Three volunteers from each district manned the tables and were responsible for overseeing the voting. Each district received a ballot box with one transparent side containing all the necessary materials and documents and the precise number of ballots for each eligible voter. Long lines formed in front of each booth as people crowded into the stadium to wait patiently, often for hours, to cast their ballots. The social atmosphere was cheerful as old friends greeted each other and neighbors chatted quietly in the long lines.

The voting process involved the presentation of the national identity card, which contained a photograph, fingerprint, and bar code. The official then checked the card against a list of registered voters and handed out a ballot that asked but one question: "Do you want mining development in this region?" The voter then marked the appropriate box on the ballot either "Si" or "No." The voter was next presented with another list and signed his or her name on a copy of their identification card, provided a fingerprint, and had their middle finger marked with indelible ink. The entire process appeared to guarantee that there could be no fraud or double-voting. I saw no arguments, law violations, or irregularities over a nine hour period.

The international observers, together with ten-person teams from the local election committee and La Transparencia, a national group devoted to fair elections, constantly monitored the progress at each polling place and looked for any evidence of intimidation-or even persuasion-inside the stadium. The Rondas, a campesino group that is responsible for law enforcement in the small surrounding villages, were a constant presence.

The Count and the Results

When the polls closed, everyone was ushered out of the stadium and the three volunteers at each table tabulated the votes and recorded the results on official documents. The rules regarding the rejection of "spoiled ballots," often involving minor errors, were strictly enforced, resulting in a lower count of "No" votes. A procession of vehicles took all the documents to the municipal headquarters for the official count. The organization of the voting processes was careful and comprehensive.

Early that evening the results were announced to a cheering crowd in the plaza. Over 93% of the votes cast in Ayabaca were against the mine. I don't know the percentage of spoiled ballots among the remaining 7% of the votes, but it was much greater than the number of "Yes" votes according to my personal observation of the ballot counting ("Yes" votes were rare). The turnout was a somewhat disappointing 50%, partly explainable by the possible fear of voting in an election labeled "illegal" by the country's president. Some citizens may well have believed that voting in an "illegal" election was itself a law violation.

In the two smaller communities, the results were 97% opposed in Pacaipampa (with a 70% turnout), and 92% opposed to mining in El Carmen de la Frontera (with a 59% turnout). All told, over 18,000 people voted, of whom 285 voted for the mining project.

The local people were gracious and touchingly grateful for our presence as international observers. I was extremely impressed by the dignity and meticulousness of the process.

« Previous Page 1 2

An Observer's Account

Most of the thousands of people from the villages slept outside in the cold that night at the town square where the voting was to take place the
next day.