Interestingly enough, these elections are very unique in that they are definitely not like those referendums existing in countries such as Egypt, which are aimed mostly at reinforcing an authoritarian regime. In fact there are candidates for president, who are freely campaigning like in a regular election. By the same token, the political platforms of each of the candidates seem to be open and freely reported in the press. The naked eye that observes these elections in Venezuela could say: "We see nothing wrong with this" Yet, these perceptions are basically misleading.

The title of my piece is totalitarian democracy, a concept introduced by the late historian Jacob Talmon. According to Talmon, totalitarian democracy is a system of government in which representatives are lawfully elected by the citizen's right to vote, however, there is still little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government. The philosophy of totalitarian democracy is based on a top-down view of society, which sees an absolute political truth to which humans should be directed. The totalitarian democracy enables the government to make the ultimate decision over the citizens without consulting them. The government activities might include imposing policies, controlling the private sphere, expropriating private property, restricting activities and suppressing dissent. The source of their legitimacy, according to Talmon, is "majority rule". Government based on majority rule can govern at the expense of minority rights and the rule of law itself.

Indeed Chavez has "lawfully" increased his political power at the expense of the legislative power; he manipulated the judiciary and the military by appointing officers and judges loyal to him. In the economic sphere he has made every effort to destroy the private sector by halting foreign exchange and import controls as well as by carrying out assaults on private property. By the same token he destroyed the state-owned oil company PDVSA by purging its well-trained professionals and appointing an army of inept Chavistas to the management and professional staff. Furthermore, Chavez not only uses huge oil revenues to offer welfare and buy political loyalty but he will also seek to perpetuate this situation of people's dependency on the government by continuing to use oil- as it has been epitomized in regimes such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saadam Hussein's Iraq, Muhamar Khadaffi's Libya and the Saudi monarchy- to build a powerful welfare-based tyrannical state.

In the area of human rights and freedom of expression, he has encouraged violence against journalists and passed laws criminalizing certain opinions that could bring "turmoil to the collective". Moreover, Chavez has had access to a list of individuals that supported the recall referendum and has targeted them by firing them from their jobs, denying them identity cards and passports and by other means. Overtime these policies worked for Chavez in so far as it created general terror in the population. It made individuals believe that the only way to survive is by behaving obsequiously towards the regime. In the early 2000's I used to be in touch, via e-mail, with a number of individuals and journalists living in Venezuela. They all ceased to write me in the last three years.

A Venezuelan individual now living in the US told me his parents were fervent anti-Chavistas and have quickly turned into Chavistas. When they are asked to explain themselves they could not give any rationale to their current views. In other words, no reason but fear explains such behavior. Furthermore, in the Venezuelan democracy- not yet fully understood by most Latin American experts or mainstream American academia and less so by democracy watchdogs like former President Jimmy Carter- lies a clear Stalinists phenomenon. Formal "Democracy" and regular elections still exist in Venezuela but they take place- paraphrasing Iraqi scholar Kanan Makiya- in the framework of a "Republic of Fear". This is the political atmosphere in which these elections are taking place.

The Opposition and Its Strategy

Chavez's main opponent is Manuel Rosales. Rosales has been chosen as the candidate of a somewhat unified opposition, which believed that such unity is the only way to defeat Chavez in the election. Rosales does not come from a wealthy family but from humble beginnings in the State of Zulia, where he later became governor. As Governor of the State of Zulia he proved to be a very good administrator. His leadership made the State of Zulia the only state in Venezuela where neither Chavez nor the Chavista candidates ever won. About one third of the Venezuelan population lives in Zulia which is rich in oil resources. He is a former member of the traditional party, Accion Democratica, and he presents a center-left political platform that includes a strong social justice component which effectively enables him to compete with Chavez. This platform includes a fair allocation of oil revenues by applying minimum wage and direct aid to the underprivileged. Rosales supports giving land to the peasants but, contrary to Chavez, while respecting private property. In addition, he also advocates for encouraging national and foreign investment that he sees as keys to employment and economic growth. Rosales is also a strong constitutionalist who believes in democratic alternatives and repudiates Chavez's attempt to perpetuate his power. (Chavez has stated that if he wins he will conduct a referendum in 2010 to modify the constitution so as to allow for the indefinite reelection of the President).

In terms of foreign policy, Rosales' slogan is "Ni el imperio ni el barbudo" (Neither the (US) empire, nor the Cuban bearded one (Castro)") Rosales strategy has been to try to approach the poorest sectors of society by walking in "Chavez's neighborhoods", despite the fact that in some cases he was received with open hostility. Contrary to Chavez, he does not talk from the top-down but attempts to connect with people by showing respect and by not being condescending. According to some observers, the strategy of the Rosales campaign is to catch those who in the past voted for Chavez because they felt no other candidate could represent them. Rosales counts on them and also on those who are planning to abstain. (According to Sumate Since 1998, the year Chavez took over the reins of the Venezuelan state there has been an abstention of 36% in 1998, 56% in the 1999 constitutional referendum, 44% in the 2000 presidential elections, and 30% in the 2004 recall referendum.)

Furthermore, Rosales strategy is to mobilize numbers and encourage people to lose their fear and show to the polls by huge numbers. He is doing it and he is doing it right. (I will come back to this point in my conclusion)

Are These Elections Normal?

Current polls seem to be favoring Chavez for the time being. Some polls predicted a victory for Chavez with 58%, some with 55% but many of them had basically predicted a comfortable victory for Chavez. According to columnist Marta Colomina, all those conducting the polls are clients of Hugo Chavez or people openly sympathetic and loyal to him. The intention of these polls would be to demoralize the voters and to convince them that a Chavez victory is a fact that will be impossible to reverse. Ms. Colomina quotes previous polls conducted by the same people who in the past had errors of 25% or more. Curiously enough, the Caracas-based Hannah Arendt Institute conducted a poll called "poll without fear". The conclusion indicates that Venezuelan voters are victims of fear. The report found that when people are interviewed for polls, they strongly suspect the identity of the interviewer. Using a special methodology the study concluded that Chavez has a slight 2% advantage over Rosales (51% to 49%). The authors define the results as a "technical tie" (for more detail see www.unionradio.com.ve/Noticias/Noticia.aspx?noticiaid=187021).

This makes a lot of sense since Chavez's aggressiveness towards those who oppose or criticize him has succeeded in causing panic, particularly in the aftermath of the 2002 failed anti-Chavez coup and the 2004 recall referendum. Fear of losing ones' job, fear of persecution, fear of retaliation and other types of intimidation have had an impact which needs to be overcome. There is also a general underlying assumption that Chavez can still manipulate the results. In the aftermath of the recall referendum there were suspicions of fraud that were never fully proven. Despite the lack of clear evidence of fraud, Prof. Genaro Mosquera, Director of Statistical Research at the prestigious Universidad Central de Venezuela points out that there are 1.3 million registered voters without address and the Electoral Council has not given an answer yet to this question. Mosquera reports that there are a high number of people who are very old, that by the laws of nature should be deceased. At this point there is a 34% increase of registered voters since 2003. Moreover, the electoral council has not explained how some voters have 2 or more identity cards with different serial numbers. By the same token there is still no explanation as to how thousands of foreign nationals (many of them from Arab and Muslim countries) have become Venezuelan citizens without legal procedure. In addition, it has not yet been explained how in more than one third of the country's municipalities there are more voters than numbers of residents.

Furthermore, the company that runs the electronic voting machines, Smartmatic is suspect of being linked to the Chavez regime. More importantly, according to a number of analysts and the organization Sumate, electronic voting machines may transmit and receive data (bi-directional communication) and hence electoral results may be corrected or altered. In other words, if the machines can receive information they can be fed any information and this is what observers, particularly from the European Union and the Carter Center, should carefully and meticulously look at.

There is another element involved here. For the first time there will be fingerprint machines allegedly used to prevent duplicate voting. However, many Venezuelans understandably are very much afraid that the fingerprint machines may identify whom they voted for, despite the opposition's assurances to the contrary. Indeed, analysts confirm that it would be very difficult to detect the identity of the voter but Chavez is believed to have introduced this method to frighten Venezuelans and impel them to either vote for Chavez or at least abstain.

Some Conclusions

To conclude I would say that Venezuela is still indeed an electoral democracy. However, between elections, a totalitarian regime prevails. Chavez tends to concentrate power in his hands by appropriating natural resources (oil) and distributing them selectively, controlling state institutions (legislative and judiciary), using Bolivarian Circles and other gangs to reaffirm his presence in all aspects of life and publicly attacking opponents and the media. Since this is the case, why not abolish democracy altogether and establish an authoritarian state? The fact is that Venezuela had been a democracy for over four decades prior to Chavez and Venezuela's political and cultural institutions cannot be destroyed overnight. Chavez has not been able to break that barrier yet; however, the country has already been severely wounded.

The Rosales campaign is trying to revive the victims that the Chavez regime has already claimed by awakening them and giving them some hope. Fear has already made many Venezuelans, as Germans were in the 1930's, passive (and sometimes active) accomplices of the regime. The real heroes are the politicos such as Manuel Rosales who succeed in mobilizing Venezuelan citizens, the journalists who still speak their minds and the intellectuals who still dare to defy the regime because the most precious asset, their liberty is being taken away. These intellectuals and activists include people from the right and from the left. They are trying to defend their soul and identity. They receive little or no support from the world community. Many intellectuals of the left in other Latin American countries still view Chavez as a revolutionary. As left wing Western students and intellectuals in 1968 narrow-mindedly saw the anti-communist Prague spring as being counter-revolutionary, they now view anti-Chavez opposition in the same light. Some are even fascinated by Chavez's social justice agenda and anti-Americanism and do not seem to be bothered by the most oppressive aspects of the Chavez regime. Latin American governments with the exception of Mexico, Colombia and Peru have often welcomed and uncritically praised Chavez. The European Union and many of their intellectuals (as well in the US) have remained largely silent in the face of Chavez's abuse of power.

To conclude, a victory for Chavez will strengthen his oppressive regime and his relations with Iran, the FARC, and Hezbollah. This type of geo-political problem is usually perceived as America's problem, particularly by the Europeans. However, with the clear presence of terrorist networks in Europe and potentially in Latin America, this can no longer be considered a purely American problem.

This is why it is the obligation of all the nations of the world, NGO's, and other bodies serving as observers to seriously monitor these elections. But there is more.

A Venezuelan journalist Orlando Ochoa Teran, who writes for the prestigious weekly Quinto Dia, believes that Rosales can mobilize Venezuelans to the streets even better than Chavez. Indeed on November 25 the Rosales campaign displayed spectacular strength by bringing more than one million people to its closing event. This is a sign that fear may be diminishing and this is perhaps the most important step. Therefore, if it is perceived that Chavez won by fraud, a social uprising in the style of the Rose revolution in Georgia and the Pink Revolution in the Ukraine may take place in Venezuela demanding the resignation of Hugo Chavez.

In that case it will be the obligation of the United States and the free nations of the world to support such social movement with no hesitation. That opportunity might not come twice.

Dr. Luis Fleischman is an advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington Dc. He is also an adjunct professor of Political Science and Sociology at Wilkes Honor College at Florida Atlantic University

This article by Luis Fleischman appeared in the most recent edition of "The America's Report," a product of the Center's Menges Hemispheric Security Project.