The 2004 Venezuelan Recall Referendum

Abstract

This article examines the August 2004 recall vote in Venezuela, which determined whether President Chavez would continue his presidential term until 2007, or be forced to leave office midway through his term. It was a closely fought election in a deeply divided society. In this election, existing compensating mechanisms were not sufficient to overcome the extraordinary levels of distrust, and to provide an outcome in which the divisive electoral logic would shift to the collective acceptance of the vote. The politicization of the National Electoral Council (CNE) and the Supreme Court made them ineffective as an efficient and neutral arbiter, and undermined confidence in the process. International actors thus became the primary compensating mechanisms. The author outlines the lessons learned from this experience: that in contexts of deep polarization and lack of trust, extraordinary efforts are needed to overcome the distrust; that international observers can serve to overcome distrust through their ability to facilitate communication and negotiations among the political actors; and that fallible pre-election public opinion polls and election-day exit polls can be used by both sides to bolster their claims of victory. The upcoming December 2006 presidential elections will be crucial to assess the health of electoral democracy in Venezuela. The CNE must communicate with and consult the political parties and the public in an open and transparent manner and provide the safeguards required to generate confidence. The political leaders must appeal to the centrist and undecided portions of the population, and avoid the pressures of extremes on each side to take radical and uncompromising positions. Finally, if the electoral process is found to meet international standards, the international community must accept the outcome of the Venezuelans' choice.