What we already know.
July 28, 2024, was the big voting day in Venezuela, but what was supposed to be a celebration turned into a tragedy.
In the early morning of the 29th, the current president, a candidate for re-election, was proclaimed the winner by a state body headed by a friend.
The opposition, which appeared strong in all polls, questioned the government to present the voting records.
Nothing has been presented to date.
The hidden side of the tragedy.
Nicolás Maduro, the current president, wishes to be re-elected for a third six-year term, with the worldwide reputation of ruling with an iron fist.
Elections in Venezuela have always been subject to questioning (but those in Brazil and the US have also been). What is truly concerning is the complete absence of an impartial body in Venezuela capable of verifying and auditing the results.
The country's judiciary is controlled by the executive branch. Government opponents are judged and convicted overnight. Those who serve the government's interests, on the other hand, are treated by the justice system as saints incapable of making mistakes.
You don't need to be a geopolitics expert. Just read and watch the news, and you'll realize that any candidate with the possibility of opposing the government is taken to martyrdom by the Venezuelan Judiciary.
Unfortunately, there are no good times in sight for our neighbors.
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
⚠️ Research elaborated with the assistance of Deep Research is subject to referential ambiguity.
🖥️Clean HTML code using proprietary tools.
👥Research by Guilherme Felipe, Curation Sílvio Lôbo
The Venezuelan Judiciary and its Role in Elections: A Critical Overview
The role of the judiciary in Venezuela, particularly concerning electoral processes, has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate both nationally and internationally. Far from being a mere neutral arbiter, the Venezuelan judiciary has, on several occasions, acted in ways that significantly influence the unfolding and outcome of elections, generating controversy and questioning its independence and impartiality.
Structure and Theory vs. Practice
In theory, Venezuela's 1999 Constitution establishes an autonomous and independent Judiciary, tasked with ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution, the law, and fundamental rights. However, practice has shown a different reality, marked by allegations of political interference and the politicization of its decisions. The relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary is a critical point to analyze.
The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) and Electoral Influence
The Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) is the highest body of the Venezuelan Judiciary and, by extension, holds considerable influence over electoral processes. Its decisions have the power to validate or invalidate candidacies, interpret electoral norms, and even determine the holding of elections on specific dates. This places it in a position of prominence, but also of great responsibility and potential for manipulation.
Curious and Strange Points in the Electoral Judiciary's Role:
- The "unconstitutionality" of candidacies via the TSJ: One of the most recurring and strange points is the TSJ's ability to declare candidacies "unconstitutional" based on legal interpretations that often seem arbitrary or politically motivated. In several elections, potential opponents of the ruling party have had their candidacies blocked by court decisions, under arguments ranging from "lack of moral suitability" to other justifications that generate strong skepticism about their objective legal basis.
- The anticipation or postponement of elections: The TSJ has, at times, acted in defining election dates, to the detriment of pre-established calendars or the autonomy of the Electoral Power (National Electoral Council - CNE). This ability to modulate the electoral schedule can have significant strategic implications for political actors.
- The TSJ's role in "reviewing" plebiscites and referendums: In cases of popular consultations, the TSJ has positioned itself as the body for validation or invalidation, generating debates about freedom of expression and the right to political participation. The suspension of referendums due to questions about their legality has been a sensitive issue.
- The reconfiguration of the TSJ's composition: There have been periods when the TSJ's composition underwent significant changes, with the appointment of new judges at crucial moments for the electoral calendar. Such appointments were often seen as a way to ensure a judicial body more aligned with government directives.
- The "disincorporation" of powers and the legitimation of processes: In situations of political crisis, the TSJ has issued rulings that, instead of strengthening democratic institutions, end up legitimizing measures that concentrate power in the Executive or weaken the National Assembly. This action has frequently been pointed out as a deviation from the judicial function of constitutional safeguard.
The National Electoral Council (CNE) and the Intersection with the Judiciary
It is essential to mention the relationship between the TSJ and the National Electoral Council (CNE). Although the CNE is the technical body responsible for organizing elections, its decisions and the appointment of its members often require the approval or intervention of the Judiciary, particularly the TSJ. This interconnection creates a cycle of dependency that can compromise the autonomy of the electoral process as a whole.
Legitimacy and International Criticism
The decisions of the Venezuelan judiciary in electoral matters have been widely criticized by international observers, human rights organizations, and foreign governments. The lack of transparency, the selectivity in the application of laws, and the apparent subordination of the judiciary to political power have led to questions about the legitimacy of electoral results and the democratic health of the country.
Preliminary Conclusion
The Venezuelan judiciary, especially the TSJ, plays a complex and often controversial role in the country's elections. The particularities of its interventions, marked by decisions that limit the political spectrum and shape the electoral environment, demand continuous critical analysis. The thin line between legal interpretation and political instrumentalization is, in many cases, blurred, creating a scenario of uncertainty and distrust regarding the guarantee of fair and democratic elections in Venezuela.
