Patronising Latin American democracies does not put us in a good light

I note that in your article entitled ‘Tory attacks leftwing MSPS over Venezuela support’(scotsman, 4 August), reference was made to a view I expressed regarding Venezuela, the implication being that this was an incorrect or inappropriate view:

I would like to point out that Venezuela’s elections are observed by the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), a group of 12 democratic nations. The regional organisation’s objective is to ensure “the correct development of the electoral processes under six basic principles, including impartiality, objectivity, independence, legality, no interference or intervention, and transparency.”

In December 2015 UNASUR observed the Venezuelan legislative elections, in which the governing party led by Nicolas Maduro lost, referring to the nation in the following terms: “Venezuela continues to be a strong democracy and that has been proven by the highly efficient, accurate and most transparent way the elections were carried out.”

In 2012 former United States President Jimmy Carter said that “the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world”.

This suggests that the black and white picture presented by your publication is not in line with the wider understanding put forward by many neutral observers.

This is not to say that the process in the most recent elections is not worthy of critique, but it does suggest that the way in which your article presented the views I and others expressed as being wholly unusual and inappropriate misses the mark somewhat.

Though there is always discussion to be had regarding the transparency of any election, the broad brush with which Jackson Carlaw’s comments in the related Scottish Conservative Party press release disregarded the major democratic reforms made in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez came to power is inappropriate.

The unquestioning presentation of one side of the argument at the expense of the other is symptomatic of a worrying trend of patronising Latin American democracies within our own press. This does not lead to fruitful understanding and cooperation between cultures, and contributes to an overriding sense that Scotland and the United Kingdom look down on these countries.

I hope that with a better understanding of some of the matters mentioned here the press can begin to produce a more balanced picture of the worrying situation taking place in Venezuela and accurately depict the diversity of views represented within the Scottish Parliament on this matter of foreign affairs and others.

ELAINE SMITH MSP Holyrood, Edinburgh