Page 62 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

21
challenged, who will be barred from seeking a legislative seat…” . And Carlos F.
Rodríguez, second vice presidential candidate on the ADO ticket, had this to say on the
challenge in question: “it is unfair; it results from considerations that have nothing to
do with the law and poses serious questions as to the Tribunals’ impartiality during the
22
forthcoming elections” . (See exhibit 16). It is worth noticing that the UNADE
candidate in Antón, i.e., the man who stood to benefit the most from Arias Guardia’s
challenged nomination, was Barletta’s brother-in-law. But despite all the “help” he
received (reminiscent of the “help” given Torrijos’s cousin in 1978), he still lost. The
people of Antón voted for Arias Guardia’s first alternate, Emiliano Ponce, who was
elected by a wide margin.

Before moving on to the next chapter, which describes the elections and the
counting of the votes, it is appropriate to summarize the points covered thus far.

The 1984 electoral process in Panama exhibited four major traits:

1. The manifest and unlawful interference by the Defense

Forces General Staff with the selection of the pro-government
candidate and the electoral campaign.

2. The wide and documented misuse of government
resources, both human and material, in favor of the pro-
government candidate.
3. The unscrupulous manipulation and the effective control

of the media.

4. The lack of impartiality of the Electoral Tribunal, which
the presiding judge could not effectively control.

But all of this would not be enough to ensure the victory of Barletta. It had
been 16 long years of dictatorship and the people were not about to forget it. It would
be necessary to alter voter registration lists, engage in massive vote-buying, arbitrary
challenges, the stealing of tally sheets and the forging of signatures and, finally,
physical violence and murder. Then and only then would they be able to claim
victory… a Pyrrhic victory indeed.

21 La Prensa, April 27, 1984, page 1A.
22 Ibid.