As we digest the unwelcome return of the chavista strategy to partially overturn the December 6th election results by leveraging its control of the Supreme Tribunal,  let’s take a moment to recall the government’s record in that august body.

Since 2004, chavismo’s batting 1.000 at the TSJ. The government has lost not a single case out of 45,474. 

It bears repeating, because clarity on this point will be crucial to how things play out: Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal is a straight-up farce. 

It’s not that its “flawed”. It’s not that its impartiality is “suspected by critics.”

It’s that the government literally never loses there because its decisions are decided at the Vicepresident’s office, again – and I hate to overuse the word – literally.

You know that. I know that. Anybody who’s looked into this semi-seriously knows that. There are, after all, 45,474 reasons we can be sure.


Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.


  1. If the TSJ votes in favor of Chavismo per the eight contested seats – which of course they must – what is the next move, exactly? Do they forever delay installing the questioned winners of those seats? Do they conduct another round of voting for the same seats? Do they recount the original votes? Wonder what the military is thinking as I write this…

    • The law says they have to rerun the election.

      (Of course the law also says the TSJ is supposed to be impartial so…chances are TSJ will hand the 8 seats to the pajarito that spoke to Maduro…)

  2. Let’s say they rerun the elections. I would bet that after pouring every government resource into those 8 elections / circuits, using every government bus available to move voters, PSUV would at least win one of those. And they only need to win one, out of eight. Some of those elections they’re challenging were very close. MUD won one by 83 votes. MUD will be the favorite in each one, but it’s not a given they would win all 8 again, going against a very focused effort / trickery by PSUV.

    • Yes, but Chavismo will not have full control of the media this time. That has been critical to Chavista’s success. Once voters find out the Chavista scumbags are really bad people, the opposition should do just fine.

      • what do you mean Chavistas won’t have full control of the media? What is the change? The new National Assembly has no control over any media. There has been no change about media control since the elections.

  3. Re-runs would be very dangerous for the MUD, particularly in tight districts with large numbers of null votes. Every possible Govt. resource would be used to assure at least some PSUV victories, leaving it up to HRA to try to compensate by looking for salta-talanquera Govt. diputados, producing a messy scenario at best, one which, once again, the military will have to decide.

  4. 45,574/(2015–2014) = 5,062.7 cases decided per year.

    If the TSJ is in session 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, that would be 20 cases decided every day. Does the TSJ actually do that? One every 24 minutes?

    • I think the figure includes cases that they declared inadmisibles and didn’t rule on. Part of the point is that they never declare inadmisible a case the government wants a ruling on, and they never declare admissible a case the government doesn’t want them to rule on.

  5. Perhaps one might consider a law to regulate the activities of TSJ magistrates which provides that where magistrates are called to decide a case which directly affects the interests of the political partiality that proposed or voted for its appointment to the Tribunal or which by its conduct or speech it is publicly known to favour then it must either withdraw from participating in such case or be subject to removal from such case at the request of the other parties involved in the case unless its appointment is made with the support of a political partiality rival to that which proposed its appointment . !!

    Dont know that it can be done under the current Constitutional system , but it does seem that where a conflict of interest rises in respect of a particular magistrate as regards a particular case then he should not be allowed to decide it for to allow it would breach the principle of impartial justice which is basic to the operation of any Rule of Law system .

    Where a 2/3 parlaimentary vote is required to make an appointment or approve a measure , the intent of the Cosntitutional drafter must be to ensure that two or more legal factions agree upon such appointment or measure as a means of ensuring it will serve the interests of the public and not that of one political partiality .

  6. […] クリスマス後、政府は8人の野党議員に対して当選結果に対し意義を申し立て、選挙結果の無効を訴えました。そもそも、チャベス時代の2004年以降、ベネズエラ政府の最高裁での勝率は100パーセントで、司法の独立性などなきに等しいものです。45474件の訴訟において政府が負けた回数はゼロなのです。最高裁はチャベス派政府の言いなりと考えられていました。 […]


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here