There are several similarities between the recent elections in Venezuela and the United States. In both cases a charismatic incumbent faced an at times difficult campaign against a pro-business challenger to his right. The elections can also be regarded as referenda on the present governments; administrations that have polarised public opinion.
Without seeking to be unfair on the candidates, many votes for Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Hugo Chávez and Henrique Capriles were cast in an ad hominem attack against their opponents. In the end, despite some indications of very tight races, the two presidents fared better on election-day than some commentators predicted, and supporters feared.
As is to be expected, patriotic rhetoric dominated the post-victory speeches of Chávez and Obama; for example the Venezuelan’s promise that his country would ‘continue along the path of democratic and Bolivarian socialism’ was equalled by Obama’s quip that: ‘We are, and forever will be, the United States of America’.
Both Chávez and Obama were quick to praise the strength of their democratic nations and those who voted for the opposition. Following this lead, a comparison of the quality of the democratic electoral processes in the two nations may lead to some interesting conclusions.
The contrast in voter turnout, where Venezuela’s 81% participation dwarfs the 57.5% of eligible voters who exercised their right on Tuesday 6 highlights that Venezuela’s democracy is far more representative.
In addition, Jimmy Carter’s comments that the Venezuelan elections are the fairest of the 92 monitored by his foundation, the Carter Center, sent shockwaves through a US media used to routinely criticising the legitimacy of Chávez’s grip on power. The ex-president is certainly right to praise the electronic voting system used in Venezuela, but questions remain in governmental media.
With Chávez having far greater exposure to national broadcasts than his challenger, mainly through his weekly show Aló Presidente, broadcast every Sunday from 11am until he is willing to relinquish centre-stage, the levels of publicity are potentially damaging for democratic institutions. Not that the US fares much better, with millions being spent by Obama and Romney on their electoral campaigns, not least through their own television adverts.
Propaganda and critique of opponents are staple democratic elements, but it is perturbing that despite the huge financial capital invested by Democrats and Republcians, less than 60% of the electorate turned out. Equally disconcerting is the perception that without exuberant spending, a presidential race is pointless. Access to resources, human and financial, is often earned, but there is no denying that money is essential to electoral success.
That being said, the institution of presidential democracy is stronger on one level in the US as presidents are limited to just the two terms. Chávez meanwhile, health-permitting, will be in power for at least twenty years. Whether that will undermine representative democracy in Venezuela remains to be seen.