Hugo Chávez is a passionately disputed personality.

Supporters view him as a socialist liberator, hailing him for promoting Latin American integration, fighting imperialism and neoliberalism, empowering Venezuela's poor and indigenous communities, and reducing poverty and unemployment. Meanwhile, his opponents see him as an authoritarian or a totalitarian communist, militarist and demagogue who has failed to deliver on his promises, violated fundamental rights, meddled in the affairs of other Latin American countries, threatened Venezuela's economy and democracy, illegally silenced opponents, and destabilized global oil prices.

Allegations of electoral fraud and abuse
Following the changes made to Venezuela's Constitution and electoral processes in 1999, Súmate, a Venezuelan, not-for-profit civil association, was founded in 2002. The group is funded in large part by private Venezuelan interests, but also reportedly received up to 6% of their funds via a grant from the US backed National Endowment for Democracy.[7][8] Súmate began work towards a constitutional referendum to recall Chávez. During a 2004 visit to Washington to meet U.S. government officials including President George W. Bush, Súmate's Vice-President María Corina Machado alleged that Chávez had "profoundly damaged Venezuela's democratic institutions".[9] She stated that she was motivated to campaign for the referendum "to dissipate tensions before they built up", believing that it was "a choice of ballots over bullets."[10]

Hugo Chávez's Election Results
– 1998 presidential election –
Candidate Votes %
Chávez: 3,673,685 56%
Salas: 2,613,161 40%
Valid votes: 6,537,304 –
Abstention: 3,971,239 36%
Hugo Chávez's Election Results
– 1999 referendum –
Enact the new constitution?
Option Votes %
Yes: 3,301,475 72%
No: 1,298,105 28%
Abstention: 6,041,743 56%
Hugo Chávez's Election Results
– 2000 presidential election —
Candidate Votes %
Chávez: 3,757,773 60%
Arias: 2,359,459 38%
Valid votes: 6,288,578 —
Abstention: 5,120,464 44%



The recall vote was held on August 15, 2004. A record number of voters turned out to defeat the recall attempt with a 59% "no" vote.[11] The Carter Center "concluded the results were accurate",[12] and the Organization of American States certified that their observers had not found any element of fraud in the process.[13] European Union observers did not oversee the elections, saying too many restrictions were put on their participation by the Chávez administration.[14]

The referendum results were questioned by some sources in the United States. A Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates (PSB) exit poll predicted that Chávez would lose by 20%, but the election results showed him to have won by 20%. Schoen commented, "I think it was a massive fraud".[15] US News and World Report offered an analysis of the polls, indicating "very good reason to believe that the (Penn Schoen) exit poll had the result right, and that Chávez's election officials - and Carter and the American media - got it wrong".[15] The Associated Press says that PSB used Súmate volunteers for fieldwork, and its results contradicted five other opposition exit polls. Publication or broadcast of exit polls was banned during the vote by electoral authorities, but results of the PSB poll went out to media outlets and opposition offices several hours before polls closed.[16]

Hugo Chávez's Election Results
— 2004 recall referendum —
Recall Hugo Chávez?
Source: CNE data
Candidate Votes %
No: 5,800,629 59%
Yes: 3,989,008 41%
Non-voting: 4,222,269 30%

Regarding the Venezuelan recall referendum of 2004, according to the Center for Security Policy, "the [Hugo Chávez] regime delayed and obstructed the recall referendum process at every turn. Once the regime was forced to submit to such a referendum, moreover, it used a fraud-filled voting process to ensure victory. The government did everything—including granting citizenship to half a million illegal aliens in a crude vote-buying scheme and “migrating” existing voters away from their local election office—to fix the results in its favor. The outcome was then affirmed and legitimated by ex-President Jimmy Carter’s near-unconditional support." "Jimmy Carter ignored pleas from the opposition and publicly endorsed the results, despite the fact that the government reneged on its agreement to carry out an audit of the results."[17] The Carter Center claims to have carried out the audit.[18]

Economist and former planning minister of Venezuela[19] Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard University and Roberto Rigobón of the MIT Sloan School of Management performed a statistical analysis at Súmate's request, analyzing how fraud could have occurred during the referendum. They concluded that the vote samples audited by the government were not a random representation of all precincts, noting that the CNE had "refused to use the random number generating program offered by the Carter Center for the August 18th audit and instead used its own program installed in its own computer and initialed with their own seed." They also noted that opposition witnesses and international observers were not allowed near the computer hub on election day.[20][21]

The Carter Center investigated the statistical study and found that "none of the statistical studies examined here present evidence that fraud occurred during the 2004 presidential recall referendum".[22] They also say they used a random number generator that the CNE provided, and that the opposition was invited but declined to participate in the event.[23] Economist Mark Weisbrot of the Center For Economic Policy and Research, a liberal think tank[24] based in Washington, reports that other economists have called the Harvard/MIT assumptions about how the alleged fraud was conducted unlikely.[20]

Súmate says the sample for the audit was selected by the National Electoral Council, and was not of sufficient size to be statistically reliable.[25]

The U.S. Department of State accepted that the results of the audit were "consistent with the results announced by (Venezuela's) National Electoral Council."[26][27] John Maisto, U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States, added that the results of the referendum "speak for themselves", saying that the quest for Venezuelan democracy "does not end with a single electoral process or referendum" and urging the "democratically elected government of Venezuela to address and recognize the legitimate concerns, rights, and aspirations of all of its citizens".[28] Regarding the recall effort, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, Maisto also pointed out that Carter had said that " 'expression of the citizen must be privileged over excessive technicalities' in resolving issues surrounding the tabulation of the signatures".[29]

After the referendum failed to revoke Chávez's mandate, Chávez's government charged the founders of Súmate with treason and conspiracy for receiving foreign funds, earmarked for voter education, from the United States Department of State through the National Endowment for Democracy, triggering commentary from human rights organizations and the U.S. government.[30][31][32] The trial has been postponed several times.

Authoritarian rule and power consolidation
In spite of a presidential term limit of 6 years, Chávez has suggested that he would like to remain in power for 25 years,[33] a claim he denies as a misinterpretation of his intent.[34] However he recently proposed a constitutionally binding referendum to allow for a third term.[35] According to an article in The Washington Post, a program called "Mission Identity" to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela—including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies—has been put in place prior to the 2006 presidential elections.[36] A constitutional referendum was called for the December 2nd to amend 69 articles of the Venezuelan constitution. Among these controversial changes included an amendment to abolish presidential term limits. The referendum failed to pass by a narrow margin.

According to the US State Department, Chávez has abandoned democratic traditions, and placed democracy in peril with unchecked concentration of power, political persecution, and intimidation.[4] Foreign Affairs Magazine says that, to his critics, Chávez is a power-hungry dictator whose authoritarian vision and policies are a formidable menace to his people, with autocratic and megalomaniacal tendencies.[5] The Center for Security Policy calls Chávez a "self-absorbed, unstable strongman" who has found "common cause with terrorists and the regimes that support them."[17]

Foreign Policy Magazine says that Chávez has "updated tyranny for today" and "is practicing a new style of authoritarianism".[37] The article adds that Chávez has achieved absolute control of all state institutions that might check his power, and unrivaled political control. They also note that, more importantly, "Chávez commands the institute that supervises elections, the National Electoral Council" and say, "If democracy requires checks on the power of incumbents, Venezuela doesn't come close."

In testimony before the U.S. Senate, the South American Project Director for the Center for Strategic International Studies characterized Venezuela's democracy as "now in intensive care", saying that Chávez's government has weakened the foundations of Venezuela's democracy by systematically hacking away at the institutional checks on Chávez's authority". The testimony also included statements that the Chávez government had crossed the line by "selectively arresting opposition leaders, torturing some members of the opposition (according to human rights organizations) and encouraging, if not directing, its squads of Bolivarian Circles to beat up members of Congress and intimidate voters—all with impunity".[38] Amnesty International reports that Venezuela lacks an independent and impartial judiciary.[39]


[edit] Bureaucracy
Foreign Policy Magazine says that Chávez is "rewriting the manual on how to be a modern-day authoritarian" by means which include allowing the bureaucracy to decay "with one exception: the offices that count votes" where he has assigned "the best minds and the brightest técnicos". "Perhaps the best evidence that Chávez is fostering bureaucratic chaos is cabinet turnover. It is impossible to have coherent policies when ministers don't stay long enough to decorate their offices."[37] In August, 2006, following reported differences with Chávez during his recent international tour, Presidential Secretary Delcy Rodríguez was replaced by Adán Chávez, the brother of Hugo Chávez. Adán Chávez had previously been the ambassador to Cuba.[40] The Charlotte Observer reports that the author of several books on Chávez, Alberto Garrido, argues "A much more hard-line phase [of Chávez rule] is beginning and Chávez needs a reliable and radical team around him." Adán is older than his brother and was involved with pro-guerrilla groups before Hugo.[41]

The head of the Venezuelan Internationalists' Association described the August 2006 appointment of Nicolás Maduro to Foreign Minister as "choosing officials lacking any training at all," saying "the current government thinks that there is no need to have much knowledge, studies, any experience in international affairs or negotiation ability."[42] El Universal reports that critics say his appointment "exacerbates the lack of professionalism and the politicization of Venezuelan diplomacy" and "reinforces the fact that the legislative branch of the Venezuelan government 'is just an extension of the executive power'." Former Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations Milos Alcalay said "Maduro ... has no experience at all in foreign affairs and is to take office as a kind of secretary to President Hugo Chávez. He just lacks the useful training in domestic and foreign policy to project his image." Alcalay said an experienced Minister was needed "to bring an end to the growing radical stance of Venezuelan President."[43]


[edit] Human rights
Human Rights Watch expressed concern in a personal letter to Chávez over the safety of human rights defenders in Venezuela.[44] Human rights organization Amnesty International has catalogued a number of human rights violations under Chávez's administration.[45] As of December 2004, Amnesty International had documented at least 14 deaths and at least 200 wounded during confrontations between anti-Chávez demonstrators and National Guard, police, and other security personnel in February and March 2004.

In 2003, family members of some people involved in the events of April 11, 2002, represented by a team of lawyers from Venezuela and Spain, filed a lawsuit at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague against Chávez and several of his government officials for crimes against humanity. The lawsuit was first filed in Spain on January 28, 2003, but it was decided by Judge Fernando Andreu of the National Audience that the Spanish courts would not be able to try Chávez because of his position as an acting President. However, the Spanish State's Attorney and the magistrates of the Penal Court of Appeals stated that the lawsuit was well founded and the case was consequently forwarded to the ICC (The International Criminal Court June 2003, Victims Compensation; Vol. 19, No. 6).[46] On February 9, 2006 Luis Moreno Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, concluded that the requirements to continue the investigation were not satisfied according to the Rome Statute. The report stated that there were numerous instances where the information supplied was not sufficient to analyze with any degree verifiability. Some allegations were lacking dates, locations or names of alleged victims. On lists of alleged murder victims, some names were repeated. The report continued in a similar vein, stating that "in order to constitute a crime against humanity ... particular acts must have been committed ... Even a generous evaluation of the information provided, the available information did not provide a reasonable basis to believe that the requirement(s)... had been met." The report said that this conclusion could be reconsidered in the light of new evidence.[47]

Chávez was criticized when he was elected president for inviting former dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez, who was living in exile in Spain, to Venezuela to attend Chávez's inauguration. The Associated Press reported that the move "provoked an outcry among older Venezuelans who remembered the brutal side of his dictatorship" and political repression.[48]


[edit] Free speech
As opposition to Chávez became more organized, owners, managers, commentators, and other high-ranking personnel affiliated with private mainstream television networks and most major mainstream newspapers stated their opposition to the Chávez administration. These media use their legal right of freedom of expression to accuse the Chávez administration of intimidation, censorship, and lack of freedom of expression. Chávez in turn alleges that the owners of these networks have primary allegiance to Venezuela's elite and U.S/Canadian interests.

During the Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002, domestic and international observers criticized the Government for excessive abuse of its right to call national broadcasts requiring all broadcast media to cease scheduled programming and transmit the broadcasts in their entirety. Between April 9 and 11, the government required all radio and TV stations to transmit numerous speeches by President Chávez, other government officials, and other programming favorable to the Government, even shutting the signals of the stations who refused, in an attempt to block coverage of the demonstrations and ensuing violence.[49][50][51][52] For two days before the attempted coup, the private television media channels in Venezuela cancelled regular programming and ran constant coverage of the opposition riots and disturbances while calling for people to attend the April 12 riot that was intended to overthrow the government.On the day of the march, RCTV allowed the leader of the march to call on the attendees to change route and head to the presidential palace. The march had been allowed by the government on the condition that it would follow a prearranged route. The oppositon supporters came under sniper fire after the change of direction, which was alleged to be from waiting pro-government forces, and used as a justification for the coup, although only the leadership of the opposition march seems to have been aware ahead of time of the change of route. Allegations of coordinating the coup via television were reinforced when several major figures involved in the abortive coup publicly thanked major TV channels for their participation prior to the return of Chavez.[53][54][55]

The freedom of the press is seriously threatened in Venezuela according to various journalism organizations and NGOs. According to the International Press Institute, the Inter-American Press Association and Human Rights Watch, the administration of President Hugo Chávez tightened its grip on the press in 2005, while groups close to the government, including the Bolivarian Circles, hampered journalists’ ability to report. President Chávez’s government introduced harsher penalties for libel, defamation and insult, which resulted in a growing number of journalists appearing before the courts. The National Assembly approved by a simple majority the controversial Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television, or gag law, which, in effect, makes the private radio and television system part of the state, which controls its schedules, programs and content.[56][57][58][59]

President Chávez announced that the operating license for RCTV—Venezuela's second largest TV channel which has been broadcasting for 53 years—will not be renewed.[60] The licence expired on 27 May 2007.[61] He publicly stated: "It runs out in March[sic]. So it's better that you go and prepare your suitcase and look around for what you're going to do in March... There will be no new operating license for this coupist TV channel called RCTV. The operating license is over... So go and turn off the equipment,"[62] RCTV supported a strike against Chávez in 2003. Reporters in Venezuela have expressed their concern to international media, stating that such a stance is a threat to freedom of speech.

The freedom of the press is secured by two key clauses in Chávez's Constitution of Venezuela of 1999. The right to freedom of expression is set out in Article 57 and Article 58 of the Constitution. The right to express opinions freely without censorship (Article 57) and the right to reply (Article 58) are generally in line with international standards. However, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expressed concern about Article 58 of the Constitution, which provides that "Everyone has the right to timely, truthful, impartial and uncensored information." The Commission took issue with the right to "truthful and timely" information arguing that this is "a kind of prior censorship prohibited in the American Convention on Human Rights."[63]

In 2006, Reporters Without Borders ranked Venezuela 115th out of 168 countries in its global press freedom listing, sharply down from the last year's rating of 90th.[64] Freedom House currently rates Venezuela as "Partly Free" according to its latest survey.[65] The U.S. Senate also passed a resolution condemning the closure of RCTV.[66]