venezuelan automated ballot system subject to observation by political representatives (Letter to the Foundation for Democratic Advancement about the Secrecy of Venezuelan Voting Ballots, 2012).

Political representatives are permitted to ink their fingers and test different soluble substances to verify reliability of ink used in elections ((Letter to the Foundation for Democratic Advancement about the Secrecy of Venezuelan Voting Ballots, 2012).

At polling stations, the Electoral Board allows the local presence of electors and electoral witnesses with no limitation other than the local physical capacity and security of the election (Election Law, Article 140).

The tally sheet of election results shall be legible and be signed by the electors and witnesses present (Election Law, Articles 142-143).

Political organizations, groups of electors, candidates or the candidates on their own initiative and indigenous communities and organizations have the right to have witnesses to the electoral bodies’ subordinates (Election Law, Article 157).

Witnesses will not be inhibited in performing their duties by members of the electoral bodies (Election Law, Article 158).


The automated electoral system has an electoral audit and verification audit by citizens. Electoral audit ensures the system is fully functional and reliable. Electors receive voting receipts to confirm that they voted as they intended (Election Law, Articles 159-162).

The Electoral Board uses the same steps as the state in determining citizenship (Election Law, Article 163).

Audit Findings

Venezuela has comprehensive legislation on observation by political representatives during many stages of the electoral process. In addition, the state permits political representatives to verify key aspects of the electoral process such as finger ink used on Election Day.

Candidate and Party Advertisement

Audit Questions

1) During the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal access to radio, television, and print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?

2) During the campaign period, do candidates' and parties' political advertisements in media include a public subsidy component to ensure an equality of political advertisement in the media?

3) Outside of the campaign period, do candidates and parties have equal to radio, television, and print media for political advertisement, and equal cost of political advertisement?


Each candidate is limited to a half page print ad in national newspapers per day, and broadcast ads are limited to 3 minutes per day (Venezuelan Embassy Washington, 2012). Radio ads are limited to 4 minutes per day (Walser, 2012).


The FDA researchers could not find legislation that requires an equal cost for advertisements for all candidates and parties. The National Electoral Council’s authority to finance the dissemination of election propaganda, and the state requirement that the media observe a rigorous balance of candidate and party advertisement in terms of space and time partly offsets this lack of legislation.





The FDA researchers found no legislated public subsidy component in the Venezuelan electoral system, except indirectly through the NEC, which has the authority to finance the dissemination of election propaganda and ensure equality of political advertisement in the press, radio, and television. The NEC’s authority does not include billboard, poster, and flyer advertisements. The press, radio, and television are mass media outlets (Election Law, Article 78).

The state does not allow election propaganda outside of the election period. Venezuela law defines election propaganda as information that encourages or persuades the electorate to vote for a particular candidate or party, or against a particular candidate or party (Election Law, Article 75(1)).

The state disallows posters, drawings and other propaganda on public buildings and monuments (Election Law, Article 32).

Any political party for their propaganda may not use publications, radio stations, television stations and other official media (Election Law, Article 35).

Audit Findings

Although electoral law demands equal access to media for all candidates and parties, there is no provision that the media charge the same advertisement costs to all candidates and parties. Therefore, the FDA auditors made a 50 percent deduction in its score. During the campaign period, the National Electoral Council disseminates election propaganda and works to ensure complete and balanced campaign coverage, which acts as an indirect subsidy for candidates and parties. The state does not allow election propaganda outside of the campaign period.

Freedom of Speech and Assembly Audit Question

1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of speech and assembly? Legislative Research

Political associations have the right to advertise during the election period by any means of dissemination whether oral or written within the limits of the law such as no posters on public buildings and no use of patriotic symbols and portraits or pictures of the heroes of independence (Election Law, Articles 30 and 32).








Any political party for its propaganda may not use publications, radio stations, television stations and other official media (Election Law, Article 35).


The National Electoral Council will monitor election propaganda to ensure compliance with Election Law (Election Law, Article 89).


In cases of access to information, the law maintains the confidentiality of journalists and other professionals (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 28).

Every Venezuelan has to right to freedom of thought and expression by any means of communication and diffusion. The law does not tolerate non-anonymity, war propaganda, discriminatory messages or those promoting religious intolerance (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 57).






The state permits meetings and demonstrations in public places. Organizers must give 24-hour notice for the meeting or demonstration. An alternative day and time may be established if there is a simultaneous meeting or demonstration taking place. The state does not regulate private meetings (Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, Articles 36-46).

Under Election Law, the state forbids any citizen from insulting public officials (Ray Walser, 2012). Article 72 states that citizens are required to respect the honor, privacy, intimacy, self-image, confidence and reputations of individuals. Under Article 75, election propaganda shall not disrespect respect the honor, privacy, intimacy, self-image, confidence and reputation of individuals or direct obscenities and derogatory statements against the agencies and entities of public power, institutions and public officials or public servants.

Audit Findings

The Venezuelan Constitution and Election Law establish and guarantee freedom of speech and assembly. The FDA auditors did not identify unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression or assembly for candidates, parties, or the public. The Law of Social Responsibility does not apply to political expression and assembly. Article 72 of the Election Law applies, partly, to slanderous, disrespectful, and dishonorable personal attacks on candidates, and not political expression.

Total score for electoral fairness relating to candidates and parties: 77.9 percent out of 100 percent. Analysis Venezuela’s legislation pertaining to candidates and parties received a score of 77.9 percent. Without considering variables from other sections, the FDA measured a score of 94.7 percent for the candidates and parties section. Based on this score, Venezuela has an exceptionally fair playing field for candidates and parties. The FDA did not identify any deficiencies in legislation directly related to candidates and parties. Although Article 62 of the Constitution mentions proportional representation and this process determines only 30 percent of electoral seats, there is no specific legislative or constitutional requirement on how proportional representation determines electoral districts.

The legislation on “complete and balanced” election coverage in the media helps to ensure a fair playing field for candidates, as do the caps on electoral propaganda in the mass media. In addition, the registration of candidates and parties through established popular support encourages candidates and parties who represent the voice of the people to participate in the election.

The main deficiencies in the candidates and parties section stem from the finance section. Most notably, there are no caps or limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, and the National Electoral Council’s ability to ensure complete and balanced coverage only partly offsets this


shortcoming. For example, billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events are not included in the NEC’s directive, and therefore a party with higher contributions will have more opportunity to influence the electorate. In addition, there is no legislative requirement for equal cost of advertisement, and therefore the media could favor a particular party over others.

Chapter Four: Voters This chapter focuses on the Venezuelan electoral laws relating to voters. The FDA audit team gauges these laws according to their equity for voters. This implies an equal value for each vote cast, equitable opportunity for voters prior to and during the campaign period and reasonable means to take advantage of these opportunities. The FDA acknowledges that absolute equal opportunity is not likely attainable. For example, it is implausible that either government or society can ensure that every citizen have the same education, income, intelligence, leisure time etc. However, the FDA is interested in the overall equity of Venezuelan legislation relating to voters. Does the legislation promote equity within reasonable bounds? Are there areas of the legislation that clearly favour certain voters? Table 4 below shows the FDA’s audit variables, their corresponding audit weights, and results:

Table 4

Voters Section Variables



Weight

Audit Results

% Results

Blackout Period 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Value of a Vote 5% 0.5 0.5 100%Freedom of Speech and 20% 2.0 2.0 100%


AssemblyVoter Registration Requirements

2% 0.2 0.2 100%

Voter Electoral Complaints Process

3% 0.3 0.3 100%

Voter Protection 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Voter Assistance 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Citizens Living Abroad 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Inclusion of Minorities 2% 0.2 0.2 100%Variables from Other Sections

60% 6.0 3.59 59.83%

Total 100% 10 8.49 84.9%

Blackout Period Audit Question

1) Is the length of the campaign blackout period reasonable? Legislative Research The state requires election propaganda to cease within 48 hours of Election Day (Election Law, Article 232(2)).

The state prohibits disclose results of polls or surveys, which aim to present electoral preferences or voting intentions, seven days prior to Election Day (Election Law, Article 82).

Audit Findings

The Venezuelan electoral process dictates a 48-hour blackout period for election propaganda, and 7-day blackout period on opinions polls and surveys. Using professional judgment and knowledge of other electoral systems, the FDA auditors determine that the Venezuelan blackout periods give the electorate sufficient time and space to formulate a clear decision of who to vote for.

Value of a Vote Audit Question

1) Is the electoral (numerical) value of votes the same for all eligible voters? Legislative Research Electors have the right to one vote per election (Election Law, Article 125).

Audit Finding


The state allows Venezuelans one vote per person.

Freedom of Speech and Assembly Audit Question

1) Does constitutional or legislative law establish freedom of speech and assembly? Legislative Research




Every Venezuelan has to right to freedom of thought and expression by any means of communication and diffusion. The law does not tolerate non-anonymity, war propaganda, discriminatory messages or those promoting religious intolerance (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 57).





The state permits meetings and demonstrations in public places. Organizers must give 24-hour notice for the meeting or demonstration. An alternative day and time may be established if there is a simultaneous meeting or demonstration taking place. The state does not regulate private meetings (Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations, Articles 36-46).

Every citizen has the right to demonstrate peacefully and unarmed (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 68).


Venezuelan people have the power to submit referendum bills to the National Assembly if the people in favor of the bill represent at least twenty-five percent of the electors registered. Treaties, conventions or agreements that could compromise national sovereignty or transfer power to supranational bodies, may be submitted to a referendum on the initiative of the President of the Republic in Council of Ministers, by the vote of two-thirds or the members of the Assembly, or fifteen percent of the voters registered and entered in the civil and voter registration (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 73).

Venezuelan people have to power to submit referendum bills to wholly or partially repeal existing laws if the people in favor of the referendum have support from at least 10 percent of the registered electors (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 74).

Venezuelan people have to power to submit referendum bills to abrogate laws issued by the President of the Republic under Article 236 if those in favor of the referendum have the support of at least 5 percent of the registered electors. The validity of referendum requires at least 40 percent support from registered electors (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 74).

Budget laws including taxation are not subject to referendum nor are laws for protecting, guaranteeing, and developing human rights (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution, Article 74).

Under the Election Law, the state forbids any citizen from insulting public officials (Ray Walser, 2012). Article 72 states that citizens are required to respect the honor, privacy, intimacy, self-image, confidence and reputations of individuals. Article 75 states that election propaganda must respect the honor, privacy, intimacy, self-image, confidence and reputations of individuals and direct obscenities and derogatory statements against the agencies and entities of public power, institutions and public officials or public servants.

Audit Findings

The Venezuelan Constitution and Election Law establish and guarantee freedom of speech and assembly. The FDA auditors did not identify unreasonable restrictions on freedom of expression or assembly for candidates, parties, or the public. The Law of Social Responsibility does not apply to political expression and assembly. Article 72 of the Election Law applies, partly, to slanderous, disrespectful, and dishonorable personal attacks on candidates, and not political expression.

Voter Registration Requirements Audit Question

1) Are the voter registration requirements reasonable? Legislative Research


Venezuelan electors must be over 18 years of age (or be 18 years of age in the period of election roll to the day of the election). Naturalized citizens must have more than 10 years of residence in the country before voting (Election Law, Article 29).

Audit Findings

Using professional judgment and knowledge of other electoral systems, the FDA auditors determine that a voting age of 18 is reasonable. In addition, the auditors decided that letting naturalized citizens to vote only after 10 years of residence is a reasonable requisite, because it allows such citizens to observe at least one election prior to voting.

Voter Electoral Complaints Audit Questions

1) Is there a reasonable electoral complaints process for voters?2) Are there reasonable mechanisms to enforce voter electoral complaints?


The National Electoral Council has the authority to hear and resolve complaints under the Election Power Act (Election Power Act, Article 33 (31)).

Any electorate may make a claim about his or her electoral registration, and any complaint will go through a legal process to determine its validity (General Election Regulation, Articles 28-29, Election Law, Article 21).

Any electorate may make claims of electoral wrongdoing. There is a specific process in place for electoral complaints, including a detailed written statement of the complaint/allegation, investigation, and opportunity for defense against complaint (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Articles 281-288).

The state has specific complaints procedures for public complaints about election propaganda. The process involves complaint filing, investigation, appeal process, resolution including removal of propaganda and punitive measures against violator (Election Power Act, 20-33).

The National Electoral Council has the authority to order media to withdraw election propaganda if it violates Election Law. Offenders or alleged offenders may object orally or in writing within


5 days of notification. In case of dispute, within 5 days a hearing will open and a decision made within five working days of the hearing (Election Law, Article 90).

Electors have the right to challenge voter registration decisions within 15 days of their publication. Within 5 working days of receiving the complaint, the Committee on Civil and Registry will verify the eligibility of the complaint, after which an investigation takes place including the submission of evidence. Within 15 days the complaint, the Committee on Civil and Registry will submit a report to the National Election Council. Within 15 days, the National Election Council will make a decision on the complaint (Election Law, Articles 37-39).

Audit Findings

Venezuela has a comprehensive electoral complaints process that is open to all citizens. It involves an appeal process and enforcement mechanisms, including immediate removal of illegal election propaganda.

Voter Protection Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable processes that protect voters in carrying the act of voting? Legislative Research

Every aspect of the Venezuelan automated ballot system via computers is subject to 14 audits, including software and closing vote totals (Letter to the Foundation of Democratic Advancement on the Secrecy of Venezuelan Voting Ballots, 2012).

After voting, the voting machine issues a voucher to the elector that s/he deposits in a box. The results recorded on the voting machines are crosschecked with the vouchers (Letter to the Foundation of Democratic Advancement on the Secrecy of Venezuelan Voting Ballots, 2012).

Voters who use voting machines have their fingers stained with a dye that sticks to the skin and cannot be removed by any product for a period of time (Letter to the Foundation of Democratic Advancement on the Secrecy of Venezuelan Voting Ballots, 2012). The state can randomly select electors for electoral service for a period of one year and it is one’s constitutional duty to carry out such service. The functions of electoral service are as follows: 1. Participate, through the Electoral Organizations in elections for elected office and referendum; 2. Participate in voter education programs in accordance with the requirements of the Commission on Political Participation and Financing; 3. Attend training programs and training; 4. Engage in any other activity that defines the National Electoral Council. Public and private institutions are required to grant paid leave to electors selected (Election Law, Articles 50 and 51).


Electors selected, barring exclusions, who fail to comply with the service are subject to fines between 10 to 50 tax units (Election Law, Article 53).

The state does not allow electors to be forced or coerced under any circumstances in the exercise of their vote (Election Law, Article 126).

The state does not allow anyone to prevent an elector from exercising his or her right to vote (Election Law, Article 127).

The state does not permit the act of voting armed unless required to ensure the safety of electors and women electors (Election Law, Article 129).

The state disallows the sale of alcoholic beverages 24 hours prior to the act of voting (Election Law, Article 130).

The state disallows public meetings or shows 24 hours prior to the act of voting (Election Law, Article 131).

During voting, no elector can use photographic, cellular, video or any other electronic, audiovisual equipment (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 292).

In response to any threat that jeopardizes the election and to ensure elections proceed without unlawful interruption and altercation, the Election Board may request the assistance of the Republic military (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 293).

Audit Findings

There are several comprehensive processes designed to protect citizens in carrying out the act of voting, including detailed audits of the automated ballot system, mandatory electoral service to strengthen the electoral system, mechanisms to protect the election, and the elector’s right to vote.

Voter Assistance Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable processes to assist voters with the act of voting? Legislative Research

The National Electoral Council carries out a simulated vote prior to Election Days. On August 26, 2012, the National Electoral Council completed this procedure at 1,553 polling stations throughout the country (Venezuelan Voters to Receive Sample Ballot on August 16, 2012).

Electors who are illiterate, blind and otherwise disabled and elderly may exercise their right to vote in the company of a person of their choice. No person shall be a companion for more than one elector (Election Law, Article 128).


The National Electoral Council shall ensure that electors with disabilities have the full exercise of political rights without discrimination (Election Law, Article 187).

Voter registration data on the electorate with disabilities shall contain indication of special needs for the purposes of adequacy of physical spaces and tolls at the polling stations (Election Law, Article 188).

The National Electoral Council will support the design of instruments to ensure voting accessibility of electors with disabilities so they can vote without intermediaries (Election Law, Article 189).

The National Electoral Council will develop outreach and educational campaigns to ensure access for electors with disabilities, including the use sign language and information materials in Braille designs (Election Law, Articles 190).

Audit Findings

There are widespread procedures in place to assistance elderly and disabled persons with the act of voting. In addition, the National Electoral Council will design instruments prior to Election Day to ensure that special needs electors can carry the act of voting.

Citizens Living Abroad Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable processes which allow citizens living abroad to vote?


Overseas electors including those with residence in any other legal regime denoting residence out of Venezuela have the right to vote. The right also applies to officials and officers attached to embassies, consulates, and trade offices abroad (Election Law, Article 124). The National Electoral Council shall determine the procedure for voting abroad (Election Law, Article 124).

The state like any other has the authority and right to close and open embassies. For example, in response to a recent anti-Muslim publication by the Charlie Hebdo, the French government closed twenty embassies (Why is Charlie Hebdo Not Being Charged for Hate Speech?, 2012). Ray Walser argues that Venezuela’s closure of the embassy in Florida is an act of disenfranchisement, because Venezuelans in Florida now have to travel to the nearest open consulate in New Orleans (Walser, 2012). Walser’s argument fails to account for the authority of governments to close and open embassies. Audit Findings


The state allows Venezuelans who live abroad including those who work in embassies, consulates, and trade offices to vote. The state requires those abroad to register and vote at consulates.

Inclusion of Minorities Audit Question

1) Are there reasonable measures that support the political representation of minorities and disadvantaged groups of people?


The state guarantee indigenous groups three seats in the National Assembly. The three seats from the three regions (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 8):

1) West Region: comprised of the states of Zulia, Merida and Trujillo. 2) South Region: comprised of the states of Amazonas and Apure. 3) East Region: comprised of Anzoategui, Bolivar, Delta Amacuro, Monagas and Sucre.

The National Electoral Council supports development outreach and educational programs for indigenous groups relating to electoral discourse and process. The NEC translates these programs and other information materials into the distinct indigenous languages for distribution and transmission on radio and community television stations. (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Article 5).

Indigenous candidates must apply through their indigenous communities or organizations. In addition, the candidates must meet the following requirements (Election Resolution No. 100304-0043, Articles 142-145):

1) Have exercised by traditional authority in their respective Community.2) Having established record in the social struggle for the recognition of their cultural identity.3) Have taken action on behalf of the people and indigenous communities or organizations.4) Belonging to an indigenous organization legally constituted a minimum of three (3) years of

operation.

Audit Findings

The state guarantees three seats in the National Assembly for indigenous groups. In addition, the National Electoral Council has a comprehensive information programs to inform and educate indigenous groups about the electoral process and upcoming elections.

Total score for electoral fairness relating to voters: 84.9 percent out of 100 percent.


Analysis Venezuelan legislation pertaining to voters received a score of 84.9 percent. Without considering variables from other sections, voter section received a 100 percent score. Consequently, the FDA auditors found no deficiency in the legislation directly relating to voters. The only shortcomings in legislation resulted from the finance section. Based on these findings and measurements, the FDA believes that the Venezuelan electoral process for voters is exceptional.

The FDA auditors note many innovative and progressive provisions in this section, including but not limited to: the National Electoral Council’s design of instruments for disabled electors to ensure universal suffrage; three seats guaranteed in the National Assembly for indigenous groups; federally directed electoral information programs for indigenous groups; a NEC enforced 48 hour blackout period for electioneering propaganda; and a comprehensive and just process for electoral complaints.

The only major deficiencies are from the finance section because there are no caps and limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. Wealthier voters, candidates, and parties are favored over less wealthy voters, candidates, and parties. The National Electoral Council works to offset the lack of caps and limits by ensuring complete and balanced election coverage. However, NEC intervention does not apply to billboards, flyers, posters, or campaign events. To be consistent with popular support, which is the basis for the registration of Venezuelan candidates and parties, the National Electoral Council needs to address the inherent favoritism to wealthier interests.

Although the Venezuelan Constitution mentions proportional representation in Article 62, there is no specific legislative requirement for how proportional representation determines the amount of electoral districts. Presently, proportional representation determines 30 percent of Venezuelan electoral districts. The FDA believes that this process is significantly more accurate than first-past-the-post in capturing the voice of the people, because most votes are factored in determining the election winners. In the first-the-past-post system, only the votes of the candidates with the most votes count. Therefore, the FDA believes that the National Electoral Council should work toward making every Venezuelan electoral district determined by proportional representation.


Chapter Five: Overall Audit Results

1) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of Venezuelan laws on electoral finance

52.5 percent

2) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of Venezuelan laws on media political content

100 percent

3) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of Venezuelan laws relating to candidates and parties

77.9 percent

4) FDA research and audit results for the electoral fairness of Venezuelan laws relating to voters

84.9 percent

Total score 78.83 percent


The bar chart illustrates the level of electoral fairness based on the audit result for each section and overall. Each section has an equal weight of 25 percent.

Chapter Six: Analysis

Overall, the Venezuelan federal electoral system in terms of legislation received a very satisfactory score of 78.83 percent out of 100 percent. The FDA auditors measured one unacceptable passing score for electoral finance, and three exceptional scores for media, candidates and parties, and voters. The FDA auditors identified near perfect legislation in Venezuelan media laws, resulting from a commitment by the National Electoral Council to complete and balanced election coverage, limits on media ownership concentration, blackout and disclosure requirements for opinion polls and surveys, and freedom of the media within the limits of democracy. In the section relating to candidates and parties, the registration of candidates and parties are tied to popular support, poll watchers and challengers are allowed throughout the election process, sample electoral ballots are transparent to the public prior to the Election Day, and campaign advertisements are regulated for equal access and balanced coverage are provisions that stood out. In the section relating to voters, there are numerous measures to protect elections and the right to vote, and innovative and progressive measures to assist the electorate with voting including provisions for the National Electoral Council to create instruments to assist disabled persons with the acting of voting. The FDA’s measurement of 78.83 percent reflects a very sound and fair electoral process within limits.

However, the fact that electoral finances are only transparent to the state, there are no direct caps and limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, and no financial regulation of or limits on billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events overshadows the exceptional aspects of the Venezuelan electoral process. These shortcomings in the Venezuelan electoral process allow the possibility for financial corruption by pro-government parties, an unequal standard of financial accounting and audits for all parties, targeting contributors of anti-government parties for discrimination or punishment, and an unfair and unequal playing field for candidates and parties.


As a whole, these deficiencies could affect election outcomes by influencing the voice of the electorate.

Table 5

Audit Main Variables Audit Weights Audit Results % ResultElectoral Finance Transparency 2.0 0.0 0.0%Contributions to Candidates & Parties 1.5 1.0 100%Caps on Contributions to Candidates & Parties 2.0 1.25 62.5%Campaign Expenditure Limits 2.25 1.0 44.44%Caps on Third-party Expenditures 1.25 1.0 80%Legislative Process 1.0 1.0 100%Broad & Balanced Election Coverage 3.0 3.0 100%Media Ownership 1.5 1.5 100%Survey/Polls 0.5 0.5 100%Freedom of Media 4.0 4.0 100%Press Code of Practice/Conduct 1.0 1.0 100%Campaign Period 0.2 0.2 100%Methodology for Election Winners 0.2 0.03 15%Electoral Boundaries 0.2 0.2 100%Process of Government 1.0 1.0 100%Registration of Candidates 0.2 0.2 100%Freedom of Expression and Assembly 0.2 0.2 100%Registration of Parties 2.0 2.0 100%Electoral Complaints 0.3 0.3 100%Presentation of Ballots 0.1 0.1 100%Poll Watchers/Challengers 0.1 0.1 100%Candidate and Party Campaign Advertisement 0.6 0.5 83.33%Blackout Period 0.2 0.2 100%Value of a Vote 0.5 0.5 100%


Freedom of Speech and Assembly 2.0 2.0 100%Voter Registration Requirements 0.2 0.2 100%Voter Electoral Complaints Process 0.3 0.3 100%Voter Protection 0.2 0.2 100%Voter Assistance 0.2 0.2 100%Citizens Living Abroad 0.2 0.2 100%Inclusion of Minorities 0.2 0.2 100%Totals 40 31.53 78.83%*

In 2012, the FDA conducted an identical audit on the American federal electoral system. The American system received the following scores:

Electoral Finance 48.25 percentMedia Election Coverage 42.5 percentCandidates and Parties 57 percentVoters 70.25 percent

Total score 54.5 percent

The American federal electoral system borders a failed state. Both the Venezuelan and American systems have severe electoral finance deficiencies. Yet, Venezuela has superior processes for candidates and parties, media, and voters. Most notably, there is a significant difference between the systems in the area of media. The American system favors near absolute media freedom, and thereby faces the potential for narrow and imbalanced election coverage. In contrast, Venezuela balances freedom of the media with broad and balanced election coverage, and thereby encourages an informed electorate. Perhaps, to provoke discussion, the fact that the US has never experienced a political upheaval like Venezuela explains the difference between the two systems. In 1999, Hugo Chavez came to power democratically, and thereby upset the traditional political


status quo, and created a division between the government and private media (which is connected to the previous governors of Venezuelan society).

Chapter Seven: Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on the FDA’s research and measurements, the Venezuelan federal electoral system is very satisfactory and demonstrates considerable evidence of an exceptionally sound structure and process. Yet, within this structure and around the process there is the potential for financial corruption and an unequal electoral playing field for candidates and parties, which in turn may affect election outcomes. The FDA has no evidence of election finance wrongdoing, but the potential exists. FDA analysis substantiates an unfair playing field for candidates and parties resulting from the lack of controls for billboards, flyers, posters, campaign events. In addition, mass media advertisement daily quotas are in excessive of per capita disposable income level. To ensure that the Venezuelan elections accurately reflect the voice of people, the electoral system requires financial reform – the election results are less reliable without it. The FDA makes this conclusion despite Venezuela’s advancements in automated voting and the extensive audits accompanying it. The fair and efficient count of votes, whether manually or automated, does not necessarily guarantee fair election outcomes.


Table 6

FDA Scoring Scales Score Range Revised 2012 Venezuela Score

A +Exceptional electoral process

85% to 100%100% maximum score

n/a

A Outstanding electoral process

80% to 84.99% n/a

B+ Very satisfactory electoral

process

75% to 79.99% 78.83%

B Satisfactory electoral process

70% to 74.99% n/a

D to C+Unsatisfactory electoral

process (many deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in

the electoral legislation)

50% to 69.99% n/a

F Failed electoral process

0% to 49.99%0% minimum score

n/a

Foundation for Democratic Advancement (2012)


Recommendations

The FDA focuses on major reform recommendations which if implemented would eliminate the potential for unfair election outcomes.

Electoral finance

1) Venezuela requires legislation that guarantees public transparency of the financial information of all candidates and parties. This information should be readily available to all citizens of Venezuela. In comparison, the American federal electoral system employs model legislation on electoral finance transparency, including online access to all financial transactions and positions.

Impact

Complete electoral financial transparency for candidates, parties, and the public will reduce significantly the potential for financial corruption by candidates and parties and may create greater public confidence in the electoral process.

2) Venezuela requires caps and limits on campaign contributions and expenditures (for candidates and parties). In addition, mass media advertisement daily quotas need to be reflective of per capita disposable income and reasonably attainable by all candidates and parties in order to facilitate a fair campaign playing field. Further, billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events are not subject to financial regulation or limits.

Impact

Caps and limits on campaign contributions and expenditures will simplify the Venezuelan campaign process and make it fairer as long as the caps and limits are reflective of current per capita disposable income level and reasonably attainable by all registered parties.


References

Agreement between CNE and UNASUR. (2012). Agreement between the National Electoral Chamber (CNE) of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) on the international electoral cooperation for presidential elections of October, seven, 2012. Retrieved from the Venezuelan Embassy in Ottawa, Canada in word format.

Antitrust. (2012). Venezuelan antitrust bill establishes more ways to expropriateCompanies of the public sector are exempted from the law.

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Constitution. (2012). National Electoral Council.Retrieved fromhttp://www.cne.gov.ve/web/normativa_electoral/constitucion/indice.php

Determine How Much to Allocate to Each Expense. (2013). Desjardins. Retrieved March 14, 2013 fromhttp://www.desjardins.com/en/particuliers/conseils/gerer-finances/budget-mensuel/calculez-depenses.jsp

During the Election Campaign Propaganda. (2012). General Provisions. Chapter 1. Retrieved from the Venezuelan Embassy in Ottawa, Canada in pdf format.

Elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela de 2012. (2012). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from September 18, 2012 fromhttp://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_presidenciales_de_Venezuela_de_2012

Election Law. (2012). National Electoral Council. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cne.gov.ve/web/normativa_electoral/ley_organica_procesos_electorales/indice.php

Election Power Act. (2012). National Electoral Council. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cne.gov.ve/web/normativa_electoral/ley_organica_poder_electoral/indice.php

Election Resolution No. 100304-0043. (2010). National Electoral Council.No. 5 Regulation of Organic Law of Elections in Safeguard of the Election Campaign Financing. Caracas. March 4, 2010.


Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. (1985). Retrieved from the Department of Justice http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/red&document=index&lang=e

First Amendment of Constitution. (2012). National Electoral Council. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cne.gov.ve/web/normativa_electoral/constitucion_primera_enmienda/titulo1.php

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Report on the United States. (2012). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://democracychange.org/2013/04/2012-fda-electoral-fairness-report-on-the-united-states/

FDA Media Study of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. (2012). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved fromhttp://democracychange.org/2012/12/2012-united-states-presidential-election-media-study/

FDA Talking Points Series: 10 Percent Rule. (2013). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved from http://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.ca/2013/03/fda-talking-points-series-10-percent.html

GDP per capita (current US$). (2012a). index mundi. Retrieved from http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/gdp_per_capita_%28ppp%29.html

GDP per capita (current US$). (2012b). The World Bank. Retrieved fromhttp://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

In Venezuela, electoral myths are history Digital Vote. (2012). Digital Vote. September 8, 2012. Retrieved fromhttp://digitalvote.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/in-venezuela-electoral-myths-are-history/

Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations. (2012). National Electoral Council. Retrieved from http://www.cne.gov.ve/web/normativa_electoral/ley_partidos_politicos/indice.php

Letter to the Foundation for Democratic Advancement about the Secrecy of Venezuelan Voting Ballots. (2012). Smartmatic. Retrieved from http://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.ca/2012/10/insight-into-venezuelas-automated.html

More than 18 million registered in the Electoral an election year. (2011). informe21.com. DJ Editor on Mon, 31/10/2011 - 19:21. Retrieved from http://informe21.com/consejo-nacional-electoral/mas-18-millones-inscritos-registro-electoral-ano-las-elecciones

National Electoral Council Investigates Campaigns. (2012). Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic


of Venezuela (Washington, D.C. U.S.A.). Published: 08/31/2012. Retrieved from http://venezuela-us.org/2012/08/31/national-electoral-council-investigates-campaigns/

Proposed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries, and Names for Alberta. (February, 2010). Interim Report to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.altaebc.ab.ca/EBC%20Interim%20Report_web5mb.pdf

Redistribution Federal Electoral Districts. (2012). Canadian Federal Government. Retrieved from http://www.redecoupage-federal- redistribution.ca/content.asp?

section=ab&dir=now/proposals&document=part2&lang=e

Resolution No. 100603 – 0125. (2010). National Electoral Council. Caracas, June 3, 2010 200 ° and 151 °. Retrieved from from the Venezuelan Embassy in Ottawa, Canada in pdf format.

Resolution No. 101013-042. (2010). National Electoral Council. Caracas, October 13, 2010 200 º and 151 º. Retrieved from from the Venezuelan Embassy in Ottawa, Canada in pdf format.

Rueda, J. (2012). Venezuela election council takes ad off air. Associated Press – Fri, Aug 31, 2012. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/venezuela-election-council-takes-ad-off-air-060735382.html

Suggett, J. (2010). “CNE: Venezuelan Electoral Districts Drawn by Standard Method, Not Partisan Politics.” Venezuelanaylsis.com. September 28th 2010. Retrieved from http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5674

Venezuela: Legislative Assault on Free Speech, Civil Society. (2010). Human Rights Watch. December 22, 2010. Retrieve from http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/12/22/venezuela-legislative-assault-free-speech-civil-society

Venezuela Antitrust Legislation. (2012). Indiana University Law. Retrieved from http://www.law.indiana.edu/instruction/hbuxbaum/5196/docs/Antitrust_case_in_Venezuela.pdf

Venezuelan antitrust bill establishes more ways to expropriate. (2012). El Universal. Caracus, Venezuela. Wednesday May 23, 2012. Translated by Karen Daza. Retrieve fromhttp://www.eluniversal.com/economia/120523/venezuelan-antitrust-bill-establishes-more-ways-to-expropriate

Venezuelan election law approved. (2009). BBC. August 1, 2009. Retrieved fromhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8179438.stm

Venezuelan Voters to Receive Sample Ballot on August 16. (2012). Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Washington, D.C. U.S.A.). Retrieved from http://venezuela-us.org/2012/08/10/venezuelan-voters-to-see-sample-ballots-for-presidential-elections-from-august-16/


Vergara, E. (2012). Venezuela Elections 2012: Chavez Has Money Edge In Presidential Race. 08/23/12 07:57 AM ET. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/venezuela-elections-2012-chavez-

Walser, R. (2012). The Chávez Plan to Steal Venezuela's Presidential Election: What Obama Should Do. September 19, 2012. The Heritage Foundation.

Wilpert, G. (2010). A New Opportunity for Venezuela’s Socialists. Venezuelanalysis.com. October 1st 2010. Retrieve from http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5683

Why is Charlie Hebdo Not Being Charged for Hate Speech?. (2012). Foundation for Democratic Advancement. Retrieved fromhttp://foundationfordemocraticadvancement.blogspot.ca/2012/09/why-is-charlie-hebdo-not-being-charged.html

Appendix


Research and Audit Methodology

The FDA research methodology is rooted in non-partisanship and the political concepts of egalitarianism and liberalism. A non-partisan approach allows the FDA to remain as objective as possible.

Egalitarianism is part of the FDA methodology from the standpoint of political equality (or neutrality), in which each person has one vote of equal value. The FDA extends political equality into non-election and election periods, demanding a relatively equal playing field for registered candidates and parties and broad and balanced political discourse. The FDA believes that political equality is a core component of democracy, whereby electoral legislation is neutral for all candidates and parties, the value of a vote is same for all eligible voters, and candidates and parties have an opportunity to disseminate political viewpoints in a reasonably balanced manner. The FDA recognizes that complete political equality is not likely attainable, but assumes that a reasonable state of political equality is possible.

Liberalism is part of the FDA methodology from the standpoint of political freedom, and progress, innovation, and reform through the freedom to initiate reform. The FDA believes that political freedom is also a core component of democracy, whereby candidates and parties, citizens, and media persons are permitted to express their political views.

The FDA believes that the union of freedom and equality, an essential part of democracy, means compromise for the greater democratic good of society and political freedom within the bounds of political equality.

Based on its research of international electoral systems and study of fundamental democratic concepts, the FDA believes that optimal democracy results from a balance of freedom and equality. Too much freedom can allow the most powerful (or wealthy) to dominate politically, and too much equality can weaken individual freedoms to a point that impedes progress and innovation. The FDA's methodology centers on finding the optimal balance between freedom and equality.

The FDA methodology has two main components: research and audit. The research component is qualitative, based on collecting relevant facts and data, and sourcing the information collected using APA guidelines. The audit process too is qualitative but also employs a quantitative aspect. The audit entails team analysis of research using matrices and financial spread sheets and statistical data, and the interpretation of the audit results using scoring scales.

Matrices


The FDA matrices are a detailed, spreadsheet scoring system of relevant data and information. The matrices' scores conform to the concept of optimal democracy defined as a balance of freedom and equality. The purpose of the matrices is to objectify the audit process and help create result reliability through an established structure of scoring. Relevance to the electoral process and the four audit sections inform the variables in the matrices. To illustrate, the two subsections below were part of the matrices used in the Venezuelan electoral fairness audit:

Media Election Coverage, Matrix Section, for Venezuela

Table 7

Categories Measures Example or Alternative

Scale

Rational Score

Freedom of the Media

Is the freedom of the media (including journalists) established through constitutional or legislative law?

If yes<4; if no=0

The score of 4 represents the significance of media freedom within reasonable limits. The score of 0 represents imbalanced, one-sided political discourse in the media through unreasonable restrictions on media freedom.

4

Broad & Balanced Political Coverage

During the campaign period is the media (private and public) required legally to publish/broadcast broad/balanced coverage of registered candidates and parties?

If yes=2; if no=0; if freedom of media=0, then yes=0

The campaign period is the most heightened period in terms of voter awareness. The media due to its mass influence has the means to impact significantly electoral discourse. The requirement of balanced, broad media coverage would prevent the media from being imbalanced and partisan.

0

In this example, media freedom garnered significant weight (40 percent of the total score for election content of media) and value in other subsections. (As an example, see the intersection of column 'Example or Alternative Scale' and row 'Impartial and Balanced Political Coverage' above.) Impartial and Balanced Political Coverage is weighted on grounds of the democratic importance of a broad and balanced electoral discourse and a corresponding well-informed electorate. As mentioned, a positive or negative impact on the electoral process determines matrix weightings and scores. According to the scores in the matrix example above, the FDA assumes that freedom of media has more impact on the electoral process than impartial and balanced political coverage. The FDA matrices are comprised of four sections:

1) Electoral finance.2) Media Election Coverage.


3) Candidates and parties. 4) Voters.

In the electoral finance section there are 14 subsection variables; in election content of media section there are 11 subsection variables; in the candidates and parties section there are 42 subsection variables; and in the voters section there are 37 subsection variables. The subsection variables are the focal points of the audit. Each subsection variable has a weighted maximum score.

Weighting and Scoring

Overall, the soundness of reasons for scores and the relevancy of each area guides FDA grading. Since each audit section has a maximum and minimum score, subsection scores are determined based on their relation to each other and their impact on optimal democracy as related to the relevant section. The FDA acknowledges that the determination of scores is an unavoidable qualitative step. The FDA minimizes the subjectivity of scores through required group consensus on their values.

Each audit section has a score range between 0 and 10, and each section counts equally. As mentioned, the FDA matrices allow, based on relevancy, subsections apply to multiple sections. For example, the subsection 'electoral finance transparency' is part of the electoral finance, voters and candidates and parties sections.

As illustrated in the matrix example above, scores are based on the formula if yes=#, if no=#. The scale rests on yes and no answers. In the case of ambiguous answers, the FDA uses the lesser than and greater than values (“<” and “>”). When these values are used, the FDA audit team attempts to reach consensus on the score, and if that it is not possible, the FDA takes the mean of the individual scores, with each score having equal weight. Relevant and sound evidence, facts, and/or reasons, whether team or individual, must support audit scores. To enhance the reliability of audit results, the FDA has a group of experienced auditors. An audit team has a minimum quorum of five auditors and maximum of nine auditors. Any auditors in excess of nine act as silent observers. New auditors are introduced to the process first as observers, then as researchers, and finally as auditors within a team of experienced auditors.

Survey

The FDA has an ongoing survey of relevant persons with a background in political science, finance, accounting or related field on the FDA’s main variables for electoral finance. The FDA used two surveys: a scoring table and preference table (reproduced below). The purpose of the surveys is to test the validity of FDA weights for its electoral finance variables.

Survey 1

Please weight each section so that the total score for all sections is 10; weights based on the relevancy to the fairness of democratic processes (for registered candidates and parties).

Sections Score Rationale


Electoral finance transparency

Contributions to candidates & parties restricted to citizens

Caps on electoral contributions to candidates & parties

Campaign expenditure limits & party subsidies

Third-party spending limits

Electoral legislative processes

Survey 2

Rank each section based on the relevancy to the fairness of democratic processes (for registered candidates and parties).

Sections Highly insignifican

t

Very Insignifican

t

Insignificant

Significant

Very significant

Highly significan

t

Rationale


Electoral finance transparency

Contributions to candidates & parties restricted to citizens Caps on electoral contributions to candidates & parties Campaign expenditure limits & party subsidies Third-party spending limits Electoral legislative processes

Audit Focus

The FDA audits four electoral areas because they cover broad aspects of the electoral process. The FDA acknowledges that electoral laws may not necessarily correspond to the implementation of those laws or the public response to them. The implementation and response could be positive or negative, in terms of electoral fairness. Nevertheless, laws provide the foundation for democracy, framework for the electoral system, and an indication of electoral fairness. A country's constitutional and/or electoral laws are part of the functionality of its democracy. The FDA acknowledges that in countries that are lawless, process audits are useless. However, in countries guided by the rule of law, process audits are extremely useful in determining electoral fairness. FDA Research and Audit Team and Observers

FDA Researchers

Mr. Stephen Garvey, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of British Columbia and Master of Philosophy in Environment and Development, University of Cambridge.

Mrs. Ana María Ortega Proaňa, Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Escuela Politécnica del Ejército (Quito, Ecuador), Telecom & Law Specialist, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar (Quito, Ecuador) and Universidad del Externado de Colombia (Bogotá,


Colombia), Master of Strategic Management, Instituto Universitario de Postgrado de España (Madrid, Spain).

FDA Audit Team

Chief Electoral Auditor


Electoral Auditors

Mr. Michael Fabris, Bachelor of Accounting, Brock University.

Mr. Dale Monette, Bachelor of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Mark Schmidt, Bachelor of Science in Psychology, University of Calgary.

Mrs. Lindsay Tetlock, Master of Arts in Historical Studies (with emphasis on Latin America), University of Calgary.

Observers

Ms. Mahdie Chowdhury, Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of Calgary.Ms. Thamires Aille de Souza Lima, Bachelor of Arts in International Relations, Centro

Universitario Belas Artes de Sao Paulo. James Porter, Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and Philosophy, University of Calgary.Mrs. Liza Valentine, Master of Architecture, University of Calgary. Mr. George Wong, Bachelor of Arts in Music, Berklee College of Music.

Report Writer


Report Reviewers

Mr. James Porter, Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and Philosophy, University of Calgary.Mrs. Lindsay Tetlock, Master of Arts in Historical Studies (with emphasis on Latin America),

University of Calgary.


Venezuela--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 15, 2013)

News & Politics

Transcript of Venezuela--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 15, 2013)