The result of the Venezuelan referendum proves beyond doubt that the country is a vibrant democracy under , writes Gamal Nkrumah There you have it: the ingredients of democracy at work. The referendum was free and fair and more importantly it exonerates the Venezuelan leader from charges of dictatorship and tyranny. The referendum results, even if they did not go the way the Venezuelan leader had hoped (49-51 per cent against), provided a fillip to the popularity of the embattled symbol of hope for many of the world's disadvantaged. Venezuelan President Hugo is a hero for many in the underdeveloped countries of the South. He is popular in part because he is a symbol of the developing world's defiance to pax-Americana. He is the refreshing antithesis to the sleaze-prone mediocrities that masquerade as "Third World leaders". His intransigence is widely seen as both a function of his strength and a contributor to it. And, the results will not detract from his popularity in the developing world. A referendum as the word intimates must offer a choice. Venezuelans voted this week in a referendum of tremendous importance -- not just for Venezuela, but for the entire Western Hemisphere and the developing countries of the South in Africa, the Arab world and Asia. gave his people the choice, and obviously the country's middle classes rejected his reforms. The poor and underprivileged voted for , however. It is vitally important to understand this phenomenon. Perhaps not many people outside the country realise that Venezuela, buoyed by soaring oil prices, is the richest country in South and Central America. Venezuela enjoys a per capita income that far exceeds that of Chile, the continent's second richest country. While according to International Monetary Fund figures, Venezuela's Gross Domestic Product per capita is destined to hover around $10,170 in 2008, Chile's GDP per capita is estimated to be $7,300. Venezuela's GDP per capita might be poor by Western standards, but for Latin America and the developing countries it is impressive. Even so, there are dangerous uncertainties that face Venezuelans, like most other Latin American and developing countries. The wide disparities of income threaten the nascent democracies of the region. It is mainly for this reason that the Venezuelan National Assembly passed the "Enabling Law" bestowing special powers to the president to issue decrees. can bypass the results if he wishes to do so. The poor are restive and that is why they have thrown in their lot with . The underprivileged of Venezuela want to see radical changes to the way the economy is run. Until came to power, they had not profited from the country's vast oil wealth. Worse, they had not been permitted to have a say in the way the country is run -- they have not had a say in the decision-making process. They were economically and politically emasculated. gave them a chance to do so. Moreover, he has pledged to create a "socialist economy", that is to say one in which the main beneficiaries are the neediest and most vulnerable socio-economic groups in the country. That is why, even after the referendum results, he came out boldly in favour of his agenda. "I would not change a comma in the reforms," he told his people defiantly in a widely televised statement. is not changing course, and he knows that he has his poor compatriots firmly behind him, come what may. However, Venezuela, like Chile, has a large middle class and it is obvious that the majority of them, not to mention the powerful business elite, understand fully that favours the poor. Amendments to Article 112 to the constitution clearly were intended to advance the economic and social interests of the poor even further. The referendum in Venezuela can only be understood in the context of a class struggle. The middle classes and the disadvantaged know all too well what is at stake. They fully comprehend the implications and are not prepared to budge. The fight is not over. Venezuela's is an ongoing battle with worldwide ramifications. And herein lies the explanation for the results of the elections. has not been humbled, because he still strongly believes that he is fighting a just cause. His powerful opponents, too, are determined to fight to the bitter end. He has accused the United States of blatantly interfering in the referendum. He has good cause to be embittered. In a tendentious article in the Washington Post, former US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, after his debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, had the audacity to warn of the grievous consequences if the "aspiring despot" had his way. "Today the people of Venezuela face a constitutional referendum which if passed, could obliterate the few remaining vestiges of Venezuelan democracy," Rumsfeld pontificated. He does not, however, clarify the real threat that poses to Washington's interests in the Western Hemisphere. The real reason why the "aspiring despot" is such a threat in the eyes of Rumsfeld and his ilk is that 's amendments included the threat to ease further expropriation of private companies, though "only for reasons of public benefit or social interest by final judgement, with timely payment of fair compensation, may the expropriation of any kind of property be declared." (proposed amendment to Article 115). Rumsfeld's aim was to lay a false veneer of credibility over a sham critique. Democracy was not at issue in the Venezuelan referendum; vital economic interests and gargantuan social implications were. That is why the Western media took such an anti- turn in the run up to the referendum. The controversy was not over whether the Venezuelan president is permitted to assume more presumably undemocratic and dictatorial powers, rather the crux of the matter was whether would be given a freer hand to carry out the socialist transformation of society, curtail the powers of the country's Central Bank and its control over international reserves, expropriate private property and reduce the work day from eight to six hours. For all its talk about dictatorship and authoritarianism in Venezuela, the United States cannot deny that democracy was very much in evidence on Sunday. The question in Venezuela, however, is not about democracy Western- style per se. The fight between and his opponents is not a political or personality contest. is prepared to withstand this setback, and above all his forward flight to socialism will not be daunted by the turbulence, headwinds or tailwinds of what he pointedly terms "imperialism".
