By DPA
Buenos Aires/Caracas : Critics have accused Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of ruling in a “dictatorial” fashion, and few dared to imagine what could happen if he lost one of his frequent dates at the polls.
But precisely that happened Sunday as a constitutional reform proposed by Chavez – who had in recent days talked of it as a plebiscite on his own mandate – was rejected by a narrow margin, with nearly 51 percent of the votes against.
The reforms would have formalised a socialist form of government and strengthened Chavez’s hold on power, allowing the unlimited re-election of the president, lengthening the presidential term – from six to seven years – and ending Central Bank autonomy.
Electoral authorities waited more than eight hours to announce the “irreversible” defeat of the constitutional reform proposal, and Chavez was then quick to admit his loss.
“We respect the rules of the game. We have said so,” Chavez said.
He said respect for the rules has also marked his path in the past. However, this has not always been obvious.
The controversial left-wing populist led a failed military coup in 1992, before becoming Venezuelan president on Feb 3, 1999 through democratic elections following the prevailing rules. Since then, he had won two more presidential elections, a referendum on a new constitution and a recall vote, always with more than 60 percent of the vote.
There had been many allegations of fraud, but they had never been substantiated. And he had never been defeated at the polls.
Chavez is currently ruling by decree, and over the past year he has nationalized large portions of the energy industry of the world’s fifth-largest crude oil exporter. He also has complete control of the country’s National Assembly, after the opposition boycotted legislative elections.
It was not immediately apparent how Chavez – who combines a broad power base among the poorest citizens of a highly-polarized country with an abundant budget based on Venezuela’s oil income and an undoubted love of power – would take defeat at the polls.
As things turned out, his “21st century socialism” appeared to come of age as a democratic form of government in Sunday’s defeat. The political style based on Chavez’s popularity had reshaped the Venezuelan opposition like a bulldozer, but appeared to stop short, as it should, in the face of rejection at the polls.
A heterogeneous opposition, whose record is also not impeccable, also showed a striking political maturity in triumph.
Many of Chavez’s rivals, who are deeply divided among themselves, have in recent years backed a failed coup against Chavez, boycotted elections and made other controversial – and possibly politically disastrous – decisions. For years, they failed to provide a common front against a president who, for all his shortcomings, was also an undeniably strong electoral rival.
After his defeat, Chavez had a message for the opposition, noting that the referendum process ironically served to get them to defend a constitution they had bitterly opposed.
In a tone half-way between conciliatory and condescending, Chavez addressed the opposition and pointed to the polls as the only way to beat him.
“Do you realize it is possible?” the president said of his defeat. “It is possible, and that is the way to go.”
The opposition drew great joy from beating Chavez for the first time. However, it was quick to call for national unity for the sake of the country, instead of vindictiveness against the president.
Opponents of the reform chanted the word “reconciliation” amid applause as they celebrated their triumph, and many opposition leaders stressed Chavez remains president despite his electoral stumble and should finish a mandate that expires in 2012.
“I invite Chavez to start together on the path of reunion, peace and understanding,” said opposition leader Manuel Rosales, who was defeated by Chavez in a presidential election last year.
He was also quick to pick up on several aspects of the proposed constitutional reform that the opposition would like to see approved anyway, notably the provision of a social security network for the country’s many informal workers.
Despite the rejection of the reform, Rosales said he would seek an agreement with Chavez to make sure that consensus proposals became laws as soon as possible.
Stalin Gonzalez, who was among the leaders of a student movement against the proposal, also put aside triumphal attitudes despite his obvious pleasure in the result.
“I want to make the same call as President Chavez. Let us all sit down together. Among all of us, we can build a different Venezuela, and all around one table we can make this country pull through,” Gonzalez said.
Chavez and the opposition appeared to agree that there were “no winners or losers” in the referendum and that the huge rift among Venezuelans for and against the controversial president has to be overcome for the sake of the country’s future.
It remained to be seen whether Chavez’s confrontational style and the opposition’s divisions and lack of understanding of the president’s huge power base will allow both sides to agree on a basic vision of the new Venezuela.