Final Report on the Stolen Venezuelan Presidential Election
The Carter Center: “They Cannot Be Considered Democratic”
The Carter Center independently analyzed the results collected and published by the Venezuelan opposition.
HAVANA TIMES – The Carter Center issued its final report on the presidential elections in Venezuela held on July 28, 2024. The conclusion of the observer delegation is that, despite the election representing “an opportunity for fair competition” for the involved parties, the result was the opposite: the elections “did not meet international standards and cannot be considered democratic.”
The Carter Center had been invited by the Maduro government to observe the elections as in numerous previous Venezuelan elections.
The document presented on Monday, February 17, confirms what the Carter Center itself and other independent organizations had previously stated. Although the election environment was complex, there remained hope that the process would be carried out fairly and that the outcome would reflect the will of the Venezuelan people.
However, for the Carter Center, this was not the case. Among the reasons cited by the international body, stands out that several organizations requested that the National Electoral Council (CNE) show all the elements that indicated Nicolas Maduro as the winner, but this never happened.
“The CNE did not publish any electronic results from the machines, nor did it make public the records of the (tally sheet) results issued by each electoral machine,” the document states.
In addition to these elements, the Carter Center also asserts that the Venezuelan authorities “failed to meet the conditions required for a democratic election.” Among them were the absence of a neutral legal framework, an impartial and transparent governing body, a comprehensive electoral registry, freedom for candidates’ campaigns, and media freedom, among other things.
Another Stain on Venezuela’s Presidential Elections
The Carter Center’s final report adds to those from other entities and organizations that have affirmed that Venezuela’s presidential elections did not meet the basic standards required for being considered fair and democratic.
Although the atmosphere before the elections was tense and hostile, human rights organizations and, in this case, those focused on election observation, had certain expectations that the elections would be conducted according to minimal standards.
However, reality proved stronger and showed that the elections were not held under fair conditions, much less in accordance with international standards. The Carter Center’s own report provides a Venezuelan political context where it claimed there was a possibility to do things right.
“The Venezuelan elections were held in a context of extreme polarization between the government and the opposition, accompanied by concerns over human rights and the emigration of millions of Venezuelans due to the political crisis in the country,” the document states.
Despite this context, the report acknowledges the importance of the fact that the Unitary Platform was able to appoint a candidate, and that this candidate could compete in the elections. Additionally, it recognizes that the pre-election audits satisfied the Carter Center.
Hope Despite the Hostile Context
“On election day, Venezuelans participated in the democratic process. Despite problems in some areas, election day was peaceful, and voters turned out in large numbers to express their will,” says the Carter Center. It also recognizes that its mission in Venezuela was able to visit various voting centers.
However, the organization asserts that the process “quickly deteriorated that night.” The Carter Center recalls that the CNE did not provide any proof of Nicolas Maduro’s victory, citing an alleged hacking of the CNE website that could not be demonstrated by the Venezuelan body.
At the end of the report, the Carter Center publishes its table of results with data collected by the Venezuelan opposition, available since under 48 hours after the closing of the polls. The Carter Center claims to have conducted an independent analysis of these documents, stating that Edmundo González Urrutia would have received 7,156,462 votes, while Nicolas Maduro would have received a total of 3,242,461 votes, with 81.7% of the records received and counted.