Sumate, the self-appointed Venezuelan electoral watchdog co-sponsored by the U.S. government, has decided to temporarily return to its doghouse. It barked as loud as it could in favor of presidential primaries to decide who would be the candidate to oppose President Hugo Chávez in the forthcoming December 3 elections. But the three self-decided major candidates kept it chained. Finally, it has given up this attempt to bite Chávez.

After I wrote my recent comments about Sumate, I received a scathing letter from one of its members accusing me of “vicious lies” about them. I responded, inviting the person to write a rebuttal and said I would be willing to publish it. I received a positive answer, but never heard from them again. No problem. A watchdog can’t bark at everyone on the street. Dealing with the triumvirate who wouldn’t support Sumate unequivocally was certainly more important than my measly editorial.

In any case the question of primaries in Venezuela to decide who will be the presidential candidate has fizzled. Sumate says there is not enough time to carry them out.

At the present moment there are three candidates who feel they have the best possibility of confronting Chávez. Julio Borges is founder of the Primera Justicia (Justice First) party. Before becoming a political party, Primera Justicia also received money from the National Endowment for Democracy. Teodoro Petkoff is a onetime guerilla, editor of a newspaper and former planning minister in the government of Christian Democrat Rafael Caldera. He has never been enthusiastic about relying on Sumate. Manuel Rosales is governor of the oil-rich state of Zulia and was a supporter of the short-lived Carmona administration.

My guess is that one of the reasons these candidates backed away from Sumate is that it is seen as being too closely aligned with the U.S. government. In the long run, I predict that the photo of Sumate’s Maria Corina Machado with President Bush in the Oval Office and her meeting in Florida with Condoleezza Rice will end up being something of kisses of death for the organization. These actions were not only bad decisions on the part of Sumate, but also show the ineptness of the current administration’s approach to Latin America.

Although technically, Sumate was never a candidate for the presidency, it did want to be not only a watchdog but also manager of the anti-Chávez team. Now that it is temporarily back in the doghouse, we will have to wait to see when it comes out again and whether its voice will be a bark or simply a whimper in the forthcoming elections.

According to Ultimas Noticias, Sumate said that they were capable of setting up 3,400 voting centers in the country with four or five voting tables in each center. They were counting on more than 50,000 volunteers to do the work. That would have been impressive. But in spite of all the volunteers, such a process would have cost lots of money. Two additional questions remain in my mind: 1) Where was that money going to come from? And, 2) what is it going to be used for now?

Finally, for those who might be wondering what the “vicious lies” were that Sumate found in my article, here they are with my response.

One, that SUMATE did not receive $54,400 from the National Endowment for Democracy but only $31,000. According to the NED Grant Agreement No. 2003-548.0, NED did approve $54,400 to be used in the period of September 12, 2003 to September 30, 2004. I think the wording in my editorial was correct, even if Sumate eventually used a lesser amount. Even worse, Narco News’s Jeremy Bigwood discovered that they received much more than that from USAID.

Two, that, “At no point did SUMATE ever support or refer to abstention as an option during the Parliamentary elections of 2005.” I will accept the statement as true that Sumate never “referred” to abstention. However, there was never any moment when Sumate encouraged those opposed to the Chávez government to vote or to participate as candidates. Being an organization encouraging citizen participation, such an attitude does seem to me to indicate “support” for not voting. My only recollection is that SUMATE urged people to go to church that Sunday—certainly a new twist in encouraging citizen participation in the political arena.

Three, that “we have never nor will ever ask that Chavistas abstain from voting in the Primary elections, SHOULD these ever happen.” Nevertheless, on page 1-4 of El Universal (24 April 2005), María Corina Machado was quoted as saying, “I trust in the democratic nature of those citizens who prefer the president (Chavez). I am convinced they will respect the idea that another sector of the population can carry through with this inclusive, democratic and transparent process.”

Then in the 26 April 2006 edition of Ultimas Noticias on page 19, Ricardo Estévez, a spokesperson for SUMATE, spoke of SUMATE proposing the idea that those over 25 years of age who received their Venezuelan identity card for the first time through the Mission Identity should not be allowed to vote in the opposition primaries. The only reason that can be deduced for such an action would be to exclude these people who would presumably be “Chavistas.” It was nice of the person who wrote me to say that SUMATE will never ask that “Chavistas abstain,” but these remarks by SUMATE leaders did not seem to be in line with that statement.

To sum up my thoughts on Sumate: does any one know of a very good veterinarian that treats “non-governmental watchdogs?”