Smartmatic withdrew from Venezuela in 2017 after alleging electoral fraud but continued to provide software for elections in the country, which was reportedly done covertly through a third-party company. Internal documents and sources reveal Smartmatic’s ongoing involvement in Venezuelan elections, undermining the company’s claims of non-participation post-exit. This situation raises significant concerns about the integrity of the elections and the ethical responsibilities of international election technology firms.
In a disputed vote following Venezuela’s 2017 elections, Smartmatic, an electronic voting company, condemned the country’s government for alleged vote tampering and subsequently declared its withdrawal from Venezuelan electoral processes after a 13-year involvement. Despite this, documentation obtained by the Miami Herald indicates that Smartmatic’s software continued to be utilized in at least three elections post-exit, including the municipal elections of December 2017 and the contentious presidential election of May 2018, with much of this activity being concealed. According to sources who participated in Venezuela’s National Electoral Council, Smartmatic collaborated with Argentinian company Ex-Cle to veil its role in these elections, which had been publicly disavowed. “They literally used a third company to hide the participation of Smartmatic, but it was Smartmatic that provided the technicians to… have the software ready to use in the voting machines,” a source revealed. Furthermore, internal audit documents show that Smartmatic’s software was employed in these elections, a fact Smartmatic initially dismissed in correspondence with the Miami Herald. The company’s stance shifted when the Herald furnished proof of Smartmatic’s software usage, though it maintained that authenticity in its software could only be guaranteed if the company was involved in the election processes. They stated, “No Smartmatic software can be considered authentic unless Smartmatic is involved in every step of the chain of custody throughout all election deployment phases.” Despite assertions from Smartmatic that it ceased all operations in Venezuela in 2017, internal audits and witness testimonies refuted this claim, indicating ongoing involvement in electoral processes. In 2020, Smartmatic reiterated its position that it had not provided any services to the Venezuelan government since its withdrawal. However, scrutiny of the events surrounding the elections indicated discrepancies in their claims, with Smartmatic operatives being present in Caracas for technical oversight during both the municipal and presidential elections, undermining the company’s assertions of non-participation. This situation raised significant questions about the legitimacy of the Venezuelan electoral system and Smartmatic’s role within it during critical periods of political turmoil in the country. In conclusion, the evidence gathered suggests that Smartmatic maintained a covert presence in Venezuela’s electoral process even after its public resignation from active participation, bringing into question the integrity of the electoral outcomes during that period. This incident highlights the complexities and challenges surrounding international election technology companies and their ethical responsibilities in regions experiencing political strife.
Smartmatic, a company initially founded in Venezuela, gained recognition for its role in modernizing the voting systems in the country after being chosen to replace outdated voting machines ahead of the 2004 elections. However, the company’s relationship with the Venezuelan government deteriorated after the 2017 National Constituent Assembly elections due to allegations of electoral fraud. Amid rising concerns about the transparency and legitimacy of Venezuelan elections, especially under the socialist regime of Nicolás Maduro, Smartmatic publicly denounced such practices and announced its withdrawal from Venezuelan elections. This shift raised significant questions about the company’s previous and ongoing involvement in an increasingly contentious political landscape. The revelations regarding Smartmatic’s alleged continued role in Venezuelan elections after its announced withdrawal underscore the challenges of accountability and transparency in the context of international electoral technology firms. This situation also attracted global attention, particularly from the opposition and various international entities, who viewed the 2018 presidential election as fraudulent, subsequently leading to widespread condemnation of the Maduro regime and calls for increased sanctions and support for democratic reforms in Venezuela.
In summary, the ongoing use of Smartmatic’s software in Venezuelan elections despite the company’s public withdrawal raises serious concerns regarding the transparency and legitimacy of the electoral processes in the country. The revelations not only complicate Smartmatic’s standing but also highlight the intricate dynamics between technology providers and electoral integrity in politically unstable regions. The case serves as a cautionary tale for election technology companies about the need for clear ethical guidelines and robust oversight mechanisms to ensure the integrity of democratic processes across the globe.
Original Source: www.miamiherald.com
