Sometimes, we as a nation forget just how exceptional the United States is, especially in the midst of election season.
Americans often gripe about the mudslinging, media bias, dishonesty, attempts to deter voters and other negative aspects of elections. And yes, those things do happen. And no, they shouldn't. But, it would behoove us to remember that it could be worse -- much worse.
On Oct. 7, Venezuela held a national election. Not known for being a particularly democratic country, Venezuela has been run by President Hugo Chavez for more than 13 years. Chavez's party is the United Socialist Party, and Chavez has earnestly pursued a socialist agenda throughout his term. As man who loves power, Chavez attempted a coup in 1992, was elected in 1998, passed a referendum in 2006 that abolished term limits and has stated his intention to remain in office until 2031.
However, Henrique Capriles Randonski and the Democratic Unity Coalition challenged Chavez in the election. Capriles was seen as one of the few serious challengers to Chavez's power, but Capriles himself faced massive challenges in the electoral system, as was reported in The Economist last week.
First, Chavez has a strong grip on national institutions and media outlets. According to the Wall Street Journal, Venezuelan television channels were often strong-armed by the government into broadcasting Chavez's messages for an average of 43 minutes per day. However, election laws limited Capriles to one three-minute recording per day. Government buildings and websites, though required to be free of election propaganda, were frequently covered with pro-Chavez materials.
Second, Chavez also exerted power over any voters that he could possibly control. For example, the two million plus government workers in Venezuela were all required to inform their employer (that is, Chavez) where they would cast their signed and thumb-printed ballot. In other words, government workers were required to describe where their ballot could be found, allowing the government to potentially sift through ballots and determine if they voted against their boss.
While Capriles and his party sought to assure voters their vote would be anonymous, The Economist correctly predicted the threat of non-anonymity would likely dissuade some voters. Furthermore, as the Wall Street Journal reported, government workers who expressed intent to vote for Capriles were in many cases reprimanded by their superiors and told they would lose their jobs.
Finally, Capriles faced violence at many of his campaign rallies. Rocks were thrown at the candidate's car, and other vehicles were looted and set on fire. Such violence was planned by pro-Chavez groups and then blamed by local officials on Capriles.
Obviously, as the Democratic Unity Coalition's secretary-general said prior to the election, the Venezuelan elections are free, but they are certainly not fair. This fact likely played a non-trivial role in Capriles' defeat Sunday.
The differences between the United States and Venezuela are striking and obvious. In our nation's election process, Mitt Romney is not unfairly restricted from television ads, and in fact, he can gain a great deal of press on a daily basis. We do not see Obama's "Forward" logo plastered over the White House website. We do not see voter anonymity being potentially revoked. Mitt Romney is not assaulted when he makes a campaign rally, but rather enjoys Secret Service protection.
I hope you see the contrast between the two countries. One allows open criticism of and opposition to the sitting executive, while the other attempted to tilt the elections to help ensure an incumbent victory.
American elections are truly exceptional. Candidates are allowed unparalleled freedom and protection. While the line between candidate and officeholder can be blurry, it still exists. And, while offensive and a turn-off to Americans, the campaign mud slinging remains relatively calm when compared to other nations.
Our transition process is even more extraordinary. In the history of our nation, we have never experienced an overthrow of the government. Every four or eight years, there is a peaceful transition of executive power. Term limits are respected (and, with the exception of FDR, were obeyed even when they constituted mere tradition). The winning candidate is allowed to take office and is actually accompanied by the former president to the inauguration. \0x1DThese facets of our transition process are commonplace in America, but are rarely fully implemented in other parts of the world.
So, next time you are tempted to criticize the election cycle, remember that it could be much worse. You have a reprisal-free, legitimate choice between candidates, and the choice is yours and yours alone. While our election cycles can become tiresome and muddy, at least here in the States, our process is both free and fair -- further proof of American exceptionalism.
Caleb Wolanek
Junior
Political Science
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
