THE CAMPAIGN by opponents of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to unseat him was dealt a setback by last weekend's defeated recall vote. Opposition claims of fraud were deflated by endorsements of the results by international observers, among them former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and the head of the Organization of American States (OAS).
The scale of Mr. Chavez's victory, coupled with the size of turnout, should have removed any doubts about his hold on power. It is worth noting what has been achieved here. Once again, a country with a volatile political history has resorted to the ballot box to sort out its differences. The roles played by the Carter Center and the OAS to facilitate this process should be duly noted.
Nevertheless, while the referendum should end doubts about Mr. Chavez's legitimacy, they will not solve Venezuela's political problems. The country remains deeply divided between those who adore Mr. Chavez, and those who despise him. The division corresponds largely to the society's class cleavage. Indeed, Mr. Chavez's popularity among his country's poor seems to owe much to his rejection of neo-liberal economic policies. In that, Venezuela forms just part of a continental wave against the unkept promises of the free market.
The heavy burden of economic adjustment on the poor, and the woeful mismanagement of the world economy after the Asian Crisis, have left poor people all over the world angry. But Mr. Chavez's failings as a president - the economy continues to implode - suggest that the answer to neo-liberalism must be found not in populism, but in something else.
The reaction of the U.S., which has clashed with Chavez over his relations with Cuba's Fidel Castro, was dismissive of the allegations of fraud. A State Department official said that given the margin of the victory it would have had to be fraud on a massive scale spread across the country.
So for now, Chavez has been given a popular mandate to finish his term in office. We would hope that the Opposition forces, backed by their supporters in Washington, will allow him to do his work, subject only to pressure for alternative policies within a democratic framework. They will get another opportunity to challenge him for leadership and popular support in congressional elections next year and a presidential election in 2006.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
