VENEZUELAN officials declared socialist leader Nicolas Maduro the easy winner of the presidential election.
But his leading challenger questioned the legitimacy of a vote marred by irregularities and called for a new ballot to prevent a brewing social crisis from exploding.
The National Election Council announced that with almost 93% of polling stations reporting, Maduro had won nearly 68% of the votes, beating nearest challenger Henri Falcon by almost 40 points.
The disputed victory is likely to heighten international pressure on Maduro, as voter turnout was the lowest in a presidential race since the start of Venezuela’s leftist revolution two decades ago.
Even as voting was taking place on Sunday, a senior state department official warned that the US might press ahead on threats of imposing crippling oil sanctions on the nation that sits atop the world’s largest crude reserves.
The election “without any doubt lacks legitimacy and we categorically refuse to recognise this process”, Falcon told supporters before the results were announced.
He was joined in his call for a new election by third-place finisher Javier Bertucci, who got around 11% of the vote.
But he said that in the event of a new vote, Maduro should do the dignified thing and refuse to run. If Maduro pressed forward, he said, Venezuela would explode from a social crisis marked by widespread food shortages and hyperinflation before his new term started next January.
Both of Maduro’s opponents accused authorities of turning a blind eye to a slew of blatant violations, including the pitching of red tents just steps away from voting centres where ruling party activists scanned on cellphones government-issued “Fatherland Cards”. Many voters said they hoped it would bring them a cash bonus or even a free apartment.
Under Venezuela’s electoral law, any political activity must take place at least 200m from voting centres.
Falcon, a one-time acolyte of the late President Hugo Chavez, said his campaign found “red points” at 86% of polling sites nationwide. He called them a “pressure mechanism, an element of political and social blackmail” directed at the poor.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here