Though the referendum in Venezuela legitimised Chàvez's rule, Hisham El-Naggar writes from Buenos Aires, the opposition is not willing to step down Last week, Venezuela's President Hugo Chàvez soundly defeated the recall initiative that the opposition had prompted in an attempt to oust him. The Electoral Commission announced that 58 per cent of voters were against recalling Chàvez, 42 per cent for. But the story may not end here. Opposition leaders wasted no time in openly denouncing the referendum as a "massive fraud", claiming they had not seen the individual results yet and so could not be certain of the vote's validity. Throughout the day, participants in the referendum -- especially those from the opposition -- complained of "irregularities". Many had to wait long hours before they could vote, and some claimed that the computers at times randomly switched an anti-Chàvez vote to a pro-Chàvez vote. In any case, such complaints are quite commonly heard in most electoral processes, not only in Latin American ones but also -- as the 2000 US presidential elections demonstrated ably -- in highly developed democracies. But so far it seems that delays at polling stations were more likely due to poor organisation and an unprecedented turnout that caught electoral commissions unawares. Any failure of electronic equipment could be corrected there and then, according to the country's electoral procedure that allows the voter to report such malfunctions and thereby rectify his vote. In foreign consulates, queues were very long. In some cases voters complained that they were not allowed to vote as their names had been dropped off voters' lists. But this would be hard to interpret as a result of deliberate manipulation by the government. After all, the worst problems were reported in the New York consulate, where relatively few are registered to vote. In the Miami consulate, where a strong anti-Chàvez vote could have been expected, since many businessmen live there, no problems of the kind were reported. In any case, given the onslaught of accusations by a disgruntled opposition, it is still too early to pronounce a definitive result. But the margin suggests that it would have required truly massive -- and therefore obvious -- rigging to fix the vote. And such large-scale fraud would have been very risky in such an internationally observed election. Indeed, observers from all over the world were present to oversee the process. If they unequivocally report fraud, Chàvez's great victory may well turn into a disaster -- probably into a prelude to civil strife that could result in his removal from power � la Aristide in Haiti. It was, after all, reports of widespread irregularities to which international observers lent credence that cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the Haitian president's victory at the polls, sparking an uprising that cost him his hold on power. But what the referendum in Venezuela certainly does prove is that while the opposition may not be very large in size, the main problem it poses to Chàvez lies in the fact that it is so mixed in character. It includes some genuine democrats -- including some on the left -- but also a large number of golpistas, or coup-minded right-wing extremists believed to be financed by foreign powers. It was the latter group that engineered a coup against the president two years ago, and then proceeded to demonstrate its anti-democratic nature by annulling the constitution. Ironically, the support of foreign powers such as the administration of President George W Bush, former President José Maria Aznar's in Spain and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) proved to be the kiss of death for the golpistas. Most of Latin America voiced its condemnation of the coup, and the armed forces, together with a sizeable part of the population -- especially the poor -- rallied around Chàvez, bringing him back to power within hours. The initiative to oust the president by referendum, though perfectly constitutional, suffers from having been led in part by people who are by no means committed to democracy. And although it is clear that Chàvez is not as popular as he once was, the result of the vote is far from incredible. First, Chàvez skillfully played the anti-Bush card, identifying his real enemy as the far from popular incumbent US president. Secondly, Chàvez did not hesitate to woo the vote of the poor by using the windfall from the oil bonanza to fund social programmes. Still, the current situation is by no means free from risk. Claims of fraud may eventually foment strife. Beyond that, everything hinges on the cohesion of the opposition. If democratically minded leaders allow their hatred of Chàvez -- even if he is perceived to have won fairly -- to translate into civil unrest, the future is bleak indeed. On the brighter side, Chàvez addressed present difficulties by calling for dialogue and "national reconciliation" to build a more promising future for Venezuela.
