Od Cháveza do Madura: otkrivena mreža koja je navodno omogućila manipulaciju izborima

Newly declassified documents obtained through the White House have revealed allegations that the Venezuelan government has possessed technical infrastructure capable of manipulating election results since at least 2012. The findings suggest that the regime under Hugo Chávez and later Nicolás Maduro may have used pre-programmed voting machines to alter outcomes in key elections. According to the disclosed materials, three security and electoral bodies were allegedly involved in influencing results in areas with strong support for Chávez, potentially shifting approximately 1.5 million votes during the 2012 presidential election, which saw Chávez defeat Henrique Caprles. The revelations bring attention back to 2012, when Chávez, already seriously ill, narrowly won against Caprles. The documents indicate that the election process might have been compromised through the use of pre-set voting machines. This period marked the beginning of concerns over the integrity of Venezuela's electoral system, which have continued into subsequent years. Following Chávez's death in March 2013, Maduro defeated Caprles in a close contest. While opposition parties raised alarms about irregularities, the Central Intelligence Agency did not find conclusive evidence of technical manipulation. However, tensions escalated quickly after that election, leading to further scrutiny of the electoral processes. In 2017, the National Assembly elections took place amid controversy. Opposition groups boycotted the vote, citing concerns over fairness. At the time, Smartmatic, the company responsible for the voting systems, noted discrepancies indicating an inflated turnout by at least one million votes. The assembly was called to address street protests against the government, yet it ultimately failed to produce a new constitution or achieve its primary objectives. According to reports, the same model of voting technology was available for use in parliamentary elections held in 2020. However, these elections were not conducted due to the opposition's boycott following the government's takeover of registration control over certain parties and the exclusion of several opposition leaders. Neither Washington nor Brussels recognized these elections. The most recent example cited involves July 2024, when the alleged manipulation of election figures favored Maduro. The opposition later published its own data, using QR codes from ballot records as critical evidence in reconstructing the actual outcome. According to these claims, Edmundo González Urrutia had actually won, but the official result was reversed in favor of the ruling party. The newly released documents do not definitively prove that each mentioned election was necessarily manipulated in the same manner. However, they highlight a long-term systemic infrastructure that could enable such manipulation. These findings reinforce longstanding accusations from the opposition that the Venezuelan regime has not only built political dominance but also developed technical mechanisms to control elections. The implications of these revelations mean that the question of Venezuelan elections is increasingly tied to who controls the data, registrations, devices, and final records rather than just the day of voting itself. As a result, the disclosures have sparked renewed discussions about how deeply the authorities in Venezuela have intervened in the electoral infrastructure.