Entradas etiquetadas como Observación electoral

Unión Europea enviará grupo de seguimiento a su misión electoral en Honduras

Tegucigalpa – Un grupo de la Unión Europea que da seguimiento a la Misión de Observación Electoral (MOE) que acompañó las elecciones generales en Honduras en noviembre del 2013 visitará Honduras la próxima semana.

Origen: Unión Europea enviará grupo de seguimiento a su misión electoral en Honduras

,

Deja un comentario

Reconocidos juristas internacionales brindarán seminario en Honduras sobre independencia judicial y elección de magistrados

Por: Redacción CRITERIO

redaccion@criterio.hn

Baltasar Garzón

Tegucigalpa.-El famoso juez español Baltasar Garzón y otros prominentes juristas internacionales brindarán el 22 y 23 de septiembre próximo en Honduras, el  seminario internacional: “La garantía de Independencia Judicial y los Procesos de elección de magistrados(as) a las Cortes Supremas”.

Claudia Escobar

En la actividad, que es patrocina por la Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia (AJD), la Coalición Contra la Impunidad e Hivos, intervendrán como expositores: el doctor Baltasar Garzón, ex magistrado de la Audiencia Nacional de España; doctor Luis Ernesto Vargas, magistrado de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia; la doctora Claudia Escobar, ex magistrada de Corte de Apelaciones de Guatemala; Marcia Aguiluz, directora de CEJIL Mesoamérica y el magistrado Joaquim Bosch Grau, portavoz de la Asociación Jueces para la Democracia de España.

Luis Ernesto Vargas

Como parte de la plenaria participará además, el abogado hondureño y exfiscal general de la República, Edmundo Orellana Mercado.

Joaquín Bosh Grau

La convocatoria para asistir al seminario  es pública y está siento anunciada en las redes sociales, por lo que cualquier hondureño interesado en inscribirse solo tiene que confirmar su asistencia al teléfono: 2550-1292 y al móvil: 97408974.

Marcia Aguiluz

, , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

OEA destaca afluencia pacífica y cívica en las urnas

7 de Mayo de 2014

09:53PM  –  Redacción   

Misión que observó comicios entrega informe al Consejo Permanente.

La OEA desplazó 82 observadores electorales a Honduras el año pasado.
La OEA desplazó 82 observadores electorales a Honduras el año pasado.

Tegucigalpa, Honduras

El Consejo Permanente de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), recibió el informe de la Misión de Observación Electoral que estuvo en Honduras, en el que destaca la afluencia pacífica y cívica de la población hondureña a las urnas.

El Informe de la misión, encabezada por Enrique, Correa y felicita a los ciudadanos de Honduras por haber acudido “con convicción y de manera pacífica el día de la elección a ejercer el sufragio”.

Además, destaca “el compromiso cívico del pueblo hondureño, que se pudo observar a través de una alta afluencia de votantes a lo largo del día, quienes de forma pacífica ejercieron su derecho al voto”.

La presentación del informe verbal estuvo a cargo de la subjefa de la Misión de Observadores, Marcela Garzón.

En materia de organización electoral, la Misión recomienda en el informe considerar una reforma de la composición partidaria del Tribunal Supremo Electoral en todos sus niveles de jerarquía y “llevar a cabo las reformas necesarias a la Ley Electoral y de Organizaciones Políticas a fin de ciudadanizar las mesas receptoras de votos”.

Pide, por otra parte, hacer reformas a fin de que las credenciales contengan los datos personales del ciudadano; y mejorar el proceso de planificación de la elección para anticipar y cumplir con los requerimientos para la organización del proceso en tiempo y forma.

En cuanto al censo electoral, se sugirió “llevar a cabo una auditoría que permita identificar de manera detallada aspectos y áreas de mejora”.

En cuanto a la transmisión de resultados, la OEA pide continuar la mejora del nuevo Sistema Integrado de Escrutinio y Divulgación Electoral “en particular incluir puntos de control de calidad; realizar pruebas de la aplicación con mayor antelación”. Pide facultar al TSE para que audite los estados financieros de los partidos políticos.

, ,

Deja un comentario

Antonio Rivera Callejas: UE no puede condicionar ayudas a recomendaciones de observadores

Lo más reciente  15 febrero, 2014 – 12:20 AM

Sería incorrecto que la Unión Europea (UE) condicione el cumplir recomendaciones contenidas en el informe de observadores sobre los comicios del 24 de noviembre del 2013, para aprobar ayudas a Honduras, opinó el diputado del Congreso Nacional (CN), Antonio Rivera Callejas.

Antonio Rivera Callejas

Antonio Rivera Callejas

El parlamentario nacionalista reaccionó sobre el tema luego del informe emitido por observadores de la UE, que para algunos analistas políticos, representa una intromisión en asuntos políticos e institucionales del país.

A pesar que los observadores dieron su informe posterior a las elecciones generales, su propósito era velar por la transparencia del proceso y sorprende que en el documento que presentaron ayer se metan en una serie de aspectos que son parte de la soberanía y decisiones de país.

Los observadores de la UE, en su informe final sobre esos comicios, critican el hecho de que el pasado Congreso Nacional haya nombrado a los próximos magistrados del TSE.

NO HA DEJADO DE SORPRENDER POSICIÓN

No ha dejado de sorprender esa posición ya que se esperaba que el informe sea relativo a las elecciones y no sobre asuntos que corresponden a los hondureños y sus autoridades.

Un comunicado emitido por el Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) el 23 de noviembre del 2013 señala que los observadores deben limitarse a rendir información sobre el proceso y el desarrollo de las elecciones y no meterse en asuntos internos del país.

“Si alguna ayuda a futuro estuviere condicionada a que debemos adoptar esas recomendaciones obligatoriamente, es injerencia, pero creo que no es el caso, lo miro como recomendaciones sanas para la democracia hondureña”, indicó Rivera Callejas.

“Tienen todo el derecho de recomendar, vinieron de observadores, avalaron el proceso, pero lo difícil es conseguir 86 diputados en el Congreso Nacional, de las siete bancadas, para poder reformar o crear una nueva Ley Electoral”, consideró.

Al presentar de manera pública su informe final sobre el proceso electoral, recomiendan despolitizar el nombramiento de los magistrados del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) y depurar el Registro Nacional de las Personas (RNP).

Según Antonio Rivera Callejas, lo conveniente sería analizar esas recomendaciones, pero insistió que“cualquier reforma que se tenga que hacer tiene que hacerse con la voluntad de las fuerzas políticas”.

“Se trata de un informe técnico de buenas recomendaciones, pero hay que ver cuáles se pueden tomar en consenso y cuáles no. Tienen todo el derecho avalaron el proceso electoral, manifestaron que el resultado que ellos vieron en los distintos puntos cardinales del país”.

La jefe de la misión europea, Ulrike Lunacek, en conferencia de prensa resaltó que la administración electoral (TSE) debe ser despolitizada y con criterios técnicos.

“Y también hemos criticado el hecho de que el pasado Congreso Nacional haya nombrado a los próximos magistrados electorales sin que los actuales hayan terminado el período para los cuales fueron electos”.

Fuente: http://www.latribuna.hn/2014/02/15/antonio-rivera-callejas-ue-no-puede-condicionar-ayudas-a-recomendaciones-de-observadores/

, , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Marvin Ponce: “Europeos asumen posición injerencista”

Lo más reciente  15 febrero, 2014 – 12:05 AM

“La Unión Europea (UE) asume una posición injerencista en la parte política de Honduras”, indicó el ex vicepresidente del Congreso Nacional y actual asesor presidencial, Marvin Ponce, al referirse a la emisión del informe de los observadores sobre los comicios del pasado 24 de noviembre.

Marvin Ponce

Marvin Ponce

“En el fondo asumen una posición injerencista en la parte política cuando plantean cambios institucionales, entre otras cosas, que en el país se define de acuerdo a la correlación de las clases políticas hondureñas”, señaló Ponce.

“Me parece una doble moral, por un lado, avalaron las elecciones cuando vinieron como observadores y ahora vienen con el tema de transformaciones electorales cuando dijeron que todo había resultado exitoso”.

“Me parece injerencia porque la democratización, no solo es en el tema electoral, sino en el plano político, económico y social, no basta con cambiar un Tribunal Supremo Electoral para que las cosas cambien en el país en la parte democrática”.

“Otro aspecto tiene que ver con el financiamiento de la campaña que nunca dijeron nada antes, sino hasta ahora que ya pasaron las elecciones”, concluyó el asesor presidencial.

Fuente: http://www.latribuna.hn/2014/02/15/marvin-ponce-europeos-asumen-posicion-injerencista/

, , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Unión Europea recomienda “despolitizar” tribunal electoral de Honduras

13 de Febrero de 2014

03:43PM   – Redacción:  redaccion@laprensa.hn

La Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea ecomendó la “despolitización” del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) y que el organismo sea más incluyente.

La jefa de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea, Ulrike Lunacek (c), habla junto a su jefe de misión adjunto, Jose Antonio Gabriel (i), y el embajador de la Unión Europea en Honduras, Ketil Karlsen, hoy, jueves 13 de febrero de 2014, en una de rueda de prensa en un hotel de Tegucigalpa (Honduras), donde presentaron su informe final sobre los comicios generales celebrados en Honduras del 24 de noviembre de 2013. La Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea (MOE UE) que siguió los comicios generales de Honduras de noviembre de 2013 recomendó hoy, entre otras cosas, la despolitización del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) y que el organismo sea más incluyente. EFE
La jefa de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea, Ulrike Lunacek (c), habla junto a su jefe de misión adjunto, Jose Antonio Gabriel (i), y el embajador de la Unión Europea en Honduras, Ketil Karlsen, hoy, jueves 13 de febrero de 2014, en una de rueda de prensa en un hotel de Tegucigalpa (Honduras), donde presentaron su informe final sobre los comicios generales celebrados en Honduras del 24 de noviembre de 2013. La Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea (MOE UE) que siguió los comicios generales de Honduras de noviembre de 2013 recomendó hoy, entre otras cosas, la despolitización del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) y que el organismo sea más incluyente. EFE

Tegucigalpa, Honduras

La Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea (MOE UE) que siguió los comicios generales de Honduras de noviembre de 2013 recomendó hoy, entre otras cosas, la “despolitización” del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) y que el organismo sea más incluyente.

Las recomendaciones a las autoridades hondureñas y la sociedad en general son recogidas en el Informe Final de la MOE UE presentado hoy en Tegucigalpa por la jefa de la misión, Ulrike Lunacek.

La diplomática dijo que “la despolitización” del TSE se debe hacer “con el nombramiento de acuerdo a criterios legalmente establecidos de neutralidad política y competencia técnica”.

Agregó que el informe con las recomendaciones de la misión de la UE han sido presentadas a los partidos políticos y el nuevo Gobierno, que preside Juan Orlando Hernández, ganador de los comicios de 2013 bajo la bandera del conservador Partido Nacional.

La UE expresó su desacuerdo con que el Parlamento hondureño anterior haya elegido a los nuevos magistrados del TSE, porque entonces en el legislativo no estaban representados los dos nuevos partidos mayoritarios que ahora hay en el país.

En ese sentido, recomendó que el nuevo Parlamento haga una elección de nuevas autoridades del TSE en el que tengan representación todos los partidos, no solamente los dos tradicionales, Nacional y Liberal.

La MOE también recomendó la depuración del Registro Nacional de las Personas (RNP), organismo que no debe tener la influencia de los partidos políticos, recalcó Lunacek, quien relató que se sorprendió cuando supo que en tiempos de campaña electoral son los políticos los que entregan a los ciudadanos su carné de identidad.

Otra de las recomendaciones de la misión de la UE es la regulación de la financiación de las campañas electorales, porque se desconoce la procedencia de los fondos millonarios que se gastan.

Lunacek indicó que aunque hay una ley al respecto, “ninguno de los partidos cumplió” con declarar la procedencia y cantidades millonarias invertidas en la pasada campaña electoral, de la que señaló que fue muy desigual, en perjuicio de los partidos que funcionan con escasos recursos.

De lo bueno que dejaron las elecciones de 2013, la MOE UE resalta en su informe la “alta tasa de participación” en las urnas y el “fin al sistema bipartidista que dominó la política del país desde el comienzo de su existencia como nación”.

“Por primera vez, el Congreso hondureño contará con cuatro bancadas con capacidad negociadora y el Partido Nacional, que retiene el Ejecutivo, no podrá gobernar sin llegar a acuerdos con una o varias de estas fuerzas políticas”, añade el informe.

En efecto, los hondureños han puesto fin al bipartidismo marcado en el Parlamento por los tradicionales y conservadores partidos Nacional y Liberal, fundados hace más de un siglo.

La MOE UE expresó además su voluntad de aportar, como contribución al debate político hondureño, una serie de recomendaciones orientadas a la mejora de los procesos electorales en Honduras.

El embajador de la UE en Tegucigalpa, Ketil Karlsen, quien acompañó a Lunacek en la presentación del informe, advirtió que la Unión Europea condicionará su cooperación a Honduras de los próximos años al fortalecimiento de la democracia, el respeto a los derechos humanos y el mejoramiento de vida de los hondureños.

Karlsen abogó por “la consolidación de la democracia del pueblo hondureño”.

La jefa de la MOE UE también reiteró que la campaña electoral fue “muy desigual”, tanto en la propaganda de los partidos, como en la cobertura que se hizo en los medios de comunicación, con escasa participación de los pequeños.

“No estábamos aquí para favorecer ningún resultado, sino para observar”, enfatizó Lunacek al explicar que los resultados fueron lo más aproximado posible a la voluntad de los hondureños en las urnas, de unos comicios que la izquierda rechazó sus resultados, aunque al final reconoció al nuevo gobernante de manera condicionada.

La izquierda, que alegó fraude, representada por el partido Libertad y Refundación (Libre), cuyo coordinador general es el expresidente Manuel Zelaya, derrocado en junio de 2009, fue la sorpresa en las elecciones, ya que sacó 37 diputados de los 128 que integran el Parlamento.

Otro partido, el Anticorrupción, también sorprendió logrando trece diputados, mientras que el Liberal, que era la primera fuerza política, pasó a ser segunda con 27 asientos, de 55 que tenía.

Las elecciones hondureñas fueron transparentes, según la UE, pero hay mucho por corregir y por hacer para mejorar la democracia del país centroamericano, lo que también es señalado en el Informe Final y sus recomendaciones. EFE

Fuente: http://www.laprensa.hn/honduras/tegucigalpa/475493-96/union-europea-recomienda-despolitizar-tribunal-electoral-de-honduras

, , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Misión de observación electoral de la UE recomienda transparentar financiamiento de campañas políticas

13:57
13
Febrero
2014
Tegucigalpa – La Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea (MOE-UE), presentó este jueves en esta capital, el informe final sobre los comicios generales celebrados el pasado 24 de noviembre, donde entre una serie de sugerencias, recomienda todas las medidas necesarias para transparentar y limitar el financiamiento de las campañas políticas.

El informe fue presentado por los miembros de la MOE-UE, encabezados por la jefa de la misión, diputada Ulrike Lunacek y el jefe adjunto de la misión de observación de la Unión Europea, José Antonio de Gabriel, para el conocimiento del gobierno, el TSE , los partidos políticos , la sociedad civil y el pueblo hondureño.

Como resultado de su observación, y tras tomar nota de muchas ideas surgidas en debates con ciudadanas y ciudadanos hondureños, la Misión de Observación Electoral de la UE, sometió a la consideración de los poderes del Estado, las autoridades electorales, los partidos políticos y la sociedad civil varias recomendaciones para mejorar futuros procesos electorales en Honduras.

El documento advierte que algunas de las recomendaciones requerirían reformas legales; otras, por el contrario, podrían implementarse simplemente aplicando de forma más estricta las normas existentes.

“De cualquier manera, sería conveniente que la implementación de las recomendaciones o de cualquier reforma tendiente a fortalecer la democracia en Honduras contase con el consenso político e institucional más amplio posible para que éstas se conviertan en normas y procedimientos eficaces, aceptables y duraderos”, señala.

La MOE-UE considera que el marcado pluralismo del nuevo Congreso abre espacios para que, con voluntad política, se adapte la legislación electoral a la nueva realidad del país y se supere la tradicional desconfianza de partidos y ciudadanos en la administración de los procesos electorales hondureños.

Administración electoral

Indica que para fortalecer la confianza de los partidos políticos y de la opinión pública en general hacia la administración electoral y sus componentes en todos los niveles, el Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE), se beneficiaría de una despolitización, con nombramientos que se hiciesen de acuerdo a criterios legalmente establecidos de neutralidad política y competencia técnica.

Destaca que un mecanismo inclusivo y responsable para nombrar a los magistrados del TSE, podría ser el establecimiento de un comité de selección o postulación compuesto por una amplia gama de miembros de la sociedad civil que, tras un análisis de sus cualificaciones y trayectoria profesional, propondrían candidatos idóneos para su elección por una mayoría cualificada del Congreso Nacional.

A criterio de la misión, a partir de ese momento, el TSE podría designar a los miembros de sus representaciones descentralizadas en los departamentos y municipios del país de acuerdo con los mismos criterios y a través de un proceso público y recurrible.

Añade que el reclutamiento de custodios electorales ha sentado un precedente positivo para el despliegue de administradores electorales neutrales. En esa misma lógica de neutralidad, el proceso de despolitización debería llegar al nivel de las mesas de votación, de manera que los miembros de éstas dejasen de ser nombrados por los partidos.

“Naturalmente, ello no puede implicar, en ningún caso, una pérdida de acceso por parte de los partidos a las distintas operaciones electorales. Por ello, en este modelo que se recomienda, los partidos deberían destacar representantes con funciones de supervisión y pleno acceso a documentos y procesos tanto en las mesas de votación como en todos los restantes niveles de la administración electoral. La claridad, orden y equidad del proceso de votación mejorarían si se limitase a un máximo de un representante por partido simultáneamente en cada mesa de votación y si todos los representantes estuviesen claramente identificados en todo momento”, recomienda la misión.

Sistema electoral

Sugiere que para que se atribuyan los escaños en el Congreso Nacional manteniendo el respeto al principio de la igualdad del voto, sería útil que la Ley Electoral estipulase una fórmula para la asignación de escaños por departamento, así como un mecanismo para actualizar las cifras de acuerdo con los datos más recientes de población o de votantes.

Sufragio activo

Refiere que la Constitución define el voto como un derecho y un deber. Sin embargo, el sistema actual deja a un gran número de ciudadanos fuera del proceso. Para que el proceso electoral sea más inclusivo, sería recomendable que se tomasen las medidas necesarias para garantizar el voto de los discapacitados, de los hospitalizados, de los detenidos sin sentencia y de los estudiantes de las academias militares y de Policía, teniendo también en cuenta el debate nacional sobre la posibilidad de modificar los preceptos constitucionales que no permiten el voto a las Fuerzas Armadas y cuerpos de seguridad.

Padrón electoral y cedulación

El documento establece que para asegurar un censo de votantes preciso y fiable, la propuesta del Registro Nacional de las Personas (RNP) de realizar un nuevo censo desde cero, o en su defecto, llevar a cabo una depuración y actualización profunda del existente, sería una estrategia práctica para evitar la inclusión de fallecidos en el censo, mientras que los emigrantes podrían registrarse de nuevo si vuelven a residir en el país.

Igualmente, una modernización del sistema de tarjetas de identidad, también prevista por el RNP, proporcionaría ulteriores salvaguardias para garantizar que todas las personas tienen una sola.

Asimismo, la anterior práctica de distribuir tarjetas a través de los partidos políticos debería ser abandonada definitivamente. Un Registro Civil modernizado y permanentemente actualizado sería una herramienta esencial no sólo para propósitos electorales, sino también para el diseño e implementación de una amplia gama de políticas públicas, asevera la misión de la UE.

Destaca que el proyecto piloto del RNP para despolitizar la solicitud y distribución de tarjetas de identidad fue un avance significativo hacia el acceso directo de ciudadanos a los servicios de registro. Particularmente, los planes del RNP de modernizar sus sistemas de registro civil por medio de una mayor computarización y de reforzar la capacidad y la imparcialidad institucional de su personal en las oficinas del registro municipal, contribuirían a un servicio público seguro y fiable, así como a la provisión de un elemento esencial de los procesos electorales.

Indica que la entrega del Censo Electoral a todos los partidos políticos fue un ejemplo de administración transparente y podría ser complementada con la publicación de cifras de registro globales para el público general.

Observación electoral

Para preservar otro de los elementos que contribuyeron a la transparencia del reciente proceso, la observación nacional e internacional, sería muy conveniente que la estrategia del TSE en esta materia se mantenga tanto en la práctica como en su regulación, que respetó sin restricciones los principios internacionales de acceso a los procesos y lugares relevantes.

Quejas, impugnaciones, recursos y delitos electorales

Para la misión de observación de la UE, sería útil desarrollar y divulgar un marco exhaustivo para reclamaciones para asegurarse de que los partidos políticos, la opinión pública general y las instituciones relevantes son plenamente conscientes de dónde y cómo se pueden presentar reclamaciones con respecto a distintos elementos del proceso electoral, desde el censo de votantes y la campaña hasta el voto y los procesos relativos a los resultados. Igualmente, el establecimiento de plazos para resolver las reclamaciones ayudaría a garantizar que estas se resuelven a tiempo, como ya ocurre con las referidas a los resultados.

Añade que igualmente, sería recomendable que el Estado fortaleciese la capacidad de investigación del Ministerio Público y lo dotase de los recursos técnicos y financieros apropiados, de modo que la fiscalía de delitos electorales pueda instruir e investigar toda reclamación con celeridad y de forma imparcial e independiente.

“Sólo esas investigaciones pueden conducir a la celebración de juicios por delitos electorales que contribuyan a reducir la impunidad en este ámbito”, acota.

Partidos políticos

La MOE-UE recomienda a los partidos políticos que, en aras de la igualdad de oportunidades, acuerden cambios legislativos que limiten la duración de la campaña electoral, fijen un límite al gasto, transparenten las fuentes de financiación y sancionen a los infractores de las normas en esta materia.

Considera que una posible forma de lograr un control efectivo del gasto de los partidos sería convertir al TSE en la única institución autorizada a contratar publicidad electoral. Esto requeriría que tanto los medios de comunicación como las empresas publicitarias que quisiesen trabajar con propaganda de los partidos se registrasen en el organismo electoral para hacerlo, y que los partidos sólo pudiesen contratar servicios con dichas empresas a través del Tribunal Supremo Electoral.

Cualquier violación de las normas de financiación de campaña o de las leyes en materia de transparencia de la información pública, detectada por el TSE o denunciada ante el mismo, habría de ser sancionada dentro de los límites de la campaña electoral, según la UE.

Medios de comunicación

Para la misión, sería recomendable la prohibición de la propaganda institucional del gobierno durante la campaña electoral puesto que a través de ella, los partidos oficialistas se benefician indirectamente de una mayor visibilidad, que es pagada con recursos públicos.

Igualmente, y ya fuera del periodo de campaña, la MOE-UE considera importante la adopción de criterios legales para asegurar que la publicidad institucional se reparte de modo equitativo y no discriminatorio entre los diferentes medios de comunicación, dado que ésta supone una importante fuente de ingresos para los mismos.

Asimismo, sería conveniente que el uso de las cadenas nacionales, de emisión obligatoria para todos los medios electrónicos, se limitara efectivamente a situaciones de emergencia o interés nacional, al menos durante la campaña electoral.

En aras de un mayor equilibrio en el acceso a los medios, la misión recomienda la introducción de medidas normativas que garanticen una cobertura equitativa del contenido informativo en los medios de comunicación electrónicos públicos y privados durante la campaña electoral. Con ese mismo fin, la recomienda a los medios la adopción de estándares voluntarios que fomenten una cobertura equilibrada de las campañas.

Resalta que dada la alta incidencia de homicidios de profesionales de la información en Honduras, sería recomendable reforzar y acelerar la investigación de esos casos, tal vez a través de una unidad especializada dentro de la Fiscalía.

Igualmente, y con fines preventivos, podría ser útil que gobierno y profesionales de la información abordasen de manera conjunta la posibilidad y conveniencia de adoptar medidas de protección efectivas para estos sin menoscabo de su autonomía e independencia.

Pueblos indígenas y afrohondureños

Con el objetivo de garantizar la participación política libre e informada de los pueblos indígenas y afrohondureños, es recomendable que el TSE traduzca a las lenguas maternas de estas comunidades los documentos electorales relevantes para la comprensión pública del proceso, reconociendo así el carácter pluricultural y multilingüe de Honduras, recomienda.

Participación de la mujer

En el informe, se relaciona que la cuota mínima del 40 por ciento de mujeres en las listas de candidatos en las primarias no ha garantizado una representación equilibrada de género en los puestos electivos (especialmente a nivel municipal) al combinarse con un sistema electoral de listas abiertas, en el cual los candidatos y candidatas de un mismo partido compiten entre sí por los votos preferenciales.

Agrega que las preferencias de los votantes son las que determinarán que uno u otro resulte elegido, dejando en manos de éstos, la decisión de poder o no votar por mujeres en el porcentaje asignado por la cuota.

Para aumentar el número de mujeres en dichos puestos, sería aconsejable considerar mecanismos que dotaran de mayor eficacia en la práctica a los porcentajes fijados en las cuotas. Asimismo, es recomendable que se potencien las campañas de educación al votante dirigidas a mujeres, especialmente a mujeres rurales, indígenas, afrohondureñas, y jóvenes.

Finalmente, sería recomendable que el TSE promoviera a un mayor número de mujeres a los niveles superiores de la administración electoral y que el Congreso introdujera criterios de equidad de género en la designación de los propios magistrados.

, , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Misión de UE entrega copia del informe final sobre comicios

Lo más reciente  13 febrero, 2014 – 12:30 AM

La Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea (UE), entregó a los magistrados del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) el informe final de su accionar antes, durante y después de las elecciones generales del 24 de noviembre del año pasado.

El documento de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la UE, fue entregado al presidente del TSE,  David Matamoros Batson, por la jefa eurodiputada, Ulrike Lunacek.

El documento de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la UE, fue entregado al presidente del TSE, David Matamoros Batson, por la jefa eurodiputada, Ulrike Lunacek.

El documento de la UE fue entregado al presidente del TSE, David Matamoros Batson, por parte de la jefa de la Misión, Ulrike Lunacek.

El informe de la UE, contiene nueve elementos relacionados con el análisis del pasado proceso electoral y, además, sus recomendaciones para mejorar y fortalecer los futuros procesos eleccionarios del país.

La Misión de Observación Electoral de la UE fue una de las instancias internacionales que manifestaron que los resultados del pasado proceso electoral fueron legítimos y transparentes.

DONA EQUIPO

La Unión Europea también donó ayer un equipo de oficina a la Asociación, Colaboración y Esfuerzo (Acoes), que preside el padre Patricio Larrosa Martos, en la parroquia Beata Madre Teresa de Calcuta, de la colonia Monterrey, en Comayagüela.

El jefe de la delegación de la Unión Europea, Ketil Karlsen; la jefa de la Misión de Observación Electoral, Ulrike Lunacek, y el padre Larrosa participaron en el acto de entrega del equipo que consiste en 30 computadoras portátiles, cuatro impresoras, 11 módems y material de oficina, entre otros a este proyecto social que beneficia a la juventud.

Parte del equipo donado por la UE al padre Patricio Larrosa, a través del embajador Ketil Karlsen, Ulrike Lunacek y Fabian Schipper.

Parte del equipo donado por la UE al padre Patricio Larrosa, a través del embajador Ketil Karlsen, Ulrike Lunacek y Fabian Schipper.

El equipo fue utilizado dos meses durante el proceso de observación electoral, cuyo informe final será presentado hoy, en un hotel capitalino, con las sugerencias pertinentes para el próximo proceso electoral.

Con esta acción, la UE muestra el apoyo a la formación en valores y conocimientos de los niños y jóvenes que no cuentan con los recursos económicos y que son acogidos por la Fundación Acoes en Honduras.

Larrosa destacó que recibía el equipo “con agradecimiento; esperamos que este material tiene dos meses, está nuevo, sea de mucha utilidad para nuestros jóvenes en el progreso y educación que tanto necesitan”.

Informó que “a través de su programa se atiende a 8,000 estudiantes y 200 colaboradores con los proyectos. Este trabajo lo realizan los jóvenes que vienen todos los días a colaborar. Este equipo es de mucha calidad, son nuevos, se han estado usando y nos va a servir mucho”.

Larrosa recibe a los jóvenes que trabajan en los proyectos sociales en zonas de riesgo en la capital.

Fuente: http://www.latribuna.hn/2014/02/13/mision-de-ue-entrega-copia-del-informe-final-sobre-comicios/

, ,

Deja un comentario

Prestidigitación electoral en Honduras CONTINUACIÓN DEL GOLPE DE ESTADO POR OTROS MEDIOS

Por Maurice Lemoine

Por lo general, aunque sólo sea durante unos días, unas elecciones salpicadas de sospecha de fraude agitan a la “comunidad internacional” y los medios denominados “de información”. Tal no ha sido el caso de Honduras, donde Juan Orlando Hernández, “electo” en condiciones dudosas, tomó posesión de la presidencia el 27 de enero, bajo la unción de la Unión Europea y la Organización de los Estados Americanos.

En Tegucigalpa, durante los días precedentes a las elecciones generales del 24 de noviembre de 2013, nadie tenía ninguna duda: la victoria para la presidencia se decidiría entre el presidente del Congreso Juan Orlando Hernández, del Partido Nacional (PN), ya en el poder, y, representando a Libertad y Refundación (LIBRE), Xiomara Castro, esposa del ex presidente Manuel Zelaya, derroca- do el 28 de junio de 2009 por una camarilla cívico-militar a la que le disgustaba su giro hacia la izquierda, aunque fuera moderado. Otros siete partidos participaban en la campaña –entre ellos el Partido Liberal (PL), que se alterna en el poder con el PN desde hace más de un siglo–, pero apenas tenían peso en los debates.

Tras el golpe de Estado nació el Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular (FNRP), que luchó contra los golpistas en la calle, y después vino su brazo político, LIBRE, cuando Zelaya, su actual coordinador general, regresó del exilio el 28 de mayo de 2011. Dos años más tarde, habiéndose vuelto la situación económica y social una pesadilla, la oligarquía no escatimó en medios para alejar la… “amenaza populista” que representa el “socialismo democrático” invocado por Xiomara Castro. Así, una “tarjeta cachureca” (1) vio oportunamente la luz un mes antes de las elecciones. Distribuida por el PN, después de rellenarse un formulario que incluía el número del documento nacional de identidad, dirección, teléfono y correo electrónico quien lo tuviera, permitía obtener descuentos que oscilaban entre el 10% y el 30% en diversos establecimientos comerciales “amigos”. De manera paralela, en una zona residencial de Tegucigalpa, el PN dispone de un centro de operaciones informatizado donde cuatrocientas (¡400!) personas se afanan en recordar a los hondureños que “Juan Orlando es- pera [su] voto” y en preguntar al mismo tiempo si ya tienen la “tarjeta cachureca”, que sólo se puede adquirir en los locales del partido.

Innumerables paneles y carteles convierten a Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH) en omnipresente; los medios de comunicación inundan de propaganda a los electores, como si los colocaran en un camino del que no se pueden apartar. El gasto de dinero es tal que la jefa de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea (MOE UE), Ulrike Lunacek, se preocupa ante la ausencia de transparencia en la financiación de la campaña, sin nombrar específicamente a ningún partido. En un país impregnado por el narcotráfico, la reflexión no tiene nada de anodino.

En el bando de LIBRE, a pesar de los sondeos favorables, no se oculta una cierta inquietud. Candidato al cargo de designado (2), Enrique Reina explica al respecto: “Durante las primarias del Partido Nacional, en las cuales se le daba como favorito, Ricardo Álvarez, el adversario de JOH, denunció un fraude descarado y pidió al Tribunal Supremo Electoral [TSE] un recuento de los votos que jamás obtuvo”.

El día 24, a las 16:20 horas, mientras se hacían y deshacían grupos movedizos de personas ante las urnas, el presidente del TSE, David Matamoros, se reunía con Lisa Kubiske, la embajadora estadounidense en Honduras. ¿Chocante? ¡En absoluto! Desde hace una eternidad, Estados Unidos lleva la voz cantante aquí. Durante toda la velada electoral, la diplomática permanecerá en la sede del TSE.

A las 19:25, en un salón del Hotel Clarión, una especie de fiebre se apoderaba de los asistentes: con arreglo a los sondeos efectuados por LIBRE a la salida de los colegios electorales, Castro anunciaba su victoria con el 29% de los votos (3). Una hora después, sobre la base de más del 20% de las actas electorales, el TSE anunció, por su parte, que Hernández se imponía (34,07%); mencionó igualmente que otras actas –19% del total nacional– fueron apartadas, dado que adolecían de “anomalías”, y quedaban pendientes de una “verificación ulterior” por medio de un procedimiento denominado “escrutinio especial”. “Con un 19% no se puede hablar de un error –reaccionó enseguida Zelaya–, sino de la nulidad del proceso”. La palabra fraude fue pronunciada.

Cuando, a las 22:40, habiéndose procedido al escrutinio del 54,47% de las papeletas, Matamoros confirmó que JOH seguía como triunfador con el 34,27% de los votos, dos observadoras hondureñas oficialmente acreditadas nos confiaron discretamente: “Lo que hemos visto no nos gusta. Hay un fraude evidente, hemos visto mil ejemplos. Haremos un informe, pero ¿de qué servirá?”. Para todo periodista de buena fe, la situación se hacía delicada. ¿A quién y a qué referirse? Y, de hecho, puesto que en ese momento le viene a la cabeza, ¿qué dicen los sondeos “a pie de urna”?

El 19 de noviembre, el TSE había autorizado a seis institutos a realizar dichos sondeos y a hacerlos públicos el día 24 a partir de las 19 horas. Democracia sí, pero no temeraria. No obstante, había precisado: “Antes de publicar los resultados, deberán comunicárnoslos para poder verificar que los datos ofrecidos concuerdan con los nuestros” (4). En la fecha y hora establecidas, radios y televisiones guardaban un silencio total. Solamente podían citar las cifras del TSE. Posteriormente, descubriríamos que el propietario de uno de los institutos “autorizados”, Ingeniería Gerencial S. A. , era nada menos que el ministro de Seguridad Arturo Corrales.

También descubriríamos que el instituto Hagamos Democracia desveló los resultados de sus encuestas “a pie de urna” a la mañana siguiente para confirmar las cifras del TSE. Asimismo, descubriríamos que de los sondeos del resto (Paradigma, Le Vote, CID Gallup y una sexta firma desconocida) no se escuchó ni una sola palabra la tarde del escrutinio. De manera cuidadosa, se había impedido la observación del proceso en vivo.

En las horas posteriores, el periodista conservador y candidato del Partido Anticorrupción (PAC) Salvador Nasralla (con 15,73% de los votos) también denunció las múltiples irregularidades y habló de “la instauración de una dictadura en Honduras”. La representación de la Conferencia Permanente de Partidos Políticos de América Latina y el Caribe (COPPPAL) –compuesta por sesenta partidos de veintiocho países, de los cuales catorce están en el Gobierno– “pide transparencia al TSE”. Para la Federación Internacional de Derechos Humanos (FIDH), el ex magistrado Baltasar Garzón pronto declarará que “se ha cometido fraude a través de diferentes mecanismos y diferentes vías”.

Compra de votos, alteración y falsificación de documentos, retención de resultados favorables para LIBRE son algunos de los actos cometidos por los responsables de los colegios electorales miembros del PN. El día 26, a pesar de no haber respondido de manera convincente a las denuncias de la oposición, la Unión Europea (UE) publica su informe preliminar (5). El poder podía respirar tranquilo. Aunque se señalaron numerosas anomalías del tipo “aproximadamente el 30 % de las entradas [del registro electoral] corresponden a personas que emigraron o fallecieron, mientras que, en un número menor de casos, hay ciudadanos vivos que han sido declarados fallecidos”, la MOE UE declara el proceso válido y lo califica de “transparente”. Además, no cree conveniente mencionar que LIBRE y el PAC, que representan alrededor del 50% de los votantes, ponen en cuestión los resultados. Sin embargo…

Tomemos el caso del departamento de Copán, uno de los departamentos más pobres del país. En El Paraíso, un pueblo polvoriento, el ayuntamiento, por no decir el “palacio municipal”, costó 900.000 dólares y dispone de un helipuerto. Es conocido públicamente que el alcalde y miembro del PN Alexander Ardón forma parte de “los señores de lafrontera”, es decir, los narcos que aseguran el paso de la cocaína hacia su vecina Guatemala (6). En esta zona, la cual pretenden seguir controlando (San Antonio, La Jigua, San Agustín, San Jerónimo, Dolores, Concepción, Trinidad, Santa Rita, El Limón, Libertad Nueva, etc.), los delegados de LIBRE se vieron obligados a abandonar los colegios electorales bajo la amenaza de hombres armados. Los representantes del TSE también salieron por la fuerza. La diputada de LIBRE, Elvia Argentina Valle, cuenta: “Cuando nos avisaron, llamamos a los observadores de la UE y les pedimos que se acercaran a ese sector para comprobar la situación de nuestros militantes y representantes. Ellos nos respondieron que su seguro les prohibía entrar en zonas de alto riesgo, así como exponer sus vidas. Pero nos dijeron que iban a transmitir toda la información”.

¿Y lo hicieron? Por supuesto. ¿Alguien les escuchó? Sí, uno de los miembros de la misión de la UE, el austríaco Leo Gabriel, respondió indirectamente cuando, a su salida del aeropuerto de Tegucigalpa, puso las cosas en su sitio diciendo: “La palabra ‘transparente’ no puede emplearse en este escrutinio, ni en el recuento, ni en las elecciones en general. (…) Muchas veces ha habido desacuerdo entre los observadores y no se nos ha consultado antes de redactar el informe. Hemos rellenado formularios donde describíamos la situación con todo lujo de detalles, pero sólo se han quedado con aquello que constataba que [en su conjunto] fueron unas elecciones tranquilas. Hemos insistido mucho en que el informe fuera corregido, pero sólo hemos recibido negativas”.

Con el Gobierno y sus relevos recalcando que la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA) también había ratificado el resultado, la controversia no disponía de tiempo de avivarse. Así pues, el hecho de que el día 29 Rixi Moncada, delegada de LIBRE en el consejo consultivo del TSE, expusiera las pruebas de Xiomara Castro resultó en vano. Cuando las actas, escaneadas en los colegios torales, fueron enviadas por Internet de forma simultánea al TSE y a los partidos políticos, se pudo constatar la diferencia entre las cifras de “14.593 votos obtenidos por LIBRE y las publicadas en el sistema SIEDE [Sistema Integrado de Escrutinio y Divulgación Electoral del TSE]. (…) Encontramos 82.301 votos contabilizados de más a favor del PN; 55.720 votos que no se contabilizaron para LIBRE, así como 34. 180 votos para el PAC, 39. 713 para el PL y 13.307 para otros partidos”.

Según LIBRE, al menos 2.800 actas no fueron transmitidas a los partidos políticos ni divulgadas en la página web del TSE. Por consiguiente, el partido reclama un recuento de todas las actas, guardadas en el Instituto Nacional de Formación Profesional (INFOP), bajo la “vigilancia” de su director general David Chávez, candidato a diputado (y electo) del PN. Del mismo modo, LIBRE exige que una comisión internacional realice una prueba pericial del SIEDE. Con el tono reprobatorio de un adulto regañando a un niño “que no sabe perder”, llega la respuesta: ya la ha hecho la OEA. Pero precisamente…

El 20 de noviembre, a tan solo tres días del escrutinio, dicha organización puso en conocimiento del TSE las conclusiones de la auditoría realizada en todo el sistema informatizado desde el 24 de octubre (7). Tras leer las 47 páginas del documento, los “fallos”, el “no respeto a los estándares requeridos”, la “ausencia de información”, la “imposibilidad de prever el comportamiento de la infraestructura tecnológica” y otras “vulnerabilidades” mencionadas nos llevan a una conclusión: el SIEDE no ofrece ninguna garantía de fiabilidad. En concreto, el famoso “escrutinio especial”, donde los vo- tos rechazados por “anomalías” representan a 883.140 electores, “no ha podido ser evaluado”.

En materia de fraude multiforme, estas “elecciones a la hondureña” seguirán siendo un caso de estudio. La mañana de las elecciones, se estuvieron escaneando las actas de los resultados desde las 9 horas. Supuestamente, había dos representantes locales (un titular y un suplente) en cada una de las 16.135 mesas electorales. Los cinco partidos pequeños –Frente Amplio Político Electoral en Resistencia (FAPER), Partido Demócrata Cristiano (DC), Unificación Democrática (UD), Alianza Patriótica Hondureña (AP) y Partido Innovación y Unidad (PINU)– recibieron 160. 000 acreditaciones. ¿Dónde está el error? Como es lógico, sus delegados deberían haber votado a sus candidatos a la presidencia, ¡pero estos cinco partidos solamente obtuvieron 17.516 votos en total! Sus “representantes” dieron y, sobre todo, vendieron manifiestamente sus acreditaciones al PN, permitiéndole así tener todo el peso en la gestión del escrutinio y, además, todos ellos votaron a JOH.

Tras haber sido rechazada la solicitud de impugnación de las elecciones y del recuento presentada por Xiomara Castro, el 11 de diciembre por el TSE y el 26 diciembre por el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (TSJ), nada puede afirmar con total exactitud que fue ella la persona elegida como presidente, tal como pretende. Sin embargo, también resulta muy difícil contradecirla cuando califica a Hernández de jefe de Estado “ilegítimo”, mal que le pese a la UE y a la OEA.

Aún queda que JOH, desprovisto de la mayoría en el Congreso, donde el PN obtuvo cuarenta y ocho diputados, cuente con LIBRE, que, con sus treinta y nueve representantes, se ha convertido en la segunda fuerza política del país. Argentina Valle lo resume de la siguiente manera: “Si se nos hubiera demostrado, con pruebas reales, que hemos perdido, hubiéramos aceptado la derrota. Pero no es el caso. Puesto que somos el brazo político de la resistencia, nos van a tener permanentemente encima, tanto en el Congreso, como en las calles”. !

© LMD EN ESPAÑOL

(1) Cachureco: persona muy religiosa. Diminutivo de los miembros del Partido Nacional.

(2) Una especie de vicepresidente. Hay tres en cada partido.

(3) Las elecciones solo constan de una vuelta.

(4) La Prensa, San Pedro Sula, 19 de noviembre de 2013.

(5) MOE UE: “Declaración preliminar. Una votación y recuento transparentes tras una campaña opaca y desigual”, Tegucigalpa, 26 de noviembre de 2013.

(6) Proceso, México, 27 de diciembre de 2013.

(7) “Auditoría para la verificación y transparencia en el funcionamiento del sistema integrado de escrutinio y divulgación electoral (SIEDE) implementado por el Tribunal Supremo Electoral de Honduras para las elecciones generales del 24 de noviembre de 2013” (PDF).

Fuente: http://www.lemondediplomatique.cl/Prestidigitacion-electoral-en.html

, , , , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

In Post-Election Honduras, Challenges and Opportunities for the Resistance

December 21, 2013

Printer-friendly versionSend by email

On December 12, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) announced the final results of Honduras’s contested election, awarding the presidency to ruling National Party candidate Juan Orlando Hernández with 37% of the vote. Despite evidence of significant irregularities, the TSE refused to conduct a partial ballot recount as demanded by LIBRE (the Freedom and Refoundation Party) and PAC (the Anti-Corruption Party), whose candidates finished second and fourth, respectively, with a combined total of 42% of the vote.2247 National Party campaign propaganda. Credit: Judy Somberg, NLG

While LIBRE has petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court to nullify the election, few expect this to happen, given the current regime’s recent stacking of the Court with conservative members—an initiative led by Hernández himself, as president of the national Congress. Meanwhile, Hernández, whose party has consolidated broad control over government institutions since the 2009 coup, is gearing up to lead what has been described as the most authoritarian Honduran administration in memory.

Still, Hernández faces formidable obstacles. He will assume control of a nation struggling with major security and economic crises, under the cloud of a tainted election. He will confront a changing political and social landscape, including a fragmented Congress, a potentially powerful opposition party in the form of LIBRE, and a resilient grassroots resistance movement.

In this context, continued conflict and repression is virtually guaranteed. But with a coordinated oppositional strategy both in the “halls of power” and in the streets, the anti-coup resistance may have an opportunity to curtail the most egregious abuses of economic and political power, and even to advance its own agenda.

As commentator Kevin Lees has noted, Hernández is a president “without mandate, majority, or money.” He will preside over a severely divided electorate, with more than 60% of the voters rejecting his approach and two parties, representing more than 40% of the vote, challenging the legitimacy of his election.

Please support our independent reporting. Donate now!

Despite the supportive pronouncements of high-level international observer missions (such as the OAS and EU) that found the election to be generally “free and fair,” the mounting evidence of voter intimidation, suppression, coercion, and fraud, and of politically-targeted violence against LIBRE supporters, has succeeded in casting a cloud over the vote. Other prominent voices, such as those of dissenting EU delegate Leo Gabriel and Spanish ex-judge Baltasar Garzón, bolstered by the reports of numerous human rights and solidarity organizations, have lent credence to LIBRE’s allegations that as many as 20% of the voting table tabulations are suspicious.

In fact, even the OAS and EU reports, upon careful reading, document numerous irregularities and systemic flaws in the electoral process. Whether or not LIBRE’s nullification strategies prevail, doubts about the legitimacy of Hernandez’s presidency will likely persist for some time, at home and abroad.

2248 Militarization on Election Day. Credit: Judy Somberg, NLG.With this weakened mandate, tackling Honduras’s twin security and economic crises will be no small challenge for Hernández. Honduras faces record-high levels of violence, with 20 murders per day and the highest homicide rate in the world, fueled by drug trafficking, street gangs, paramilitary activity, and police/government corruption. The controversial domestic military police force created by Hernández, as president of the Congress, has not succeeded in addressing these problems, but has bolstered large landholders and businesses in their efforts to suppress popular resistance to corporate land grabs.

Closely linked to the security crisis is Honduras’s ongoing economic and fiscal crisis. With a budget deficit of 4% in 2012, the post-coup government has continued to wrack up public debt, now equal to 35% of GDP. With anti-crime measures consuming another 10% of GDP, the government can barely afford to pay its public employees, let alone fund desperately needed anti-poverty and economic development programs.

Since the 2009 coup, poverty levels and the gap between rich and poor have increased dramatically, with Honduras now showing the greatest wealth disparities (and the lowest per capita income) in Latin America. Hernández has promised to continue the post-coup government’s austerity and privatization policies, allowing the plundering of natural resources by transnational corporations that have driven the economy to the brink of disaster.

Faced with these giant problems, Hernández will confront the most divided Congress in Honduran history. The emergence of LIBRE (and to a lesser extent, PAC) has broken the traditional dominance of the elitist National and Liberal parties, the conservative duopoly that has governed Honduras for more than a century. Unlike the current Congress, where the National Party’s 71 votes (out of 128 total) have assured majority control for the ruling party, with 45 Liberal Party votes providing a ready margin for constitutional changes that require a 2/3 vote, in the new Congress power is fragmented. The National Party has only 47 seats and the Liberals 26, while LIBRE has 39 and PAC 13 (with 3 small parties having 1 vote each).

While the National and Liberal parties still jointly control more than a majority (57%) of the Congress, an alliance between LIBRE and PAC, representing 41% of the votes, should at least be able to block the most egregious initiatives requiring a constitutional amendment. Alliances with the smaller parties and some Liberals could create a bloc large enough to push the Congress in a different direction—including, for example, electoral reform, and perhaps a rollback of some blatantly illegal judicial and executive appointments.

While continuing to challenge the electoral results, LIBRE is moving on to negotiate its role as a major opposition party in this new Congressional landscape, led by ex-president and Party chief Mel Zelaya, the newly elected deputy from Olancho. Within LIBRE, there is ongoing debate about the relative merits of participating in the Congressional executive junta (to be appointed in January) vs. remaining as a pure opposition party. Sources indicate that Zelaya will cede the presidency of the Congress (if offered) to the Liberals, with the goal of creating a united opposition. As well, ongoing tensions between the Party’s social movement and ex-Liberal Party constituencies, and now delegates, are likely to play out in the Congressional arena.2249 FNRP Assembly. Credit: laprensa.hn

Meanwhile, the National Popular Resistance Front (FNRP), the broad-based coalition of social movements that gave birth to LIBRE in 2011, is struggling to redefine its relationship to the political arm that has now become a formal opposition party. In the days immediately following the election, tension arose between some grassroots constituencies who wanted to mobilize against electoral fraud, and Party leaders who restrained their actions until a more politically opportune moment. Inside the movement, LIBRE’s unsuccessful (for the moment) presidential campaign has reopened an old tactical schism between those who have promoted the electoral strategy, and others who want to keep the movement’s energies focused in the streets and communities, deepening the process of change and avoiding the liabilities of political compromise, manipulation, and failed expectations.

Despite the repression unleashed by the post-coup government—including the murders of at least 22 LIBRE candidates, activists, and supporters since May 2012, and politically-targeted violence against popular organizations, journalists, and human rights defenders, the resistance movement has endured and grown. In the Aguán Valley, campesinos continue to occupy 26 farms on 3,000 acres of contested land appropriated by palm oil magnates. In Rio Blanco, indigenous groups have maintained a blockade for eight months protesting construction of a hydroelectric dam that will destroy their communities. Thousands of teachers have mobilized against the privatization of education, and have gone on strike, along with doctors and other public sector workers, when the government failed to pay them for months at a time.

2250 Protesting electoral fraud. Credit: AlJazeeraIn the wake of the elections, university students have emerged as a newly-energized component of the resistance. On Election Day, thousands of students sacrificed their right to vote to serve as polling table custodians, a function previously carried out by the Church. Many became disillusioned, enraged, and radicalized as they witnessed first- hand the irregularities and abuses documented by many observer reports. Students were the first to take to streets, ahead of LIBRE party directives, to protest electoral fraud. Although they were violently repressed by police, they continued to demonstrate throughout the week.

Also since the election, the post-coup regime has stepped up its efforts to ram a few more controversial laws through the National Party-controlled Congress while it still has the votes. These include provisions granting constitutional standing to Hernández’s new domestic military police force (which currently operates in violation of the Constitution), facilitating the latest version of Economic Development and Employment Zones (sovereign districts to incentivize transnational investment, that bypass labor and environmental protections), and authorizing more bonds to keep the government afloat (even though it has no way of paying the debt it currently owes). Next up on the agenda could be an austerity and tax package to cement desperately needed financing from the International Monetary Fund.

Whether Honduras’s social movements can succeed in curtailing these and other punitive measures, through the combined efforts of a viable political opposition and massive popular resistance, is the challenge that lies ahead.

 


Emily Achtenberg is an urban planner and the author of NACLA’s biweekly blog Rebel Currents, covering Latin American social movements and progressive governments (nacla.org/blog/rebel-currents). She was a credentialed election observer in Honduras with the National Lawyers Guild.

Fuente: http://nacla.org/blog/2013/12/21/post-election-honduras-challenges-and-opportunities-resistance

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Credenciales en blanco ensombrecieron proceso

Jueves 19 de diciembre de 2013

08:22 pm  – Redacción 

“La rendición de cuentas por parte de los partidos es esporádica, parcial y discrecional”, dice Enrique Correa.

Tweet

Enrique Correa, jefe de la Misión de la OEA, presentó su informe final sobre el proceso electoral

Enrique Correa, jefe de la Misión de la OEA, presentó su informe final sobre el proceso electoral ()

Tegucigalpa,

Honduras

El informe final de la Misión de Observadores de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) no precisa irregularidades que pongan en duda el triunfo de Juan Orlando Hernández pero advierte que el hecho de haber entregado en blanco las credenciales para mesas “ensombreció el proceso”.

Enrique Correa, jefe de la Misión, dijo que la principal tarea que tienen los partidos es “poner fin a la credencial en blanco”, de lo contrario, la duda sobre una efectiva transparencia continuará.

El informe de la OEA incluye observaciones y recomendaciones sobre temas sensibles como la estructuración de las mesas electorales receptoras, custodios electorales, financiamiento, transmisión de resultados y el papel que jugaron el Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) y El Registro Nacional de las Personas (RNP).

Respecto a los operadores electorales, la Misión reconoce los esfuerzos del TSE en el diseño de sus funciones y capacitación.

“Sin embargo, observó que esta área, en concreto, fue una de las que mayores inconvenientes en materia de organización presentó debido al corto margen de tiempo y limitado control por parte del Tribunal en su reclutamiento”.

“Problemas tales como un alto volumen de ausencias y deserciones por parte del personal que iba a llevar a cabo este trabajo amenazaron con poner en riesgo el proceso y retrasaron las capacitaciones e implicaron la puesta en marcha de planes de contingencia diseñados sobre la marcha”, dice el informe.

En cuanto al padrón electoral, la Misión dice que tuvo información oficial de que contenía problemas de “fechas de nacimiento, nombres y apellidos”.

La Misión reconoce el esfuerzo del RNP de entregar de manera personal las tarjetas de identidad.

La vieja costumbre de entregar credenciales en blanco para las mesas, es cuestionado por la OEA.

“Una vez más se entregaron credenciales en blanco, lo cual provocó acusaciones cruzadas sobre tráfico de credenciales y terminaron por ensombrecer el proceso”, dice.

Añade: “se hace imperante la necesidad de que se lleven a cabo reformas que impidan que este tipo de hechos ocurran nuevamente, permitiendo la incorporación de los datos completos del ciudadano en las credenciales”.

El principal desafío de la clase política es ponerle “fin a las credenciales en blanco”, dijo Correa.
La campaña no fue “equitativa y transparente”.

“En materia de transparencia, ante la ausencia de facultades legales del Tribunal y de recursos para auditar los estados financieros de los partidos políticos, la rendición de cuentas por parte de los mismos es esporádica, parcial y discrecional”, afirma.

En torno al SIEDE (transmisión) la OEA dice que “los simulacros se llevaron a cabo sin la totalidad de las funcionalidades previstas y con cargas de prueba inferiores a los objetivos definidos para esta auditoría”.

Fuente: http://www.elheraldo.hn/Secciones-Principales/Pais/Credenciales-en-blanco-ensombrecieron-proceso

, , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

HSN-USA Rechaza la Intimidación y las Amenazas en contra de DDHH

HONDURAS SOLIDARITY Network

18 de Diciembre 2013

HSN-USA http://www.hondurassolidaritynetwork.org!
honsolnetwork@gmail.com

La Red de Solidaridad con Honduras denuncia y expresa su grave preocupación con las
acusaciones falsas en contra de la representante de una organización internacional de
derechos humanos y solidaridad, Derechos en Acción, hechas por el Coronel Germán
Alfaro, comandante de las fuerzas militares Xantruch II del Bajo Aguán.
Derechos en Acción como organización es miembro de esta red y tiene una trayectoria
larga de trabajo con las comunidades centroamericanas de alto riesgo. Annie Bird es bien
conocida y respetada en Estados Unidos y Centroamérica por su trabajo desde hace
muchos años en defensa de los derechos humanos. Las acusaciones son completamente
falsas y están destinadas a desprestigiar a las defensoras y los defensores internacionales
y nacionales de derechos humanos. Además, denunciamos estas declaraciones como una
amenaza implícita en contra de la integridad física de Annie Bird, y responsabilizamos al
Coronel Alfaro y las autoridades hondureñas de todo nivel por su bienestar.
Las declaraciones del Coronel Alfaro forman parte de una campaña orquestada de
desprestigio e intimidación en contra de las organizaciones internacionales de derechos
humanos y solidaridad, con fin de aislar a los movimientos políticos y sociales opuestos
al golpe de estado y su continuidad, especialmente a las comunidades indígenas y
campesinas más desprotegidas y vulnerables.
Otra de nuestras organizaciones miembros fue sujeto a intimidación mientras servían
como Acompañantes Electorales con credenciales del TSE durante las elecciones del 24
de noviembre. Los servicios de inmigración, los cuales están militarizados actualmente
en Honduras, hicieron una redada en el centro de El Progreso donde las y los
internacionales estaban recibiendo capacitación por el Tribunal Electoral, además de las
oficinas de la organización hondureña jesuita ERIC-SJ. Cuando nuestros miembros se
presentaron a las oficinas de inmigración en San Pedro Sula como se les habían
solicitado, el oficial encargado allí también repitió acusaciones absurdas sin fundamento
alguno de que habían observadores internacionales cuyo intención era intimidar a la gente
y provocar sublevación. Sus declaraciones y actitud claramente tuvieron la intención de
intimidar a nuestros miembros. Él dijo que las redadas fueron parte de una operación
ordenada al nivel nacional con apoyo de la embajada estadounidense, así que sus
declaraciones tienen que ser interpretadas como declaraciones oficiales.
La campaña en contra de los defensores de derechos humanos también está dirigida en
contra de los defensores de derechos humanos hondureños tales como la organización
internacionalmente reconocida COFADEH y su personal, incluyendo su directora, Doña
Bertha Oliva. Doña Bertha Oliva ha sido públicamente acusada por oficiales de traicionar
el país por llevar a cabo sus responsabilidades como defensora, tales como la
comunicación de información y las denuncias del deterioro de la situación de derechos
humanos en Honduras.
Desde el día de la elección (el 24 de noviembre), 5 dirigentes y seguidores de LIBRE han
sido asesinados, un periodista recién electo al congreso por el partido LIBRE se vio
obligado a huirse del país ante un plan de asesinarle, y el hijo de un dirigente sindical de
LIBRE fue secuestrado y su vida amenazada. Hay amenazas todos los días en contra de
los miembros de LIBRE y los activistas sociales. Las comunidades campesinas e
indígenas y sus defensores son blanco de difamación y violencia.
Frente estas condiciones, la Red de Solidaridad con Honduras sigue con su compromiso
de “caminar junto al pueblo hondureño” y de oponerse al entrenamiento y ayuda militar y
de seguridad de los Estados Unidos hacia las fuerzas responsables por la violencia.
Declarado por las organizaciones que forman la Red de Solidaridad con Honduras
(HSN)
Alliance for Global Justice
Bay Area Latin America Solidarity Committee (BALASC)
Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America (CRLN)
Colectivo Honduras USA Resistencia=LIBRE
Friendship Office of the Americas
Hondureños En Resistencia – Northern California
La Voz de los de Abajo-Chicago
Latin America Solidarity Committee-Milwaukee
Marin Interfaith Task Force on the Americas
Portland Central America Solidarity Coalition (PCASC)
SOA Watch (National)
SOA Watch San Francisco
SOA Watch Oakland
St. Louis Inter-Faith Committee on Latin America
U.S. – El Salvador Sister Cities
Witness for Peace Southwest

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

The Geopolitics of Election Approval: The US Response to Honduras and Venezuela

Tuesday, 17 December 2013 09:37 By Lauren Carasik, Susan Scott and Azadeh Shahshahani, Truthout | News Analysis

Supporters of Juan Orlando Hernandez, candidate for the ruling National Party, at a rally in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, November 12, 2013. (Photo: Rodrigo Cruz-Perez / The New York Times)

The authors, members of the US National Lawyers Guild, compare and contrast procedures in this year’s presidential elections in Honduras and Venezuela, as well as the quick embrace by the United States of results of the more problematic of the two.

Credible concerns about electoral fraud in Honduras remain, yet Secretary of State John Kerry sanctioned the results just 17 days after the election, before challenges to its legitimacy had been fully resolved. Kerry’s official statement, which came quickly on the heels of the Organization of American States’ (OAS) similar congratulations to Juan Orlando Hernandez on December 11, lauded the election’s record turnout, commended a process that he characterized as “generally transparent, peaceful, and reflect[ing] the will of the Honduran people” and praised the Honduran government’s commitment to “promoting fiscal stability and economic growth, combating poverty, and guaranteeing security, justice, and human rights for all Hondurans.”

The Obama administration’s prompt recognition of ruling National Party candidate Juan Orlando Hernandez, who is expected to continue his predecessor’s friendliness toward US geopolitical and business interests, stands in stark contrast to its steadfast and unfounded refusal to give its imprimatur to the election of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Maduro’s April victory was quickly recognized by most governments in the region, the British and Spanish governments and others. Maduro’s challenge to US hegemony in the region and the neoliberal agenda it promotes has prompted US intransigence on Maduro’s election, even though it was declared clean, free and fair by election monitors from the Union of South American Nations, the National Lawyers Guild in the United States and others.

Although complaints of electoral malfeasance in Honduras surfaced before the polls closed, US Ambassador to Honduras Lisa Kubiske took to the airwaves within hours of the close of polls to announce her own cheerful conclusion – that the elections had been transparent and peaceful – and she continued to congratulate the Honduran people for days afterwards. Both Kerry’s and Kubiske’s statements completely ignore the fact that the majority of Honduran voters voted against the notorious right-wing president of the “coup” Congress and winner, Juan Orlando Hernandez, and that many of the 36.8 percent of the ballots which the Electoral Tribunal (the TSE – controlled by Hernandez’s National Party) claims he won are contested by two of the opposition parties. Shortly after the close of the polls, LIBRE party officials denounced discrepancies between the official results and the actual tallies (“actas“) provided to LIBRE representatives at the voting stations. LIBRE claims that a review of 80 percent of the actas in their possession indicates a 1.8 percent margin of victory for their candidate, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya.

Although the TSE initially agreed to recalculate the transmitted actas, it subsequently refused challenges filed by LIBRE and the Anti-Corruption Party, asking for a paper ballot recount to resolve discrepancies. The TSE president David Matamoros announced that Hernandez was the winner well before theDecember 24 deadline for the official declaration, and that was good enough for John Kerry.

As members of the officially-credentialed delegation from the National Lawyers Guild, we observed elections at several different polling centers in Tegucigalpa – including the largest voting center in the country at the Simon Bolivar Elementary school in the neighborhood of Las Mercedes. Twelve thousand voters were assigned to vote in a school with 36 voting stations in underlit dilapidated classrooms. The scene got progressively more chaotic as the day wore on, with large groups of men regularly chanting “Juan Orlando” in the courtyard, while soldiers and police stood idly by. The turnout at this center was low – less than 50 percent – and the presence of National Party-controlled soldiers and the ambience made clear why LIBRE supporters in this poor neighborhood might have felt intimidated. Smaller centers we observed in well-maintained private schools, and middle-class neighborhoods were much more orderly, with a turnout of 65-75 percent.

In Honduras, unlike in most countries in Latin America, voting tables are staffed solely by representatives from the parties, with no trained and unbiased election officials around – a system that Jennifer McCoy of the Carter Center told us she considered seriously flawed. Indeed, we saw the system’s shortcomings when we confirmed rumors of the pervasive sale of voting table credentials by some of the smaller parties to the National Party, creating a disproportionate National Party presence at the voting stations. The OAS had previously identified concerns about the security of the software used by the TSE and made a number of recommendations, only some of which were remediated in advance of election day.

Compounding concerns about the integrity of the voting process was the climate of fear in which the election took place. Brutal repression since the coup has created a human rights crisis in Honduras, with 18 LIBRE activists killed in the year-and-a-half preceding the election, and three more murdered on the eve of the elections, along with targeted killings of human rights defenders, land rights and indigenous activists, members of the LGBT community, journalists and lawyers. Bribery and threats also compromised free elections. During the campaign, and even on election day, cards offering retail discounts were distributed to voters by National Party representatives. People reported being threatened with loss of their jobs and cessation of cash payouts (the World Bank-funded Bono 10 Mil program) if Hernandez lost the election.

But because widely-reported instances of bribery, violence, intimidation and the consolidation of power in the National Party of all branches of government do not constitute “fraud” under the election rules, LIBRE’s legal challenge to the election was limited to the fraud evidenced by the discrepancies in the official documentation.

As members of the National Lawyers Guild, we observed some incorrect tallying of votes occasioned by National Party dominance at voting stations, but it was the chaotic circumstances at the large centers like the Las Mercedes center that made the voting there so conducive to fraud. The totaling and drafting of the actas was done after dark in badly lit rooms, and then taken several hundred meters to a small room with several scanners by two (out of 16) voting table representatives. A large group of representatives was massed outside the scanning room, in the rain and dark, waiting to pass their actas over the heads of others to be scanned by student TSE “custodians.” There was no oversight of the scanning process by party representatives or domestic or international observers, and some credentialed observers were asked to leave some centers during the counting process and locked out of others.  None of these irregularities was investigated by the TSE.

The Honduran election process and the US response stand in vivid contrast to the presidential elections in Venezuela eight months ago. With a high-tech electoral system that Jimmy Carter called the “best in the world” and which even the Venezuelan opposition called “blindado” (armored against fraud), Nicolas Maduro was declared president with 50.61 percent of the vote on April 14, 2013.The US government has yet to recognize the results of that election and has promoted a baseless challenge by the opposition that continues to this day in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). It is no secret that the United States would have preferred the victory of conservative candidate Henrique Capriles in the hopes of demobilizing the coalition of left-leaning governments in the hemisphere inspired by Hugo Chavez.

The Venezuelan elections provide an interesting comparison with Honduras in many respects.

Venezuela’s electronic system uses open source software, accessible and audited by all parties. Voters receive paper ballot receipts to confirm their vote was correctly recorded in the digital system, and poll workers perform an instant “People’s Verification” in the presence of party representatives and domestic and international observers at a randomly selected 54 percent of voting stations, which compares the paper receipts with the digital report. An equally important indicator of voter expression is turnout. Ambassador Kubiske and Secretary Kerry congratulated Hondurans for their 61 percent turnout – definitely an improvement over the “coup” elections in 2009, when members of the resistance boycotted en masse, as did official election observers. But over 79 percent of the Venezuelan electorate voted in the April 2013 elections, and thanks to the efforts of the CNE and the late Hugo Chavez, close to 100 percent of eligible voters are registered.

In Venezuela, elections – whether presidential or local – are a national project and a source of pride. They are preceded by months of CNE training of randomly selected poll officials, representatives from all parties, and observers from domestic and international civil society. Unlike Honduras, the Venezuelan Constitution provides for an independent electoral power, administered by the CNE, and provides for judicial review of CNE decisions in the Electoral Chamber of the Supreme Court (TSJ). National Lawyers Guild delegations have found the staff and leadership of the CNE to be extremely professional and nonpartisan in their promotion of free and truly transparent elections.

Last April, the margin of victory in the Venezuelan presidential elections was close, and the losing coalition (MUD) challenged the loss of their candidate, Henrique Capriles. An audit of paper receipts from the remaining 46 percent of the voting stations verified the election results. Undeterred, the losing party proceeded to file a challenge with the TSJ. The appeal, reviewed by NLG delegation members, consisted of unsubstantiated claims of intimidation and irregularities, more appropriate for Venezuela’s notorious right-wing TV than a court of law (see “Report of the National Lawyers Guild Delegation on the April 14, 2013 Presidential Elections and Expanded May-June Audit”).

The US government continued to question the April results and declared its support for the opposition challenge, despite the CNE’s audit and an independent statistical analysis conducted by the Center for Economic and Policy Research that concluded that fraud was all but impossible. The TSJ determined in August that the challenges were insufficient and lacking in evidence and that the election results should stand. Meanwhile, Maduro’s party, the PSUV, just won the popular vote in the December 8 municipal elections.

As the Obama administration conveniently ignores credible evidence of fraud in Honduras to warmly congratulate its new right-wing ally Juan Orlando Hernandez, John Kerry has yet to extend even tepid congratulations to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro for his victory on April 14, 2013. The motivation for the US diplomatic double standard is crystal clear.

The authors participated in the National Lawyers Guild delegation to Honduras, serving as credentialed observers for the November 2013 election. The delegation will issue a comprehensive report on its findings in the coming months. Check nlg.org for updates.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Lauren Carasik, Susan Scott and Azadeh Shahshahani

Lauren Carasik is a human rights attorney, clinical professor of law and director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law.

Susan Scott is a California human rights attorney, active with the National Lawyers Guild and former cochair of the NLG International Committee and Task Force on the Americas. She has organized delegations and served as a National Lawyers Guild-credentialed international observer for elections in Venezuela, Honduras and El Salvador.

Azadeh Shahshahani is a human rights attorney based in Atlanta and president of the National Lawyers Guild. In addition to the recent elections in Honduras, Shahshahani served as a National Lawyers Guild-credentialed international observer for the 2012 presidential elections in Venezuela. You can follow her on twitter @ashahshahahani.

Fuente: http://truth-out.org/news/item/20675-the-geopolitics-of-election-approval-the-us-response-to-honduras-and-venezuela

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Inside the Honduran Elections

December 12, 2013

Outsiders Converge to Abuse the Democratic Process

by GREG MCCAIN

On November 24th, Hondurans went to the polls in record numbers to support new viable alternatives to the duopoly of the National Party and the Liberal Party. These two old political parties have enjoyed a century of rule and both are beholden to the US State Department, the ruling elite, and multinational companies all looking to buy up the natural resources and the sovereignty of this Central American country.

Libre, the party of the resistance movement that grew out of the protests following the 2009 coup d’état, had mass popular support. Xiomara Castro Anaya, presidential candidate for Libre, and the wife of ex-President Mel Zalaya who was ousted in the coup, drew much larger crowds at every one of her political events leading up to the elections than any of her opponents at theirs. All the pre-election polls except the ones paid for by the National Party had her clearly in the lead. In the face of this popular support, the regime of Pepe Lobo, defacto President who was elected in fraudulent elections following the coup, and Juan Orlando Hernandez (JOH), ex-President of the National Congress and Presidential candidate for the National Party, staged an electoral coup d’état that exhibited massive fraud and voting irregularities.

You would not know how massive these irregularities were if you only relied on the mainstream press. News outlets such as The Washington Post and the AP’s man in Honduras , Alberto Arce, both declared JOH the winner before the counting process was complete and the fraud investigated thus promoting the neo-liberal agenda that has devastated this country. Arce bases his opinion on what he calls the lack of concrete evidence of fraud and puts his full faith and confidence behind the words of Lisa Kubieski, US Ambassador to Honduras, Ulricke Lunacek, the head of the European Union Election Observation Mission (EU-EOM), and the Organization of American States (OAS) all of which declared the elections transparent and free of fraud while many were calling for an investigation.

The OAS is notorious for its compliance with US policy toward the subjugation of Latin America and the Caribbean. As Mark Weisbrot points out in the Guardian:

“The OAS has similarly abandoned its duty of neutrality in elections in Haiti: it changed its 2000 report on presidential elections to support US efforts at “regime change”, and in 2011, took the unprecedented step ofreversing an actual election result, without so much as even a recount – again in line with Washington’s electoral choices.”

A State Department Press Statement spins the “results” of the Honduran elections this way:

“The United States commends the people of Honduras for their strong participation in the November 24 elections and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) for its professional counting of the vote. We note that Organization of American States and European Union electoral observation mission reports reflect a transparent process.”

Arce quotes Ambassador Kubiske as stating, “We had 110 observers in almost all Honduras (sic) states, and we have seen a transparent process with all parties represented at the table,” She of course does not mention, nor does Arce even though the evidence was wide spread, that the majority of those at the tables were National Party loyalists who had bought credentials to sit at the tables from the smaller parties, such as UD, PINU, DC, and PAP, all of which each got well under 1% of the vote. Kubiske goes on to note, “that there is a system in place for people to peacefully file complaints or contest the results.” Perhaps she was unaware that the Ministerio Publico in Tegucigalpa, the place where complaints can be filed, had been militarized, its regular employees told to go home and replaced by heavily armed soldiers.

Arce, as with much of his reporting from Honduras, pitches slow-and-down-the-middle propaganda to aid the ruling elite in hitting one out of the park. His words echo the Honduran mainstream press which is owned by the ruling elite. It should be of no surprise that his articles, which are exposed to millions of readers, appear on TIME’s news blog and other mainstream publications owned by the US’ own corporate rulers. To cut him some slack, Arce’s opinions appear to be fueled more by naiveté and a comical obsession with being seen as an “objective” journalist than by any clear cut ideological ax to grind. Perhaps he is just an unwitting conduit of neo-liberal propaganda.

Indeed, he is more balanced in a follow up article that points out many of the voting irregularities and examples of fraud, but the language that he choses belies his objectivity. In describing Xiomara Castro’s denouncement of the fraud and her call for supporters to go to the streets to protest, he states that her words “threaten further political instability for this poor Central American country.” Is he insinuating that if she just shuts up and the protesters went home there would be no further political instability? This completely negates the last four years of having JOH as President of the National Congress and the havoc that has been created by his policies. Again, Arce is either naïve or has almost perfected the cloak of objectivity to hide his true ideological bent.

Arce also reiterates the EU-EOM’s preliminary report, but choses to leave out the dissension amongst the members of the report. On the other hand, Arce comes across as a Chavista compared to the Washington Post’s Editorial Board’s diatribe against the Zalaya’s, The piece in the Post reads like East German Stasi defamatory propaganda from the 1970s, chock full of blatant lies and revisionist history as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) points out.

Regarding the dissension within the EU-EOM, one member of the delegation, Leo Gabriel, an Austrian journalist, denounced their preliminary report in an interview:

“Some of them (other delegates) really believe what the TSE says, but in general there is a deeper political and economic reason. The 2009 coup d’état harmed the image of Honduras around the world, slowing down progress on the Association Agreement signed by the European Union and the Central American region (EU-CA AA). Presenting [an image of] a clean and transparent electoral process helps the European Union to clean up Honduras’s image around the world and set this commercial project into motion.”

Gabriel describes the internal debate that occurred amongst the delegates before the leaders of the EU-EOM made their preliminary report public,

“No one defended the content of the report or the idea that there had been transparency in the process, and that brought us up against the intransigence of the EU-EOM team leaders, who did not want to cede even one millimeter. We argued for a serious discussion of the topic, taking into account what we had witnessed and suggesting changes to the text, but they firmly refused.”

Lunacek quickly denounced Gabriel by way of circular reasoning by stating that Gabriel’s statements, “in no way reflect the preliminary conclusions of the mission, as reflected in the preliminary statement.” Which is Gabriel’s point exactly since he was denouncing the statement. Lunacek further castigated Gabriel for speaking at all since “the code of conduct” for the EU-EOM states that only Lunacek and the deputy chief of the mission are authorized to speak about it. The need for this code helps to back up Gabriel’s assertion that there is a “deeper political and economic reason” for the reports conclusions.

The irregularities that occurred on Election Day were numerous. Many of them echoed the old machine politics of Chicago where the slogan of the day was “Vote early and vote often,” and whole cemeteries were registered to vote. In Honduras they added the twist of claiming that a voter who showed up to vote was dead and thus could not. As with the internal elections last year, National Party offices were discovered to have boxes full of ID’s needed to vote. Now, just as then, the reports in the press went uninvestigated by the District Attorney who was appointed by the JOH controlled National Congress.

Vote buying occurred out in the open in numerous places. In the town of Quimistan, Santa Barbara, Marta Concepción (also known as Chonita), the National Party candidate for deputy who was up for reelection in the National Congress, was seen unashamedly giving out 100 Lempira bills to those crowded around her in front of the gate which led to the voting tables at Escuela Francisco Borogan. When she saw an international observer from the US’ Honduran Solidarity Network (HSN), who was dumbstruck by the blatancy of her actions, Chonita stated, “They’re so poor and hungry. I have too big a heart.” She later tried to buy the observer a Coke, which was refused. At that point Chonita tried to avoid, and an assistant attempted to put his hand in front of the camera of the observer. More than a dozen people told the observer that Chonita has been the Diputado for thirty years and that this was her tradition. She had even, in the past, gone to the voting tables during the counting of the ballots and given money to the judges behind the table to ensure that the vote went her way. Before Election Day, she used her political power to have 80 members of a campesino community jailed stating, “keep them in jail, they’re 80 votes that aren’t for me.” In this same community on the night before the elections two campesinos who were active Libre organizers were killed coming home from the training required to sit at the election tables. Chonita is also in favor of building a Super Max prison in Santa Barbara with funds from the US. She won reelection.

Further evidence of vote buying occurred in the form of people taking photos with their cell phones of their ballots to prove how they voted so that they could receive their payment. Several members of the HSN delegation at several sites around the country observed this as the camera’s flash went off in the voting booth. The TSE judges at the tables did nothing to annul the votes even though it is a clear violation to have cell phones while voting.

The greatest source of the fraud occurred in the transcribing of the tallies and the transmission of the votes. It was up to the judges at the tables to check each other as the transcription occurred. These are the same judges that were heavily biased toward the National Party who bought the credentials of the smaller parties. HSN delegates have gone to the website of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE in its Spanish acronym) to look up the individual tables that they monitored and have found many discrepancies in the TSE numbers and the numbers that the delegates recorded at the polling sites. There are also a high number of nullified ballots especially at tables where Juan Orlando allegedly won. Often ballots are nullified if there is more than one mark on a ballot. So, if someone marked a ballot for Libre someone else could later add a mark under another candidate thus nullifying the vote.

But perhaps a bigger source of fraud, according to Jose Morales, an expert in design and maintenance of automated information systems, occurred through the software for data transmission and vote counting, which was contracted by the TSE through a company called Soluciones Mapas (Map Solutions), which was the same company who designed the TREP used in the 2012 Honduran primaries where the fraud was so bad that it took well over 3 months before many candidates knew who had won their races. Map Solutions, which is not registered in the Chamber of Commerce, based its experience as a specialist on only one program that it had designed before the general elections. Which program was that? The TREP, which caused headaches for Ricardo Alvarez, candidate for President in the primaries who then accepted a deal with JOH to back off from investigating the fraud and became his running mate in the General Elections.

The design for the current program for the transmission of data does not have an authentication mechanism that can identify, through the MAC address, which computer or computers are feeding the system, so that, if you have the password, a connection can be made from anywhere and any computer. Data can be transferred without the system identifying from where it was sent. The system runs in book (beta) mode, which means it is in test mode, meaning that the system was not finished. Mr. Morales, stated these points as an expert via telephone on the program Foro 13 on the Hondured channel in Honduras on November 26, 2013. To help illustrate the actuality of this, according to the Honduran Culture and Politics Blogspot:

“LIBRE says it has Actas sent to them by the TSE with scan dates of the early morning hours of the election day, bearing data that looks like the test data used to validate the system in earlier runs.  LIBRE also says they have copies of Actas that don’t match the Acta image in the TSE central computing database, with different signatures and vote tallys.”

One fact remains clear, there were massive irregularities, voting buying and attempts by government officials and mainstream media to push the results of a JOH victory onto the world before substantial time had passed to investigate the complaints of both the Libre party and the Anti-corruption party. Those who have access to power and wide distribution of news abused the democratic process. It will be up to the people that had victory stolen from them to find an alternative means to have their voices heard and to have power redistributed.

Greg McCain is a Human Rights Defender living in Honduras. He was a member of the coordinating team for the Alliance for Global Justice/ Task Force on the Americas delegation as part of the Honduran Solidarity Networks Election Monitoring Delegation which received training and credentials from the TSE to be International Observers.

Fuente: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/12/inside-the-honduran-elections/

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

OAS Secretary General Congratulated the President-elect of Honduras

The Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), José Miguel Insulza, today congratulated Juan Orlando Hernández, the President-elect of Honduras, as officially declared by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal of his country.

“All the steps required by law in Honduras to elect new authorities have been met, and the result is clear and irreversible,” said Secretary General Insulza. “We call on all the citizens of Honduras to recognize, as appropriate, their new President and to join forces, from the government and the opposition, to address the pressing challenges facing this beloved country of the Americas,” he added.

The OAS leader also pledged the support and contributions of the Organization to the new government of the Central American country. “Honduras can count on us to help fulfill its goals of peace, security, development and the strengthening of democracy, to which, we are sure, its new government will dedicate itself,” he said.

President-elect Juan Orlando Hernandez expressed his appreciation for the congratulations of the Secretary General and for the contribution made by the Electoral Observation Mission of the OAS, led by Enrique Correa, and highlighted its role in ensuring the transparency and fairness of the electoral process.

Moreover, he invited the Secretary General to attend his inauguration on January 27. José Miguel Insulza pledged to lead the delegation of the Organization of American States that will attend the ceremony.

For more information, please visit the OAS Website at www.oas.org.

 

http://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-481/13

, , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Satisfecha misión de veedores de la UE con proceso electoral

Tegucigalpa, Honduras

La transmisión de resultados a través del Sistema Integrado de Escrutinio y Divulgación Electoral (SIEDE) fue calificada ayer como un hito por el jefe adjunto de la Misión de Observación de la Unión Europea (UE), José Antonio de Gabriel, durante una comparecencia con el pleno de magistrados del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE).

El representante de la comunidad europea aseguró que “este proceso de publicación y tratamiento de resultados es un hito que de alguna manera marca un antes y después en la historia de los procesos electorales hondureños”.

A través del SIEDE, las organizaciones políticas tuvieron acceso a los resultados de las actas de cierre digitalizadas y publicadas en una base de datos, lo cual permitió la detección desde un inicio de las inconsistencias que fueron corregidas de oficio por el órgano electoral, indicó.

“Transparencia naturalmente no significa que no existan algunos errores humanos en la transcripción, pero sí garantiza que estos sean identificables y que se puedan corregir a tiempo; según nuestras observaciones eso es lo que ha hecho con celeridad y a la luz pública el Tribunal a lo largo de todo este proceso”, expresó De Gabriel.

El jurista, de origen español, precisó que luego de la fiesta cívica del pasado 24 de noviembre la delegación de veedores de la UE realizó su propia auditoría de los resultados de la justa democrática, comprobando los datos numéricos digitados con las cifras que aparecieron en las actas y que registró un nivel elevado de coincidencia.

CUANTÍA DE FONDOS
Sin embargo, De Gabriel insistió que hay algunos elementos que deben de cambiar, “uno de ellos se refiere a la financiación de las campañas, a la existencia de transparencia sobre el origen de los fondos y límites de la cuantía de fondos que se pueden gastar”.

Además, es necesario que esas campañas políticas sean más breves y menos onerosas, desarrolladas en el marco de la igualdad competitiva para los diversos aspirantes a un cargo de elección popular, enfatizó el jefe adjunto de esta misión.

El también profesor de Teoría Política informó que la agrupación de observadores europeos integrada por casi 90 miembros (de corto y largo plazo) permanecerá en el territorio nacional hasta esta semana, retornando a principios de 2014 para presentar junto a su máxima autoridad, la eurodiputada Ulrike Lunacek, el informe final que incluirá una serie de recomendaciones para futuras votaciones.

“Lo más importante en las elecciones no es tanto qué plataforma tecnológica se utilice, es qué nivel de confianza existe en el país en los procesos electorales y en este sentido creo que la transparencia ha ayudado mucho”,  afirmó.

DISCUSION

 

“La nueva configuración de un Congreso Nacional muy diferente y diverso abrirá espacios para una amplia discusión sobre reformas electorales, en las cuales se alcancen consensos que permitan encontrar un sistema de designación del Tribunal Supremo Electoral”: José Antonio de Gabriel.

http://www.tiempo.hn/portada/noticias/satisfecha-mision-de-veedores-de-la-ue-con-proceso-electoral

, , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

International Election Monitors in Honduras: Do They Ensure Clean Elections or Whitewash Fraud?

PDF Print E-mail
Written by Chuck Kaufman
Wednesday, 11 December 2013 16:42
Early on the morning of Sunday, December 1, people started gathering at the National Pedagogic University in Tegucigalpa with homemade signs to speak out against stealing of the presidential elections. This one reads “Stop the Fraud.” Photo from www.SOAW.orgAs an election observer and a leader of a 55-member election monitoring delegation organized by Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ) and Marin Task Force on the Americas (MTA), my delegation observed all of the incidents of fraud reported by other delegations. We are member groups of the Honduras Solidarity Network (HSN). Combined, HSN groups had over 170 observers in 10 of Honduras’ 18 provinces; the largest international election monitoring group. The AfGJ/MTF report can be read at http://afgj.org/honduras-election-monitoring-report. The Honduras Solidarity Network’s compilation of the reports of its seven member delegations will be available soon.Boiled down, our observations amount to a conclusion that conditions did not exist for democratic elections in the first place and that election day was invalidated by massive fraud. Violence, land grabs, assassinations, judicial impunity, and lack of institutionality since the June 2009 coup doomed the election from the start. The conditions for outright fraud on election day were created by: threats that poor people who survive on the small World Bank-funded welfare payment would lose that income if the National Party didn’t win; removal from the voting lists due to criminal charges against peasant and indigenous dissenters to dams, mines and land grabs; outright vote buying; and the murders of three Libre party activists on election weekend.

Election Day fraud included buying of small party election table credentials which gave the National Party a majority of officials at many voting sites, opening the path to falsified vote tabulation. There was intimidation by National and Liberal Party thugs at voting centers, vote-buying, flawed voter lists, fraudulent tally sheets, and scanned tally sheets which arrived at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal’s Tegucigalpa vote counting center with different numbers than those scanned at the voting centers themselves. All these things happened, and most of them were observed by my delegation.

These things have been documented elsewhere. Instead I want to discuss the role of international election monitors, both solidarity monitors like our delegation, as well as the “big guys” like the European Union, Organization of American States, Carter Center, and US National Endowment for Democracy core groups the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute.

Alliance for Global Justice has not previously monitored elections since our founding group, Nicaragua Network, observed the 1990 presidential election in Nicaragua. In that election, international monitors became dupes to the US government narrative that the elections were “free and fair.” This, despite the fact that the US bought and paid for the united opposition, chose its candidate, Violeta Chamorro, wife of a crusading newspaper publisher assassinated by the Somoza dictatorship, and spent more on her campaign per Nicaraguan voter than Bush Sr. and Dukakis spent combined per US voter in the 1988 presidential election. In addition, Nicaraguans were tired of losing sons and daughters to the US-funded Contra War and being impoverished by the US economic war against the Revolution. Sure, Nicaraguans were able to vote as they wished, but the election itself was hardly “free and fair.”

Our conclusion is that most fraud takes place before Election Day and is invisible to international observers. For that reason, AfGJ sends observer delegations five or six months in advance of elections, as we have done twice in Nicaragua (2006 and 20011) and Venezuela (2006). We exposed US interference in the elections on all three occasions.

Another reason AfGJ hasn’t sent election observers before is because we believe that most US citizens don’t know the mechanics of our own elections and therefore could observe only fraud in its most blatant forms such as violence, intimidation, and theft of ballot boxes.

We decided to monitor Honduras’ 2013 election because we thought those blatant forms of fraud were likely to be committed. We thought that perhaps our presence could prevent some violence. Indeed, only three Libre party activists were murdered, none where observers were present. In fact, a van with 11 Libre election table officials was stopped in the wee hours of election day near Santa Rosa de Copan. The van’s tires were slashed and the officials were threatened and prevented from arriving at their poll sites by the 9:00am deadline. Did the fact that a van-load of our election monitors were in the town prevent those party officials from being murdered?

When you do human rights accompaniment, as we regularly do in Honduras, you never know whether people would have died had you not been there. But the possibility does create a strong argument for international accompaniment during an election, even if it does not necessarily follow that the accompaniers should be officially credentialed by the electoral authority as were ours last month.

So what did we, and the other solidarity election monitors, accomplish in Honduras? Maybe we saved some lives, and that itself is an important accomplishment. We documented an almost uncountable number of technical violations on Election Day and a lot of serious incidents of blatant fraud. We have and will continue to use that information as we struggle to change US policy toward Honduras. We’ll use it to argue that Honduras is a country without the rule of law where the violence is only exacerbated by US military and police aid and training, as well as to point out our government’s support for a violent oligarchy immune from justice for its crimes.

Nonetheless, our voices were drowned out in the corporate press by the official pronouncements of the EU, OAS, and the US ambassador, all of whom congratulated Honduras on the “transparency” of the electoral process and the professionalism of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. Granted, the non-corporate press, such as Upside Down World, amplified our voices, but the alternative media has yet to achieve an audience large enough to influence the public debate. Honduras 2013 for me was Nicaragua 1990 all over again. I wouldn’t block AfGJ from organizing electoral observation delegations in the future, but I would not lead one myself, and I would argue against applying for official credentials. Much superior, I believe, is to return to our previous practice of sending delegations months in advance of an election and digging out the ways the US government is trying to manipulate the outcome.

The Big Guys

So if solidarity election monitoring is not effective, what about the organizations that the corporate press does pay attention to; the EU, OAS, Carter Center, National Endowment for Democracy? Do they make a difference, and if so, what kind of difference?

Election monitoring was rare before WWII and didn’t become practically a requirement until the end of the Cold War. Thus, my 1990 Nicaraguan experience shows that from the beginning, “free and fair” were what the US and Europe decided they were. Interestingly, the 1990 Nicaraguan election was the first “success” of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was created by Ronald Reagan “to do overtly what the CIA did covertly,” according to Alan Weinstein, an architect of the NED.

Both US political parties have their own core group in the NED: the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Most commonly, the IRI interferes in Latin American elections and the NDI interferes in Eastern Europe –  but they don’t limit themselves to those spheres. NDI put out an infamous “quick count” for the 2004 Venezuelan recall election on Hugo Chavez that was almost the mirror image opposite of the actual vote count. Had the recall referendum been close, NDI’s phony quick count would have been used to delegitimize Chavez’ victory. As it was, they just looked like the manipulators that they were. (The International Republican Institute’s other forms of meddling, such as its roles in Haiti of training armed thugs and in Nicaragua where they create civil society groups that then claim to be nonpartisan, have been documented elsewhere and are not the subject of this article.)

Prior to the Honduran election it was announced that NDI would have 100 election observers in the country. Our delegation did not run into any of them and there is no statement on their web page. Either they didn’t go, or the fact that a slim majority of Democrats in the House have signed letters to the State Department calling for changes in US policy toward Honduras may have caused them to keep their heads down after witnessing so much fraud.

Likewise, I can’t find an official report from the Organization of American States observer delegation, although there were statements applauding the “transparency” in the Honduran media election night and the next day. I was on a radio show with Mark Weisbrot on Dec. 9 and he stated that thus far only a few Latin American countries had officially recognized the Honduran election results. Perhaps the OAS is lying low as well.

The European Union has shown no such hesitancy. Its official statement heaped praise on the process. However, its endorsement of the “transparent” election was quickly undermined when one of its monitors held a press conference in the Tegucigalpa airport as the delegation was leaving the country. He criticized the official report and said the actual election monitors did not agree with the report written by the leadership. He said it resulted in a “heated exchange” but that the leadership refused to budge.

Upside Down Worl d ran an interview in which the election monitor, Leo Gabriel of Austria said, “EU missions have played a relevant role and have appropriately dealt with lack of transparency in electoral processes,” and that this was not the case in this election, where “political, economic, commercial, and even partisan interests prevailed.”

And that’s my problem with international election monitoring. If there was a proven track record in which election monitoring carried sanctions against electoral fraud and guaranteed that the will of the people is expressed through elections, then who could argue that monitoring isn’t a good thing? But there is no such record. In all too many cases “political, economic, commercial, and even partisan interests” prevail. For countries that the US and Europe see as allies or clients, the bar is so low as to be meaningless. For countries that the US and Europe see as adversaries, such as Venezuela or Ukraine, then no level of excellence is good enough. So, election monitoring becomes just one more tool of imperialism.

Countries are beginning to push back. Venezuela did not allow election monitors in its most recent presidential election, and some other Latin American countries have followed suit. Venezuela did allow “accompaniers” from groups that do not have a history of unbiased election monitoring. Countries in Latin America are beginning to recognize international election monitoring as a violation of their sovereignty and right to self-determination. As with democracy promotion itself, the US in particular has so abused the institution of international election monitoring as to make it no longer a tool to help achieve free and fair elections. That’s a shame.

Chuck Kaufman is the National Co-Coordinator of the Alliance for Global Justice.

Fuente: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/honduras-archives-46/4601-international-election-monitors-in-honduras-do-they-ensure-clean-elections-or-whitewash-fraud

, , , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Post-Election Analysis from Honduran Experts

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Radio Progreso, a project of the Jesuit organization ERIC (the Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación, y Comunicación) located in El Progreso, Yoro, has a commentary on their website with insight from a number of Honduran commentators about where the post-election phase is headed. It starts:

Two weeks after the general elections, their results continue to be the object of critique for the suspicious way in which the count of votes in the local polling places developed and the filling out of the actas electorales (vote tallies).

Then it moves to a series of comments from Honduran perspectives. The most intriguing of these is the perspective of the new student movement, the so-called Camisas Negras or Movimiento anti JOH. This is the group whose protests in Tegucigalpa were met with immediate suppression by the military police in the days after the vote.

Radio Progreso quotes Marcos Rubí, a member of this movement, on its origins and aims:

“it grew in the heat of what pretended to be an electoral fiesta, with university students that from before the beginning of the process already had seen certain anomalies, certain signs of fraud, and then in the electoral process of Sunday the 24th, now that the fraud was confirmed, indignation grew and we decided to organize ourselves… The Movement is heterogeneous, there are ideologies involved that run from the right to the extreme left, but there is a consensus that there was fraud and we all have the same purpose”.

The disillusionment of students with the electoral process has been under-reported in the international press. University students took the place formerly occupied by representatives of the church in this election, as custodians for the individual election polling places. That means they were witnesses to the most egregious irregularities: the selling of party credentials, voter intimidation and mis-information– irregularities international observers dismissed as minor, but that these Honduran youths (in our view, rightly) saw as shocking and unacceptable.

Honduran sociologist Eugenio Sosa criticizes the Tribunal Supremo Electoral, and was blunt about the possible impact of challenges to the TSE:  “I believe that the results will stand, the Tribunal has announced them and it isn’t going to reverse itself even though they will make a pretense of reviewing the actas“:

“I believe that the Tribunal, despite having launched itself affirming that these were the most transparent elections and despite having all the backing of official organizations such as the OAS, EU, the US Embassy and Department of State, little by little has been showing aspects that demonstrate that in these elections there were as many problems, irregularities, and alteration of results as in the primaries.”

Hermilo Soto, national coordinator in Honduras for the Lutheran World Federarion, characterizes reforming the electoral system as a “great challenge” for Honduras going forward, because “the great problem that we have today is that the people do not trust in the present institutionality directing the electoral process”.

The article notes that Congress will play a key role in determining whether and how the electoral system might be revised, as well as having a key role to play in the subsequent elections of the Supreme Court and Ministerio Público.

As we have noted previously, no single party has a large enough delegation to congress to control these processes. Radio Progreso quotes the opinion of Antonio Rivera Callejas, a re-elected Partido Nacional congress member, about what may happen:

“It’s too early to talk about the composition of the junta directiva (executive committee), that is going to be defined in January, I figure, you should remember that there will be many political factions making up the congress, there will not be a simple ajority for any of the political parties, this is going to require the consensus of many… What there is not yet are concrete names, of candidates for the presidency, vicepresidency, and secretariat [of the congress], so it is normal that there are conversations among all the political parties but that will take a concrete form only in the month of January”.

Sociologist Armando Orellana is skeptical of the vision of harmonious consensus advanced by Rivera, and raises instead warnings of backroom deals and corruption as usual in the negotiation of a congressional majority:

“The party of the government [Partido Nacional] is buying consciences, there has been talk of payments of up to five million lempiras [about $240,000] to procrue the presidency of the Congreso Nacional. The ally that it has had during this period [the Lobo Sosa administration] has been the Partido Liberal, nevertheless they are not going to succeed in controlling the two-thirds majority necessary to manage constitutional reforms”

This is a critical point: many of the more alarming legislative initiatives under the Hernández Congress required constitutional amendments, which sailed through with unprecedented ease due to the alliance between the two dominant parties.

Radio Progreso cites Orellana’s observation that LIBRE and PAC could, along with smaller parties (such as PINU and UD) form a large enough block that, with a few Partido Liberal congress members acting more independently they could push congress in a different direction.

While Antonio Rivera dismisses this, his argument for a more centralized authority in Congress– which is that the hegemony and harmony under Juan Orlando Hernández was critical to the legislation that the current congress passed– actually cuts both ways: for those who question the wisdom of such rapid, unreflective passage of major changes to the legal and economic framework of Honduras, slowing down the process may be the best outcome of this election.

And Radio Progreso’s coverage suggests that the incoming Congress will operate not only with internal dissent, but with the scrutiny of a newly mobilized younger generation of Hondurans whose outrage about the way the election was conducted is unlikely to be settled simply because the international community declares that this election was good enough, if not really as good as it could have been.

Posted by at 11:48 AM

Fuente: http://hondurasculturepolitics.blogspot.ch/2013/12/post-election-analysis-from-honduran.html

, , , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Q&A with Raul Burbano, Canadian Electoral Observer in Honduras

December 4, 2013
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

2203 “Photo Credit: Toronto Media-Coop”

Upon his return to Toronto, I had the opportunity to catch up with Raul Burbano, Program Director of Common Frontiers. Common Frontiers is a multi-sectoral working group based in Toronto that organizes research, educational campaigns, and political action on issues related to hemispheric economic, social, and climate justice. Raul reported from Honduras during the election and was gracious enough to take the time to talk about his experiences and provide some analysis of the current electoral crisis.

Kevin Edmonds: When you were on the ground in the days before the election, what was the general attitude of the public? Were they hopeful or did they see this coming?

Raul Burbano: We were on the ground from the 17-27th in Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choloma, El Triunfo de la Cruz, Arizona, and Valle de Siria. The mood was contradictory because in general people had high expectations for change, but at the same time expressed a lack of confidence in the process and in fair and transparent elections. As the elections drew closer, this became more apparent with people like cab drivers, vendors, and LIBRE activists sharing their personal stories about the irregularities within the voter registry. Stories of voters showing to be dead on the registry list and dead people registered to vote, names associated with pictures of other people, all disqualifying them from voting…this was the first sign that many pointed to as fraud.

The Canadian delegation was the first to report and denounce the elections. What were some of the irregularities that caused your group to make this decision?

RB: Our delegation was part of the larger group, the Honduran Solidarity Network (HSN), and together we were the largest delegation of observers (190) spread across the country in 10 districts.

The atmosphere of fear and violence leading up to the elections must also be taken into account when considering fair elections. There were numerous reports of pre-election intimidation, violence, and murder of opposition candidates with as many as 18 from the LIBRE party murdered just 6 months prior to the elections. Two days prior to the elections masked men with guns, presumed to be military police, surrounded the LIBRE party headquarters in Tegucigalpa. Members of our delegation were present and observed the fear and anger of LIBRE sympathizers. The day before the elections Maria Amparo Pineda, LIBRE party’s Cantarranas polling station president, and other member, Julio Ramón Araujo Maradiaga, were assassinated after leaving a polling station training.

Speaking to our own experience on the ground, the scare tactics started from when we arrived in Honduras. There was a strong atmosphere of intimidation on the part of the government toward independent observers. After our pre-election press conference, armed immigration officials raided the hotels where our northern delegation was staying, asking for their passports and documentation, threatening to expel observers. This was a clear attempt to intimidate our group.

At numerous voting centers there was no “custodio”—the person in charge of the voting center. This means that in some cases the military police had to take responsibility for all the material. In the municipality of Ojojona, rather than being able to speak to a “custodio,” we were greeted by a TSE official who identified himself as being in charge of the voting centre, despite the fact that was only a “vocale”—a support person at a voting table. He spoke to us in English, describing himself as a U.S. citizen and former navy seal with considerable land holdings in the area. He made no effort to hide his disdain for the LIBRE party, stating, “we don’t want those commies here.” He expressed his and everyone’s “strong support” for the ruling National party.

We visited areas where there was no electricity or an internet connection to transmit the results. In many cases the technical person in charge was not aware of the correct protocol to follow, and in some cases they asked us what they should do. In one voting center in the municipality of Santa Ana, military police demanded our personal information even though we were clearly identified as accredited observers. At one voting station in the barrio of La Joya in Tegucigalpa, I was pulled out in the middle of observing the vote count by TSE and military police and asked to leave. So I had to ask myself: if they can do this with international observers, what can they do with local observers and electoral participants?

Not to mention that we received numerous reports of vote buying and the refusal of access to opposition members at various voting centers across the country.

So when we compared our experience with the rest of our delegation who had also observed and documented serious and undeniable fraud in all 10 districts in which they observed, we came to the conclusion that our experience was not an exception, but rather the standard. We felt this opened up the elections to serious issues of fraud.

What also caught my attention was on Sunday night. We were sitting around the TV watching the vote count when David Matamoros, president of Honduras’ electoral court and member of the governing National Party, announced the preliminary results. Despite only 54% of the votes counted, he announced the National party with 34.9% of the vote and LIBRE with 28.36%. Not to mention that he provided no details to back up the number that was given, like where that data was coming from, or that about 500 of the voting centers lack electricity or an internet connection, clearly meaning that those numbers would be outstanding until later that week. With such high stakes on the line, why would the TSE be so irresponsible as to give out results that were not substantiated or irreversible at that early point? What his announcement triggered was that all major news networks, locally and internationally, proclaimed Juan Orlando Hernández as the new president—in essence laying the ground work for the pre-determined outcome.

KE: There have been comments since the discovery of widespread fraud that the democratic path has failed, and that now it is time to step up the offensive against the oligarchy. What are your thoughts on this movement? Do you think it is a minority opinion or a real possibility?

RB: There’s serious debate and opposition in Honduras to the electoral strategy of the LIBRE party. It goes back to the National Assembly of the resistance that took place in June 2011 where the decision was taken to follow the electoral strategy.

There’s a significant movement that argues for the need to strengthen the resistance movement with a focus on social and political struggle through mass mobilization from below—local struggles in communities and barrios that build an inclusive and participatory process that focuses on transformative solutions as opposed to reforms. Many of these groups are already involved in struggles for territory, indigenous culture, anti-patriarchy, etc—groups like the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), Garifina communities, and women’s organizations.

In retrospect one can say the biggest losers in these elections are the social movements. This is because much of the energy has gone into the electoral process and into building the LIBRE party at the expense of strengthening the social movements. The results can be seen in the weak response on the streets by the LIBRE party and the movements that support them. It took a week for people to take to the streets to protest the fraud, and it was not as significant a turn-out as we saw in the past against the coup.

KE: While your delegation released its denunciation of the election results, Canada has remained silent—with its silence working as acceptance. Can you discuss some of the reasons why Canada is so supportive of the national party?

RB: The Canadian government is recklessly focused on trade and investment at any costs, even at the expense of human and labor rights abroad. In Honduras it’s the mining, sweatshop, and tourism sectors that Canadian corporations covet. It was no coincidence that the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement was signed just weeks before the Presidential election in Honduras. This was, in my opinion, a quid pro quo where Canadian corporations will benefit from the investment protection measures contained in the Chapter 10 of the bilateral free trade agreement, and in return Canada bestows further legitimacy to an electoral process that is largely illegitimate.

KE: Can you comment on the breakaway member of the EU delegation that has denounced the Honduran election as a fraud? How do delegations work? Can you provide some insight as to how the decision making process unfolds?

RB: I can’t really comment as to the inner workings of the EU delegation or process. In terms of Leo Gabriel, the European delegate who has come out questioning his own EU report, I think it does make some things clearer in terms of the ulterior motives behind the EU and its need to whitewash Honduras’ image. Much like our government, they, too, are willing to turn a blind eye to corruption, fraud, violence, murder, and human rights violations, all to safeguard their corporate profit. Therefore, presenting a clean and transparent electoral process helps the European Union to clean up Honduras’s image around the world and set this commercial project into motion. [Raul directed my attention to an agreement signed by the European Union and the Central American region (EU-CA AA).]

KE: What can those of us outside of Honduras do?

RB: Solidarity is the key tool to help the Honduran people in their struggle. But just as important for those of us who live here in Canada is to join the local struggles against things like the pipelines, so-called trade agreements, anti-fracking, mining, indigenous sovereignty, and so on, that challenge the status quo. For its our Conservative government in collusion with transnational corporations that seeks to impose a model that priorities profit over human life, the environment, democracy, etc—in Honduras, but here in Canada as well.

 


Kevin Edmonds is a NACLA blogger focusing on the Caribbean. For more from his blog, “The Other Side of Paradise,” visit nacla.org/blog/other-side-paradise. Edmonds is a former NACLA research associate and a current PhD student at the University of Toronto, where he is studying the impact of neoliberalism on the St. Lucian banana trade. Follow him on twitter @kevin_edmonds.

Fuente: http://nacla.org/blog/2013/12/4/qa-raul-burbano-canadian-electoral-observer-honduras

, , , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Honduras: Custodios electorales todavía no reciben pago del TSE

09:03 am – Redacción Los custodios se quejan porque no hay información oficial del proceso que tienen que cumplir para recibir el pago que les corresponde por su labor en las elecciones generales. Tweet Los custodios se encuentran confundidos por los trámites que tiene que realizar para recibir el pago, pero tiene que cumplir con los requisistos que se les instruyó durante su capacitación. Los custodios se encuentran confundidos por los trámites que tiene que realizar para recibir el pago, pero tiene que cumplir con los requisistos que se les instruyó durante su capacitación. (Redacción) Tegucigalpa, Honduras Los custodios electorales cumplieron con su trabajo durante los comicios generales del pasado 24 de noviembre , pero más de una semana después no han recibido su pago. Así lo han denunciado a través de la página de Facebook, Custodios Electorales UNAH , que recoje las quejas de los jóvenes que se muestran confundidos porque desconocen el proceso para que se les haga efectivo el pago que les corresponde. “Alguien que me explique por favor cómo tengo que hacer para que me pague , sorry la molestia!”, escribió Carmen Elena Martínez. Y es que muchos se preguntan en la red social quién es el encargado del departamento al que tienen que entregarle la documentación o cuál es la documentación que tienen que llevar para acreditar su labor. Ninosca Palacios escribió este lunes: “¿Quién es el encargo de Choluteca…para enviar la hoja?? Se los agradeceré por favor..!”. De igual forma se expresó Fernando Cardona y otros jóvenes que preguntaban por el encargado de su respectivo departamento y, además, el plazo para entregar los papeles necesarios. “Por favor que alguien me ayude qué papeles me toca llevar a mí hoy, yo fui custodia contingente! muchas gracias de antemano!”, pidió Diana E García. Ante tantas dudas de los custodios, la Vicerrectoría de Orientación y Asuntos Estudiantiles (VOAE) publicó en Facebook un listado con los documentos donde se incluye la constancia de que estuvo en el lugar asignado, hoja de incidencias, fotocopia de credencial verde y de tarjeta de identidad, así como del kit de emergencia, (solo tinta y sellos). Para Luis Fernando Zelaya, el problema es que no hay un canal oficial que les informe de los papeles que tienen que entregar. “El problema es que unos dicen una cosa y otros otra, hay dualidad de funciones”, apuntó. Asimismo consideró que este proceso es innecesario porque los custodios recibieron un adelanto para movilizarse a la zona donde les correspondía realizar su labor y, por tanto, ya se encontraban registrados en la base de datos. Zelaya entregó su documentación y le notificaron que debía cobrar el pago el 5 de diciembre. Los custodios electorales se encargaron de llevar las maletas electorales y de entregarlas a los miembros de las mesas receptoras, y presenciaron la transmisión de resultados para verificar que el proceso fuera transparente. Por su parte, en comunicación con personal de la VOAE, ElHeraldo.hn conoció que todo este proceso se le explicó a los custodios durante las capacitaciones en las que participaron. Asimismo, la UNAH recibió dos tranferencias del TSE , el 16 y 19 de noviembre para el pago de los custodios que se hará mediante la Tesorería de la máxima casa de estudio. Los custodios también estaban informados de la documentación que debían presentar, incluyendo el informe de incidencia, así como los plazos establecidos para que se les cancelara esta deuda. Los custodios recibirán el equivalente a un salario mínimo de 7,500 lempira s, de los cuales recibieron un adelante para cubrir los gastos para movilizarse el día de las elecciones.

http://www.elheraldo.hn/Secciones-Principales/Pais/Honduras-Custodios-electorales-todavia-no-reciben-pago-del-TSE

, ,

Deja un comentario

“Banana Republic” Honduras Open for Business After Tainted Election

Tuesday, 03 December 2013 12:53 By Lauren Carasik, Truthout | Opinion

Xiomara Castro, wife of the ousted former President Manuel Zelaya, greets supporters at a rally of the Libre Party in Siguatepeque, Honduras, November 13, 2013. (Photo: Rodrigo Cruz-Perez / The New York Times)Xiomara Castro, wife of the ousted former President Manuel Zelaya, greets supporters at a rally of the Libre Party in Siguatepeque, Honduras, November 13, 2013. (Photo: Rodrigo Cruz-Perez / The New York Times)

Few observers are surprised at widespread allegations of fraud, violence and intimidation in the November 24, 2013, election in Honduras, a country notorious for corruption; stark and longstanding social, political and economic inequality; and extremely fragile democratic institutions. After all, electoral mischief is what we have come to expect from the pejoratively termed “banana republics,” countries in the global south characterized by iron-fisted oligarchic rule, the exploitation of resources and labor for international corporations and misery for the masses. But although we may want to distance ourselves from the suffering in Honduras, grinding poverty, inequality and anti-democratic principles do not occur in a vacuum: What happens in contemporary Honduran politics is inseparable from its colonial legacy and present-day economic and geopolitical importance to its powerful neighbors to the north and the interests of transnational companies.

Both Juan Orlando Hernandez of the ruling conservative National Party and Xiomara Castro of the left-leaning LIBRE (Liberty and Refoundation) Party claimed victory shortly after the polls closed. Allegations of fraud and irregularities surfaced during the election and continued to accumulate. On November 29, Castro, wife of democratically elected President Mel Zelaya, who was ousted in a military coup in 2009, denounced fraud and refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the election, demanding a vote-by-vote recount (although there is no clear mechanism for vote review), meticulously documenting her claim of electoral fraud and encouraging peaceful social protest.

In response to Castro’s complaint, the electoral authority announced December 2 that it will recount the vote tally sheets that were transmitted to them. Given the context, it is not clear if this would even address any problems, because one of the allegations is that some tally sheets were altered before being transmitted. And it certainly does not address vote and credential buying, intimidation, etc. So this could make the electoral authority look responsive to complaints about fraud without providing real and meaningful review or redress.

Tampering With Democracy

Some critics allege a brilliantly orchestrated campaign to ensure and legitimize Hernandez’s victory. Fraud, intimidation and violence before and during the election have a cumulative impact: dirty elections are stolen one vote at a time, through a variety of tactics that start well in advance of voting day. Hernandez’s control over all the apparatus of government power, including the Congress, judiciary, military and electoral authority, facilitated the ease of influencing the outcome. The Honduran elite also control the media and its messaging to the electorate – and command a deep well of financial resources to inundate the airwaves and print media, with no public scrutiny of campaign financing. The poorly resourced LIBRE was vastly outspent by the National Party.

Efforts to influence the outcome included vote buying, discount cards and jobs offered by the National Party, tampering with registered voter rolls to disqualify some voters and include others who could not legally cast a vote, credential buying that compromised multiparty oversight of voting tables, media manipulation, malfeasance in the calculation and transmission of the vote tabulation sheets, and intimidation and violence, including the criminalization of resistance leaders and targeted attacks and killings.

In addition to the inaccuracies outlined by the LIBRE Party, evidence of fraud in the vote count is mounting. After accessing the TSE database, the electronic activist group Anonymous provided documentation of electoral malfeasance. Allegations of fraud were compounded by concerns previously identified by the Organization of American States about the penetrability and reliability of vote tallying software. Although the TSE remedied some of those vulnerabilities and weaknesses, others remained uncorrected on Election Day.

Reports of Fraud, Intimidation and Violence Minimized

On Election Day, LIBRE and Salvador Nasralla of the newly formed Anti-Corruption Party claimed electoral foul, identifying discrepancies in the transmission of votes. But it was not just those who stand to benefit who questioned the election’s legitimacy. A number of delegations, including the National Lawyers Guild (in which I participated), the Honduran Solidarity Network, the International Federation for Human Rights and a litany of respected dignitaries expressed grave concern about the process and cautioned against the premature endorsement of election results, urging a careful review of vote counting, improper influence and the climate of fear and intimidation in which the elections were held. Leo Gabriel, a member of the European Union Electoral observation mission, claimed serious disagreement existed among delegates about its preliminary statement validating the process, despite irregularities they found troubling. Gabriel claimed certain observers in the European Union mission were concerned about the social and economic repercussions of impugning the integrity of the results, since the European Union is invested in whitewashing the tarnished image of post-coup Honduras.

Despite the concerns, the press accounts subsequent to the election were largely uncritical, reflecting a biased narrative. Reports recounted that most international observers commended the transparency of the process while noting some anomalies, but they gave short shrift to the credible claims of widespread malfeasance.

The ruling party launched a media campaign to disparage the presence of certain international observers, presumably to discredit future criticisms, and engaged in intimidation tactics such as confrontations by immigration authorities demanding documentation from certain credentialed observers (not surprisingly, those singled out did not hail from the United States, Canada or the European Union). Yet the Hondurans denouncing the meddling of international observers perceived no irony in their simultaneous welcome of transnational corporations and investments that extract and export not only resources but also profits from the country.

Media bias was evident in the post-election spin, domestically and internationally. Misinformation abounded, such as a Washington Post editorial that erroneously claimed that Zelaya was ousted in response to a referendum intended to allow him to circumvent the one-term limit for presidents. In reality, the vote in question was a non-binding poll about constitutional reform that would have been voted on formally months later, at the same time as Zelaya’s successor was elected, making it impossible for him to extend his term as president. The article made no mention of Zelaya’s modest land reforms, wage increases and other initiatives that did not inure to the benefit of the ruling elite that many argue contributed to his removal. The editorial also cited the unanimous verdict that claims of fraud were not substantiated, despite the concerns raised by numerous election observers.

Political and Endemic Violence

With the highest murder rate in the world, Honduras is plagued by violence and impunity. Much of the mayhem is attributable to drug and gang violence and the crime that often accompanies desperate poverty, but repression against resistance activists has taken an incalculable toll and sent an unmistakably chilling message.

Attacks on journalists make Honduras the most perilous country in Latin America to report in, with journalists critical of the government singled out for persecution, according to Hector Becerra of C-Libre, a journalist’s group. The death toll from a bloody land struggle in the Lower Agaun has taken 110 lives, and 18 Libre activists were killed between May 2012 and late October 2013, with four more dead in recent days, including two people assassinated the night before the election just outside of Tegucigalpa and a beloved LIBRE leader gunned down Saturday. Lawyers, human rights defenders, indigenous activists and members of the LGBT community also have been killed.

The drug-trafficking and gang-related violence occurs in an international context, and current US policies contribute to the escalating disorder. Honduras serves as conduit for drugs destined for US consumers – the US State Department estimated that 87 percent of the cocaine from South America transits through Honduras, motivating the United States to invest personnel, equipment, logistical support and millions of dollars and in the militarization of counternarcotics efforts. A joint US-Honduran drug interdiction operation gone awry ended with the death of four civilians and the injury of three others in La Moskitia, causing critics to implore the United States to rethink its “war on drugs,” where the US consumption of drugs fuels bloodshed south of its border. Aggressive US deportation efforts fuel gang violence, as do the burgeoning unemployment and poverty that reflect Honduras’ position in the global economic order.

In response to the violence, Castro supports community policing. In contrast, Hernandez supports the militarization of policing, and he shepherded through congress the authorization for a military police force of 5,000 – 1,000 of whom already have been deployed in Tegucigalpa and Honduras’ second-largest city, San Pedro Sula. Hernandez’s law-and-order platform garnered support from some weary of the violence, who welcomed an iron-fist approach to crime. But the move provoked consternation among many sectors that point out the perils of employing soldiers trained in combat for the more delicate role of policing, which entails crime prevention, investigation and assistance with prosecution, a particularly important task in a country where impunity reaches above 90 percent. Yet mistrust for the National Police is pervasive. Compounding concern about corruption within its ranks, a story by The Associated Press in 2013 claimed that the US-funded National Police, under the command of Juan Carlos “El Tigre” Bonilla, were engaging in social cleansing against gangs, despite the Leahy Law that prohibits US funding of forces involved with human rights abuses.

International Political and Financial Interests

After the 2009 military coup, the Lobo regime announced that Honduras was “Open for Business,” and ushered a package of laws through Congress with little public debate that were designed to generate and guarantee profits for transnational corporations and the economic elite – but not the desperately poor, who make up the majority of the Honduran population. These laws made Honduras friendlier to resource extraction, biofuel production, “eco-tourism” developments and hydroelectric dam projects that are dispossessing campesinos and indigenous peoples and engendering repression against those defending their land, their livelihood and their lives. Legislation creating “model cities” – unregulated free enterprise enclaves that opponents claim abridge a host of protections for workers, the environment and Honduras’ sovereignty – initially was found unconstitutional before the illegal removal of four of the Supreme Court judges who invalidated the law. This initiative most certainly will be pushed forward under Hernandez.

While the Lobo administration’s adherence to the neoliberal agenda has provided a windfall to the interests of the country’s elites and transnational corporations, his tenure has been a disaster for ordinary Hondurans. A report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research documented the deterioration of economic conditions for ordinary Hondurans under the Lobo administration’s policies. Adding to its distinction as the world’s murder capital, Honduras now claims the title of being the most economically unequal country in Latin America and the second-poorest country in the hemisphere. Even a member of one of Honduras’ elite ruling families, Adolfo Facusse, lamented the country’s deterioration under Lobo’s leadership.

Castro’s opponents cast her as a militantly anti-business socialist bent on imposing Venezuelan-model reforms. But Castro has made it clear that she supports business development, although her economic plan aims to benefit more than just the elite and interests of transnational capital. Observers expect that Hernandez will continue Lobo’s neoliberal economic policies and rush through unpopular austerity measures aimed at satisfying the concerns of international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank that Honduras is safe for investments.

After the United States and Canada prematurely gave their imprimatur to the widely discredited November 2009 election, won by Lobo, even before the polls closed, various organizations and members of the US Congress urged the Obama administration to exercise caution this time. Yet while waiting for an official declaration from the Honduran electoral authority before formally recognizing Hernandez’s victory, US Ambassador Lisa Kubiske lauded the transparency, peacefulness and fairness of the process. Other governments, including Colombia, Guatemala and Panama congratulated Hernandez very early in the vote-counting process.

The United States has a vested interest in the election’s outcome. Honduras has long been strategically important to the United States, including serving as a staging ground for the coup against democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 and in support of the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s. Waning US influence in the region has heightened the perceived importance of supporting governments friendly to its geopolitical and economic interests that serve as a bulwark against the rising independence of more left-leaning nations.

Anxiety About Election’s Aftermath

Palpable foreboding permeates Honduras as many questions remain about the election’s aftermath. The social movement that mobilized in response to the 2009 coup was not initially monolithic in its support of forming LIBRE – some favored organizing grass-roots resistance to participating in the electoral process. It is unclear whether the movement will fragment or unify in its support of the next steps, such as whether to focus on forming a viable opposition block in Congress or mounting massive social resistance.

Despite official results that bitterly disappointed many rooting for a more democratic and egalitarian civil society, Castro has not conceded defeat, and some hope can be salvaged from this contested process. The emergence of the LIBRE Party as a political contender helped break the longstanding stranglehold of the conservative National and Liberal parties. With the TSE giving Hernandez just less than 36 percent of the vote, he commands a weak mandate at best. Without a majority of seats in Congress, the National Party will have to cobble together a coalition to govern, presumably with the center-right Liberal Party. Voter participation of over 60 percent was a significant increase from 2009, an indication that the post-coup disillusionment with the electoral process is fading.

But Honduras is at grave risk of spiraling into even-more-brutal repression. Peaceful student protests on November 26 were met with a violent crackdown. Exacerbating fears of escalating repression against resistance protagonists is the news from human rights groups and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) that a hit list is circulating, containing the names of prominent human rights defenders, lawyers, union leaders, indigenous rights activists, teachers and opposition party members targeted for death, reminiscent of the 1980s, when death squads were lethally employed to silence dissent. Those reaping the economic and geopolitical benefits of Honduras’ status quo will not cede ground easily. In the oft-cited words of Frederick Douglass, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.” And so courageous Hondurans fighting for a more just, equitable and democratic society march on, with the winds of history blowing at their backs.

Lauren Carasik

Lauren Carasik is a Clinical Professor of Law and the Director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Western new England University School of Law. She recently traveled to Guatemala to observe the genocide trial with a delegation from the National Lawyers Guild.

Fuente: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20388-banana-republic-honduras-open-for-business-after-tainted-election#.Uq6P1-6rO8M.email

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Carta abierta a la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea HONDURAS

Tegucigalpa, 27 de noviembre del 2013

Estimada Señora Lunacek:
Estimados miembros de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la UE para  
Honduras

el grupo de trabajo “HondurasDelegation”, un grupo de ciudadanos y  
ciudadanas de diversos países
europeos, está consternado por el informe preliminar de la comisión de  
observación electoral para
las elecciones en Honduras emitido el Martes 26.11.2013.
El informe fue tomado por los medios Hondureños como confirmación de  
los resultados electorales.
Este acto significa una bofetada en la cara de los electores  
Hondureños y especialmente a los
partidos Libre y PAC. Estos últimos impugnaron la noche del lunes los  
resultados presentados por
el Tribunal Superior Electoral (TSE) y reclamaron una comparación  
entre las copias de las actas de
escrutinio de las urnas con los resultados presentados por el TSE de  
los locales de votación. Este
reclamo está contemplado en la ley electoral y a raíz de muchas  
irregularidades -algunas incluso
mencionadas en su propio informe- es completamente justo. Con el  
apurado e inconsistente
reconocimiento de las elecciones como “transparentes” y “pacificas”  
por parte de la misión de la
UE, se le retira todo el apoyo a estos reclamos.
La UE declara en su propio informe, que el censo electoral no es  
correcto ni de confianza y habla de
un 30 por ciento de error en los registros, donde por ejemplo aparecen  
personas fallecidas o
emigradas.
En su Informe Preliminar la UE habla también de la compra de  
acreditaciones para delegados de
mesa por parte del Partido Nacional. Esta afirmación ha sido  
confirmada por numerosos
observadores internacionales y testigos hondureños.
Las actas de escrutinio de los locales de votación publicada por el  
TSE no coinciden en mas de
1.500 casos (de un total de 16.000 urnas) con el numero de votos  
emitidos publicados por el TSE.
Estos errores pueden ser constatados de forma sencilla en la página de  
internet del TSE (ver las
capturas de pantalla en anexo). Además hay una cantidad de listas de  
escrutinio en las que los cuatro
partidos pequeños no recibieron ningún voto. A pesar de que en esos  
locales se encontraban
representantes de esos partidos como delegados de mesa, que hubieran  
podido constatar tal descaro.
Además hay numerosas informaciones sobre otras irregularidades graves:  
compra de votos, la
utilización de fondos públicos para financiamiento de campañas,  
soborno de votantes (por ejemplo
en el marco del programa “Bono 10 Mil”), sobre amenazas a delegados y  
observadores y el
asesinato de dos activistas de LIBRE luego de un entrenamiento de  
observación electoral la noche
anterior a las elecciones.

Según nuestra información, las irregularidades antes mencionadas se  
dieron de manera
generalizada. Hasta el momento es totalmente incierto si esta  
distorsión, supera la distancia de los 6
puntos porcentuales entre el candidato del Partido Nacional y la  
candidata de LIBRE. Nos es
absolutamente incomprensible, porque la misión de observación de la UE  
cataloga esa cantidad de
“irregularidades” como no influentes en el resultado de la elección o  
simplemente las calla.
En este contexto nos parecen dignos de ser mencionados dos documentos,  
que fueron presentados a
la comisión de observación de la UE: los informes de la Federación  
Internacional de Derechos
Humanos (FIDH)1 y de Rights Action2, en los que se informa  
detalladamente sobre el asesinato de
candidatos de la oposición y la violencia política previa a las  
elecciones.3 Bagatelizar la violencia
contra los opositores, que por falta de denuncia o por que no se ha  
podido probar la falta de
investigación por parte de las autoridades, no se puede decir que sea  
de carácter político, constituye
desde nuestro punto de vista un escándalo. Una valoración así  
desconoce las realidades de un país,
donde reina el 95 por ciento de impunidad y en el que las fuerzas de  
seguridad e instituciones están
involucradas masivamente en violaciones a los DDHH y en actividades  
criminales.
Con la presente informe se cumplen para la “HondurasDelegation” las  
peores sospechas, las que
también mencionamos en nuestra reunión con la misión de la UE el lunes  
25 de noviembre. Desde
nuestro punto de vista, con su reconocimiento el poder de la UE se  
hace cómplice de una campaña
dominada por el partido de gobierno. El congreso, el Tribunal Superior  
de Justicia, la Fiscalía
General, el ejército, el aparato de seguridad del estado así como el  
registro nacional de personas y el
mismo TSE, que recibió un reconocimiento de la misión de la UE; son  
dominados por los partidos
tradicionales. Los actuales magistrados apoyaron durante las  
elecciones previas un fraude a favor
de Juan Orlando Hernández, que fuera denunciado públicamente por parte  
del mismo Partido
Nacional, pero que quedo sin consecuencias.
La Misión de la UE estuvo - según sus propias declaraciones - presente  
con cuatro persona por
algún tiempo durante el conteo en el TSE. Ante nuestra duda, de que si  
eso era suficiente, para
descubrir un fraude electoral bien preparado, nos respondió el  
analista político de la misión de la
UE, Xabier Meilan, que a la misión no se le habían presentado hasta el  
momento (martes al
mediodía!) ninguna prueba de fraude. Una simple revisión y comparación  
de las actas de votación
recibidas y evaluadas en la página de internet del TSE hubieran sido  
suficientes, para probar una
cantidad de faltas en el escrutinio.
En vez de legitimar el proceso por medio de una declaración prematura  
– de jure temporal, de facto
definitiva-, según nuestra opinión, la misión de observación de la UE  
debería haber esperado para
emitir una declaración final, hasta que todas las dudas e  
irregularidades hayan sido aclaradas y hasta
ese entonces haberse expresado de manera reservada. (ver sobre esto y  
sobre más demandas
también la declaración de las OSC europeas publicado recientemente)4
Ante las graves consecuencias de la declaración de la misión de  
observación de la UE nos
avergonzamos como ciudadanos europeos ante las fuerzas democráticas en  
Honduras.

Saludos cordiales,
HondurasDelegation

1  
http://www.fidh.org/es/americas/honduras/14279-elecciones-en-honduras-militarizacion-y-grave-atentado-alpoder-
judicial
2  
http://www.rightsaction.org/action-content/election-report-honduras-nov-20-la-voz-de-abajo
3 http://www.hondurassolidarity.org/report1/
4  
http://www.viacampesina.org/es/index.php/temas-principales-mainmenu-27/derechos-humanos-mainmenu-
40/1975-declaracion-de-la-delegacion-de-observacion-de-la-via-campesina-en-el-proceso-electoral-en-honduras

-- 
Oekumenisches Buero fuer Frieden und Gerechtigkeit e.V.
Oficina Ecumenica por la Paz y la Justicia
Pariser Str. 13
D-81667 Muenchen
Alemania
Tel: + 49 89 4485945 Fax: + 49 89 487673
EMail: info@oeku-buero.de
http://www.oeku-buero.de
Vereinsregister Nr. VR 11081
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Muenchen
Vertretungsberechtigter Vorstand: Karl Schuhbauer, Miriam Stumpfe

, , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

LIBRE DETAILS ELECTORAL FRAUD – English translation of original communiqué

Saturday, November 30, 2013

The following is an English translation by La Voz de los de Abajo of the official communiqué read by the LIBRE party at the November 29th, 2013 press conference in Tegucigalpa. The original speech in Spanish is available in two parts online: part 1 / part 2
Lo que sigue es una traducción al inglés por La Voz de los de Abajo del comunicado oficial de LIBRE leído en la conferencia de prensa del 29 de noviembre, 2013 en Tegucigalpa. Se puede ver la versión original en línea en dos partes: parte 1 / parte 2

PARTY FOR FREEDOM AND RE-FOUNDATION: “LIBRE”
EXECUTIVE REPORT ABOUT THE 2013 GENERAL ELECTIONS PROCESS
1.     THE RESULTS CONTAINED IN THE RECORDS OF THE RECEIVING ELECTORAL TABLES (MER) WERE ALTERED AND FALSIFIED IN THEIR SUMS IN THE OFFICIAL BULLETINS EMITED BY THE SUPREME ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (TSE).
2.     THE SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE TSE DOES NOT COINCIDE IN THOUSANDS OF CASES WITH THE PHYSICAL COPIES OF THE RECORDS
3.     WE ASK FOR THE COMPARISON AND RECOUNT OF THE 16,135 ORIGINAL RECORDS FROM THE CLOSE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL VOTING, AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE ELECTORAL LAW ARTICLE 15, NUMBER 12.
4.     IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WARNINGS IN THE REPORT FROM THE INTERNTIONAL AUDIT BY THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, WE CALL FOR A POST-ELECTION AUDIT OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF TRANSMISSION (SIEDE).
5.     WE ASK FOR REPORTS ABOUT THE ELECTORAL DOCUMENT CALLED THE ‘CREDENTIAL’ FROM THE POLITICAL PARTIES WHO, ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL’S OWN FIGURES, RECEIVED FROM THE SUPREME ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL MORE THAN 160,000 CREDENTIALS YET ONLY RECEIVED 17,516 VOTES AT THE PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL, MAKING IT A FALLACY THAT MER IS MADE UP OF ALL THE POLITICAL PARTIES.
The FREEDOM AND REFOUNDATION PARTY (LIBRE) does not accept nor recognize the official preliminary results published by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, due to the series of alterations, falsifications and irregularities reflected through the Transmission System SIEDE.
I-              EVIDENCE OF ALTERATION DURING SCANNING AND ADDING OF RESULTS OF MER RECORDS
                                               i.     After comparing 14,593 MER records that the LIBRE party received physically at our data center to the records published in the SIEDE system (last consulted at 11:00pm Thursday November 28th, 2013) we found:
a.     82,301 too many votes counted in favor of the National Party
b.     55,720 votes not counted for LIBRE.
c.     34,184 votes not counted for PAC.
d.     29,063 votes not counted for the Liberal Party.
e.     13,307 votes not counted for other parties.
                                             ii.     Numerous MER records were scanned in the morning hours of November 24th, according to the report that appears on the ATX (Scanner Center), vertically in lowercase.
                                            iii.     Numerous records transmitted by the TSE to the political parties and those published on the web page do not coincide with the originals received by LIBRE’s members of the MER, in terms of the signatures, which confirms the alterations.
                                            iv.     Numerous records published by the TSE coincide with the characteristics of those transmitted during the simulations.
                                             v.     Numerous Certified Records of the Municipal Electoral Tribunals were scanned or entered into the System, showing it TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE that the scanners were programmed to only transmit the Final Records of the Receiving Electoral Tables (MER) and that for security purposes no other electoral document could be transmitted. Supposedly each MER record would have a bar code that guaranteed it could only be transmitted by the ATX scanner assigned to the corresponding MER.
II-            VOTING OF ABOUT 70% at 12% OF THE MER.
It was found that at 12% of the polls there is an inflation of results, since the average voting in each MER is 61% and in this block of polls the voting is over 70% and the count at 85% of these MER’s favored the National Party candidate, an indication that necessitates comparison of the electoral registry with voters in order to discard the votes of those who have moved or died.
III-          RECORDS NOT TRANSMITTED TO THE POLITICAL PARTIES, NOT PUBLISHED BY THE TSE AND WITH A SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF 0. (Out of 14,593).
At least 2,805 MER records were not transmitted to the political parties nor published on the TSE webpage, within this category are also included the records whose “summary of results” appears as 0 and those sent for Special Scrutiny (2,134 records).
The International Audit carried out by the Organization of American States OAS established on the 20th of November, three days before the elections, that: “The process/functioning evaluated in accordance with the Operative Plan: special scrutiny does not meet requirements due to inability to evaluate.”
These records represent an electoral volume of 883,140 voters, mostly distributed amongst the departments of Cortes, Francisco Morazán, Santa Barbara and Yoro. The projection of these figures would give LIBRE the victory in the elections.
IV-          160,000 MER CREDENTIALS WERE GIVEN BY THE TSE TO 5 PARTIES; FAPER, UD, DC, ALIANZA PATRIOTICA AND PINU-SD.
In accordance with the law, the Receiving Electoral Tables (MER) are made up of a principal and replacement member proposed by each of the political parties through their representatives. The total number of MER’s in the 2013 electoral process was 16,135, meaning that each party received credentials for that number of both principal and replacement MER members.
Up to today, November 29th, the count by the TSE indicates that amongst them all, these 5 parties obtained 17,516 presidential votes, a fact that proves that the credentials that they signed for were given to members of other parties. On average, at 68% of the MER’s the parties PINU, DC, FAPER, UD and Alianza Patriótica do not have a single vote.
V-            REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL AUDIT TO THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM (SIEDE) BY THE OAS AND PRESENTED TO THE TSE ON NOVEMBER 20TH, 2013.
This report contains conclusions in terms of security and general conclusions with regards to quality and transparency. It can be found on the OAS page and there it shows the vulnerability of the system and the lack of security and the lack of guarantees in the transmission and publishing of results in addition to the counting. Amongst them is established:
                                              i.     “The security analysis of the distinct elements of the SIEDE has shown that the current System as of the date of this report presents certain deficiencies of adequate implementation of security measures that in carrying out these types of projects should be considered as the minimum standards for guaranteeing the integrity of the system.”
                                             ii.     “Quality- In relation to the evaluation of the quality of the SIEDE, it is necessary to mention that the absence of manuals of requirements and procedures constitutes an impediment for the analysis of the project based in metrics of compliance with standards. In the same way, it is necessary to clarify that the findings of the audit have been established based on evaluations up to the present date concluding the current Report, which means that the system could present improvement in the remaining days before carrying out the electoral process.”
“Relating to the consolidation, integration and publishing of the results, the auditing was able to observe problems in the design of the systems and algorithms applied that could affect their operations in the absence of corrective measures. Dues to this being an area that affects the transparency of the System, it is a critical element since it could affect the quality of the entire SIEDE.
                                            iii.     “In relation to the module of consolidation, integration and publishing of the results, the audit detected faults that showed non-compliance with quality standards required for this type of programs. It is important to emphasize that aspects such as correction, reliability and efficiency have not been met by these modules up to the finalizing of the simulations”.
                                            iv.     “As far as the publishing of the results, the audit was able to show design problems that forced a redesign of the application. For that reason up until the present date, it has not been possible to carry out an analysis of vulnerabilities since there is not a definitive version of the program.”
VI-          VULNERABILITY OF THE SYSTEM
On an internet page (recovered November 26th, 2011), are published a series of code sequences in the postgreSQI language, which drives the database used by the SIEDE of the TSE to generate the structure for the database, tables, fields, etc. which constitute a fundamental part of the general structure of SIEDE. In the leaked code, you can see the information regarding three tables: votes, details, candidates and votes, their fields, and the detail of the relationships and keys for each one. It is important to note that at the end there is a query showing a search for a candidate with the parameter “Mauricio” and it shows the list of figures (id, first last name) of candidates with the first name “Mauricio,” thereby indicating that whoever uploaded this page to the web had access to the database registry and not just to the structure.
VII-        DECLARATIONS AND REPORTS FROM INTERNATIONAL ACCOMPANIERS AND OBSERVERS
Judge Baltasar Garzón. “There were clear indications of manipulation and electoral fraud in last Sunday’s elections in Honduras. The reach is not determined but there was buying of votes, buying of credentials, clear influence and attempts to manipulate the electronic count and the transmission of records,” declared the Spanish ex-judge during a visit to Paraguay. In Honduras, Garzón was part of an observation mission of the International Human Rights Federation made up of 11 people from Canada, the United States, Spain, Colombia, Sweden and Belgium. “We all unanimously verified that there were clear indications of electoral manipulation and fraud.”
Carter Center. The delegation was headed by two members of the Friends of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the ex-Presidents Carlos Mesa of Bolivia and Martín Torrijos of Panamá along with Dr. Jennifer McCoy, director of the Americas Program for the Carter Center. In the press release the delegation expresses that “Vote tallying continues. A number of parties have questioned one or more aspects of the process.  The delegation believes that it is very important that the parties make their complaints known to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal in accordance with the procedures established by electoral law.  It trusts that the Tribunal will resolve these challenges based on the established norms.”
Mission of the European Union. The European Union Mission observes that 30% of the electoral census is not real. Here is the corresponding part in their preliminary report. “Based on the Civil Registry and generated together by the National Registry of People and the TSE, the electoral census has significant problems that constitute a weakness of the electoral process. There has been no systematic attempt to fix it and generally it allows that about 30% of its entries correspond to people who have emigrated or died, while in a smaller number of cases there are citizens who, though living, have been excluded as dead. In other occasions, there have been discoveries of unsolicited address changes. While the first cases come from administrative failures, the accusations of fraudulent address changes were persistent throughout the electoral period and the European Union Electoral Observation Mission observers registered credible accusations of that type in which the National or Liberal Parties were always implicated.”
Today, Leo Gabriel, Austrian journalist and anthropologist and member of the European Union delegation said that based on the fraud he observed, it seems that “the European Union prefers a stable dictatorship to a democracy.”
The Juan Bosch Foundation titles their report, “Elections in Honduras: No to another electoral slaughter in Latin America.” They say, “Among the things we will see in the current report are: a) Manipulation of the media; b) repression and intimidation of international observers and accompaniers, c) Vulnerability of the Honduran electoral system and the lack of guarantees for a transparent and equitable competition amongst candidates; d) Multiple anomalies during the electoral process such as the buying of votes and the trafficking of credentials; e) Serious anomalies in the process of public scrutiny; f) Unjustified withholding of 19% of the records retained by the TSE and sent to special scrutiny without explanation; g) Declaration of 1,000 records won by the LIBRE party as having inconsistencies; h) Lack of resolution of 611 voting centers to transmit the results of 983 electoral tables; i) Replacement and adulteration of the real records; j) Scanning of around 1,800 records that never made it to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal.” The report concludes saying, “Unfortunately, the only conclusions one can arrive at after observing and accompanying the Honduran electoral process are negative. What we were able to observe and verify is a fragile, vulnerable process lacking a system of consequences for the diverse situations of irregularity and anomaly that we have exposed. If this is not rectified in accordance with the essential values of democracy and respect for popular sovereignty, we are headed down the slippery slope to what Juan Bosch called the “electoral slaughter” referring to the electoral processes lived through in the Dominican Republic after 1966, following the coup d’état in 1963 and the U.S. occupation of 1965-1966. We were also able to clearly see TSE partiality towards the National Party, ignoring multiple demands, complaints and denunciations by the LIBRE party and PAC.”
VIII-      CONCLUSIONS
                                               i.     To proceed to the revision and verification, record by record, incorporated to the system, comparing the summary of the results and physical records of every one of the 16,135 Receiving Electoral Tables at the presidential level and with the presence of the LIBRE party, thereby processing 100% of the records in accordance with the law.
                                             ii.     To proceed immediately to audit the SIEDE system through an international post-electoral audit to verify its vulnerabilities, the alterations and the falsifications of electoral documents and their results.
                                            iii.     To ask for reports about the Electoral Document called “Credential,” more than 160,000 to those political parties who didn’t reach in the polls even the number of credentials given to them by the TSE. Since the credential is an electoral document to accredit the main member and replacement from each political party, if the political party did not receive as many votes as people it accredited, it implies that it shared that public document, received under its responsibility, with members of other political parties. Therefore, it is an oft-repeated fallacy that the MER is made up of all of the political parties.
                                            iv.     That the Public Ministry through the Special Prosecutor for Electoral Crimes move to open a file for an investigation of all of the alterations and falsifications produced in the process, thereby threatening the will of the people.
                                             v.     Finally, we present on the screen, just one example of MER 11,256 from the Department of Islas de la Bahía, Voting Center Escuela Marco Aurelio Soto, Municipality of Jose Santos Guardiola, town of Jose Santos Guardiola. This MER is the one that is on the page of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. And the next one is the original that arrived to the party with all of the signatures of the members of the MER. This is evidence of the irregularities and the falsifications committed by the system.
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Nobember 29th, 2013
Party of Freedom and Re-Foundation (LIBRE)

, , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

La UE desautoriza a observador

              Viernes 29 de noviembre de 2013
                           11:15 pm                            – Redacción 

Según la UE, Leo Gabriel violó código de conducta.

El observador alterno, Leo Gabriel, en el aeropuerto.

El observador alterno, Leo Gabriel, en el aeropuerto. (Redacción)
                                    Tegucigalpa,Honduras

La delegación de observación electoral de la Unión Europea desautorizó las declaraciones del observador Leo Gabriel, quien calificó que en las elecciones en Honduras hubo “trampa”.

La misión de observadores de la UE indicó en un comunicado que las declaraciones de Leo Gabriel “no reflejan en absoluto las conclusiones preliminares de la Misión, recogidas en la declaración preliminar”, presentada por la jefe de la delegación, la eurodiputada austríaca Ulrike Lunacek.

Además, señaló que las opiniones de Leo Gabriel “supone una violación del código de conducta de los observadores europeos”, que establece que los únicos autorizados para hablar en nombre de la misión son Lunacek y el jefe adjunto, José Antonio de Gabriel.

En una improvisada conferencia de prensa montada en el aeropuerto Toncontín por dirigentes del partido Libre, Leo Gabriel insistió en que las elecciones en Honduras “no fueron transparentes porque había trampa”.

Fuente: http://www.elheraldo.hn/Secciones-Principales/Pais/La-UE-desautoriza-a-observador

, , , ,

Deja un comentario

Resultados de las elecciones en Honduras fueron alterados, dice observador de la Unión Europea

viernes, 29 de noviembre de 2013

Según Leo Gabriel, la delegación europea tuvo fuertes discusiones internas para la elaboración del informe
Por Giorgio Trucchi | Opera Mundi
El martes (26/11), la Misión de Observación Electoral de la Unión Europea (MOE-UE) presentó ante la prensa nacional e internacional un informe preliminar sobre las elecciones en Honduras. A pesar de evidenciar “serios indicios de tráfico de credenciales y otras irregularidades”, sumado a un “claro desequilibrio en la visibilidad de los distintos partidos en los medios” y “la falta de transparencia en la financiación de la campaña electoral”, la misión dijo tener una evaluación positiva “tanto de la transparencia de la votación como del respeto de la voluntad de los votantes en el escrutinio”.

El informe afirmó también que “el sistema de transmisión de las actas garantizó a todos los partidos políticos una herramienta fiable de verificación de los resultados divulgados por el TSE (Tribunal Supremo Electoral)”, y felicitó las autoridades electorales por haber logrado “una mayor transparencia” con relación a las elecciones pasadas.
Estos elementos, fundamentales en el texto difundido por la MOE-UE, contrastan con las fuertes denuncias de irregularidades presentadas por el partido Libre (Libertad y Refundación) y el PAC (partido Anticorrupción), que, juntos, suman casi el 50% de los votos escrutados. Los candidatos de los respectivos partidos, Xiomara Castro y Salvador Nasralla, no aceptaron los resultados divulgados por el TSE y dicen tener pruebas de un supuesto fraude. Con el 88.32% de las actas escrutadas, el TSE ya declaró que el candidato del Partido Nacional, Juan Orlando Hernández, “es el ganador de las elecciones” con el 36.55% de los votos. En segundo lugar está quedando Xiomara Castro, con el 28.84%.
Leo Gabriel, periodista austriaco e integrante de la MOE-UE, afirmó en entrevista exclusiva con Opera Mundi, que hubo fuerte inconformidad de la inmensa mayoría de los miembros de la misión con el informe preliminar. Según él, estas diferencias sobre lo que ha ocurrido el 24 de noviembre desataron una fuerte discusión interna. Sin embargo, los cálculos políticos y los intereses comerciales prevalecieron y se prefirió cerrar los ojos ante la evidente alteración de los resultados y la violación de la voluntad expresada en las urnas por el pueblo hondureño.
Opera Mundi: ¿Cuál es su evaluación sobre las elecciones en Honduras? Leo Gabriel: Tuvimos la oportunidad de observar las elecciones desde las mesas de votación y llegamos a conclusiones diametralmente opuestas a las del equipo central de la MOE-UE, con respecto a la supuesta transparencia de la votación y del escrutinio. Desempeñé mi labor de observador en el departamento de Cortés, uno de los más poblados a nivel nacional, y me di cuenta desde el principio que este proceso electoral estaba alterado.
OM: ¿Cuáles fueron las irregularidades observadas? LG: Constaté un sinnúmero de inconsistencias en el padrón electoral. Hubo personas que no pudieron votar porque aparecían como fallecidas y hubo muertos que votaron. También fue evidente el gran desorden en las mesas de votación, donde la alianza oculta entre los pequeños partidos y el Partido Nacional originó compraventa de votos y de credenciales.
Durante la transmisión de los resultados no hubo ninguna posibilidad de averiguar hacia donde se enviaban las actas y recibimos informaciones fidedignas acerca del desvío de por lo menos un 20% de las actas originales hacia un servidor ilegal que las ocultó.
Hablar de transparencia ante todo lo que ha ocurrido el pasado domingo es un chiste y creo que, antes que nada, nosotros los observadores tenemos que ser honestos y reflejar lo que de verdad hemos visto.
OM: ¿Por qué, entonces, el equipo central de la MOE-UE está diciendo en su informe que la votación y el recuento fueron “transparentes”? LG: Algunos de ellos creen de verdad en lo que dice el TSE, pero en general hay una razón política y económica más profunda. El golpe de Estado de 2009 afectó y desprestigió la imagen de Honduras en el mundo, desacelerando la ejecución del Acuerdo de Asociación firmado entre la Unión Europea y Centroamérica (AdA UE-CA). Presentar un proceso electoral limpio y transparente sirve a la Unión Europea para limpiar la imagen de Honduras en el mundo y poner en marcha este proyecto comercial.
OM: Supe que el contenido del informe preliminar originó una fuerte discusión interna a la misión de la UE. LG: En la reunión general de evaluación, la mayoría de colegas que observamos las elecciones “in loco”, en el terreno, coincidimos sobre las irregularidades que acabo de explicar. Nadie defendió el contenido del informe y en concepto de transparencia del proceso, y eso chocó con la intransigencia del equipo central de la MOE-UE, que no quiso ceder ni un milímetro. Les propusimos discutir a fondo el tema, tomando en cuenta lo que habíamos visto y sugeriendo cambios al texto, pero se negaron rotundamente.
OM: ¿Cree usted que los resultados del TSE no reflejan lo que de verdad el pueblo hondureño expresó en las urnas? LG: Creo que el TSE sacó los resultados de la manga según un cálculo político bien definido.
OM: O sea que ¿ya tenían todo preparado? LG: Sí, porque estos resultados no tienen ningún fundamento y la rapidez con que sacaron los primeros datos demuestra eso. Sin embargo, tengo la esperanza que los partidos que están denunciando un fraude tengan la capacidad y la voluntad de presentar, de manera sistemática y en todo el país, todas las copias de las actas, comparándolas con los datos presentados por el TSE. De esa manera la verdad va a salir a la luz. OM: Eso sería un golpe muy fuerte para la credibilidad de estas misiones de observación. LG: Claro. Lo que me pregunto es: ¿cómo es posible que el equipo central de la MOE-UE no haya ni siquiera mencionado en su informe que hay partidos, que representan casi el 50% de los votos escrutados, que no están reconociendo los resultados y que denuncian graves irregularidades o un fraude? OM: ¿Qué sentido tienen, entonces, estas misiones de observación? LG: El ejemplo de Honduras no es generalizable, porque hay otros ejemplos donde las misiones de la UE jugaron un papel relevante y encararon la falta de transparencia en los procesos electorales. Aquí prevalecieron actitudes políticas, económicas, comerciales y hasta partidistas.
Fuente original: Opera Mundi (portugués)

Pubblicato da

, , , , , ,

Deja un comentario