The coup that is unfolding in Venezuela is not an American backed coup: it is an American coup. Mainstream media coverage paints the events only as American recognition of a legitimate constitutional correction of government. Even in the left wing and alternative media, where writers condemn the American intervention, many of them feel the need to establish their credibility by conceding that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is an authoritarian leader, or even a dictator, who won a second term in office in elections that were illegitimate.

The typical media account of the story holds that Juan Guaidó, who was elected president of the National Assembly in December, has been declared interim president on the grounds that Maduro is a dictator whose election was illegitimate. Each component of that sentence is false.

1. Maduro Won an Illegitimate Election
   This claim has little to do with this election: it is the first song in the Venezuelan coup song book. It has been sung in every election since Hugo Chavez won power from the Venezuelan elite and returned it to the people.
   When Maduro won his first election after the death of Chavez, monitors from around the world certified the election as fair. America was the only country in the world to back opposition claims of fraud and to refuse to recognize the Maduro government. The election was certified as fair by no less than 150 electoral monitors from around the world. Delegates came from the Union of South American Nations and the Carter Center. Carter had previously called Venezuela’s election process "the best in the world." An American human rights lawyer and election observer reported that "What we found was a transparent, reliable, well-run and thoroughly audited electoral system."
   Maduro’s opponent, Henrique Capriles, demanded an audit, not only of the automatically audited 54% of voting machines (an audit that found no problems), but of all of them. Even though Maduro said that he was open to the 100% audit, Capriles called on his supporters to take to the streets. The U.S. State Department backed his call for an audit. But, despite his call to the streets, Capriles never actually filed his legal challenge: when the Election Council agreed to audit the remaining machines, Capriles called off his protest.
   In the recent election that is now in question, the claim is not that Maduro’s opponent, Henri Falcón, won more votes: he didn’t. The claim is that the election is illegitimate because the turnout was so low. But the turnout was low because the radical opposition boycotted the election and encouraged their supporters not to vote. Maduro had initiated a series of negotiations with the opposition that were mediated by the Dominican Republic and former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. During the negotiations, an election date was agreed upon. But at the last minute before the agreement was to be signed, the opposition withdrew and refused to sign. Rodriguez Zapatero criticized the opposition’s decision, saying he did not agree with the decision and was shocked by it. The opposition, with the exception of Falcon, decided to boycott the election, resulting in the low turnout.

2. The boycott was strategic.
   Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History at Pomona College, and one of the world’s leading experts on Venezuelan history and politics, told me in a personal correspondence that "the opposition opted to abandon the electoral arena in the country and adopted the strategy of international pressure to oust Maduro. That is why they would not sign the negotiated agreement brokered last year by Jose Luis Zapatero that would have defused the current crisis." The crisis could have been peacefully and constitutionally defused, but the radical opposition preferred their chances with international pressure – the current situation – than with elections. It is also possible that the decision was not a wholly autonomous, independent one. The Venezuela government has accused the US of pressuring the opposition to withdraw from the election agreement in favor of regime change. Jose Rodriguez, Venezuela’s communications minister and the government’s representative to the negotiations, says that then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the opposition’s spokesperson, Julio Borges, and instructed him to refuse to sign the agreement.
   Despite the radical opposition boycott, Henri Falcon launched what Miguel Tinker Salas called "a legitimate candidacy that could confront Maduro." There was a real election between Maduro and the moderate opposition. The radical opposition, Tinker Salas told me, boycotted the election "in order to claim that Maduro lacked legitimacy." But there was a legitimate opposition. And, he added, "the opposition could nonetheless have mounted a full-fledged campaign and challenged Maduro had they opted to participate in the electoral arena."
   So, the claim that the low turnout renders the election illegitimate is a disingenuous one because that was the intent of the boycott. And, despite the boycott, Falcon’s candidacy offered the electorate a real choice between Maduro and the opposition. And, though the turnout was low for a Venezuelan election, Maduro still won 31% of all eligible voters: not actual voters but eligible voters. That is better than Trump managed in 2016 or Obama in 2012.
   So, the claim that Maduro’s election is illegitimate is a very weak one. And, to the extent there is a claim at all, it is the fault, and worse, the plan, of the opposition.

3. Maduro is a Dictator
   Like the election charge, this charge has little to do with Maduro or the current situation. It is another traditional song in the Venezuelan opposition’s song book. The Venezuelan opposition and its American partners have consistently accused, not only Maduro, but Chávez before him, of being a dictator. The charge is unfair.
   Chávez was elected four times to majority governments. Chávez held at least fourteen national elections and referendums, taking his policies to the people for approval an average of once a year. In every case, Chávez honored the will of the people: even the one time that he lost, by the slimmest of margins, in the December 2007 referendum. Under Chávez, Venezuela had very high ratings of satisfaction with its democracy and of support for its government. Hardly a dictatorship.
   And it’s hard to see what’s new since the last election. The charges that keep getting recycled are that Maduro has barred his opposition from running and that he dissolved the National Assembly.
   But the opponents who were barred from running were barred for participating in an attempted coup against the government, for inciting violence or for campaign cheating: crimes which would surely not be tolerated in any democracy. Several other opposition leaders opted not to run in favor of boycotting, and Falcon did run and had the ability to mount a legitimate candidacy.

4. That leaves the charge of dissolving the National Assembly after losing control of it to the opposition in the 2015 elections.
   But the National Assembly was only dissolved after it was declared to be incapacitated and in contempt according to the constitution by the Supreme Court of Justice. The judiciary stepped in to temporarily take its place. The Legislative Assembly can resurrect itself by remedying its incapacitation and contempt. Since the coup, Maduro has also clearly stated that he is willing to address the incapacitation and face the people in new National Assembly elections.