| Chavez had also been boldly defying the United States. He had exchanged oil with Cuba and received doctors in return. He had vocally denounced the Bush administration's policies. Some in the U.S. had called for his ouster and Pat Robertson, the television evangelist, had called for Chavez's assassination. Vice-president Dick Cheney had called him a dictator. U.S. money had found its way into the Venezuelan political process and had partially bankrolled the effort to recall him in 2002. It appeared that the U.S. was looking for a pretext to openly or overtly initiate "regime change." The Council for National Elections, one of five branches of government in Venezuela, wanted to have a transparent election so that the international community would see that the results of the election are legitimate. They invited approximately 500 international observers to monitor the election. By chance and by friendship, Milwaukee Municipal Judge James Gramling Jr. got the opportunity to be one of the 500 election observers. "They invited in representatives from the Organization of American States, the European Union, and from our country, the NAACP and the Association of Elected Latin American Officials," Gramling said in an interview with The Capital City Hues. "And they wanted to have a contingent of judges from the United States. So contact was made with a judge in New York City who had a contact in Milwaukee. She asked that contact to try to find some judges in the Milwaukee area who might be interested in going. Based on that contact, I was able to join the group." While the group of judges had been offered transportation to and from Venezuela, the judges decided to pay their own way to preserve a modicum of objectivity. The contingent arrived in Caracas -- the capital of Venezuela -- on November 30 in order to get familiar with the election process. "We spent time in auditoriums hearing from experts on the electoral process, in not only Venezuela, but also throughout Latin America," Gramling said. "People who were familiar with the actual methods of voting in Venezuela and people who knew the technology of the electronic voting machines that are used in every polling place in the country." The observers also talked to representatives from different groups that had a stake in the election and wanted the observers to know what their concerns were. "Our group of judges met with representatives from the Afro-Venezuela community who have organized over the years to promote the interests of people of color in Venezuela," Gramling said. "It's estimated that of the total population of Venezuela, it's estimated that about two thirds of the population is mestizo, 10% is considered Black, and the rest is considered White, in the sense they are lighter skin descendants from the Spaniards. So the Afro-Venezuelan community has its own grievances that relate to their treatment based on their skin color. We met with them to hear what progress has been made and what their interests were." The group also heard from the author of articles and books whose premise is that the United States government has funneled money into Venezuela to try and topple Chavez. "She gave us a presentation one evening and had books in which she documents this trail of money that went to Venezuela over the last four years," Gramling said. "It was there at the time of the attempted coup in 2002 and was there at the time of the recall vote in 2004." And the group met with people who had concerns about the election including a representative of Chavez's main opposition, Manuel Rosales. The representative was a former executive with the state-owned oil company. "We also met with a couple of lawyers who were anxious to let us know what they thought some of the problems with the current government were and the way they thought the election was going to be run," Gramling said. "They expressed beliefs that there was no way the election could be run in a fair manner. All of the safeguards that were set up to guard against fraud and guarantee an exact count would not work and were subject to the possibility of fraud. The bottom line was they believed it couldn't be a fair election. "It's clear that when we talked to people from the opposition, they tended to raise arguments with us that challenged the method of voting and the reliability of the voting, and therefore, the outcome of the election," Gramling said. "But what it really seemed to us is that they are just unhappy with the policies of Chavez. They are unhappy they are in a minority, that his policies are redirecting the wealth of the country to people that haven't shared in that wealth before, and they feel threatened by it. So it's clear that the mechanics of the election were a proxy for their real concerns, the redistribution of wealth." The judges were also fortunate to meet with the chief justice of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, who talked to them about Venezuela's recent political history. While the judicial system is an independent branch of government, Gramling detected some sympathy on the part of the chief justice with the social program Chavez was trying to implement. "He made a point of telling us about his independence," Gramling said. "But it is clear he believed their branch of government had a role to play in all of this too. I don't know how it is reflected in their decisions -- there is no direct, obvious way that the president controls the supreme court -- but we know that as things work, appointments get made, and relationships get established, there is probably some unseen way that the president and his policies influence the court and how it behaves." All off the Venezuelan judiciary down to the trial judges is appointed for life, clearly insulating it from the other branches of government. Once they are appointed, they have to go through a 14 month trial basis before they are hired for life. When Chavez first assumed power, only 10 percent of the justices had lifetime appointments. "There was a belief that the judiciary was the weak link in the government at the time because the judges were totally subject to political pressure, by and large," Gramling said. "They were employees at will. Now, Chavez has stepped up the process of certification and now 80-90 percent has lifetime appointments now. Then you hear the other side argue that Chavez has stepped up the process so that he can freeze in all of the people who are supporters of him. The process they go through to appoint the judges is independent of the president. I tend to think it probably does make for an independent judiciary." During their off periods, members of the group walked around Caracas. In a city park, not far from their hotel, the judges saw how the government was using oil revenues to give basic social services to its citizens. "We just happened upon one of the missions that provide services in the park," Gramling said. "They created a 24 hour, seven day drop in center for the homeless. They had a doctor's facility there, a psychiatrist facility, workout machines, and contacts for other social service agencies. It was located right in the heart of where people would be. It wasn't the best part of town. It was just evidence again of the missions being out there trying to bring government to the people." The judges also went to shopping areas near their hotel. "All of the reports I had seen beforehand are that there is wealth flowing everywhere, that scotch is flowing freely," Gramling emphasized. "Expensive scotches are being consumed everywhere in Venezuela. And in the shopping centers and the malls we were in, wealthy appearing people were buying expensive things all over the place. So it's not as though this whole process is crippling people economically. There's still plenty of money to share and they are getting their share of it. You can be sure they will have their share of it." The CNE, the Council of National Elections, takes its job seriously, according to Gramling. While most governments are passive about voter registration and leave it to partisan or special interest organizations, the CNE is proactive -- it needs to be because people must be registered for 90 days before they can vote in an election. "They have worked out, over the years, a method of going out into the population to get people to register to vote," Gramling emphasized. "They have mobile registration units, and again, this is supervised by this branch of government. It's their mission to make sure there are full and fair elections in the country. Part of that mission is to go out and get people to register. They send mobile units out into the countryside, into the barrios, and into the cities to sign people up to vote. In the process of signing them up to vote, people are required to get national identification cards because the ID card becomes a central element in their actual voting on Election Day." Voter registration is also conducted in the prisons because felons, with a few exceptions, are allowed to vote. "Society there has decided 'Let's not allow this group of our citizens to wander away from feeling some responsibility for government,'" Gramling said. "So they not only register voters in the prisons, but they also have voting centers in the prisons on Election Day. Prisoners' votes were counted in the final tally on December 3. "They try to take away as many barriers as they can that stop people from voting in terms of eligibility and access," Gramling said. "The population of the country is about 25 million. There were approximately 16 million registered voters. And of that number on Election Day, approximately 75 percent turned out." Next issue: The Election Day process and the certification of the election. |
| Observing the Venezuelan National Election Democracy in action By Jonathan Gramling Part 1 of 2 |
 |
 |
| Editor's note: The author of this article is the brother of Judge James Gramling Jr. There was a lot on the line in the December 3 national election in Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez was enacting legislation that, in essence, redistributed the wealth that was primarily the result of Venezuela's oil exports. This had created a lot of political polarization between the haves and the have nots. |
| Judge James Gramling Jr. |
 |