Aside from a few of his more typical outbursts his attitude has been on the whole very dignified, unlike the King of Spain who was the exact opposite. Certainly Chavez should be more than happy when taking into account the extremely favourable outcomes I describe in the article, especially in consideration that he might have had to implement his ‘Aladdin’s Cave’ of reforms with the opposition screaming that only 30% of the electorate were in favour of them. Could you imagine the “dictator” cries in that scenario, and the unstable ground upon which the revolution would have been forced to advance?

In specific response to the story that Chavez was annoyed that results were heading for the ‘NO’ – the statistics on abstention would have been very clear from the beginning, and so I would have expected him to be pleased the vote was looking like sparing him the scenario described above.

The other point you make that “his reputation as a dignified democrat and conciliatory statesman has increased tenfold” is also utterly off mark. He proved himself a buffoon at the Iberoamerican Conference and people here in Spain can’t get enough of the rebuke he received from the King. He called the victory of the NO vote “Shit” four times on TV in front of the HIgh Command. “Dignified” far from it. This is a man who wants credit and praise for doing what the law and common ethics already compel him to do. Look to see how many heads of state turn their backs on him tomorrow at the investiture of Christina Kirtchner.

Thanks for opportunity to post this reply to your comment.

Power has to be justified, and Chavez has used his powers until now in responsible and correct ways. To go forward in building new models of econ.poli.soc in Venezuela, he needs other executive powers. This is all a matter of opinion, of course. Popular alternatives to capitalism, meanwhile, include anything not based on the traditional capitalist-wageslave relationship. True democracy should imply economic models that empower and enrich more than a slim minority – that seems plain enough to me.

*Paul Zarembka, that is also a fair analysis. But I don’t think manipulation of the vote is out of the question. It in no way implies that the government would dare to manipulate it the other way. The system is perfectly verifiable, and I would think that even if the opposition higher order found out that SI actually won, they would keep quiet and claim their victory. Let us remember that the required ‘manipulation’ may have only required leaving certain tables uncounted.

As for mixing up the proposals, that would have been the only way (in a desired loss scenario) to ensure that the moderates would abstain entirely, while preventing the country from seeing clearly, for example, that social benefits were apparently popular while executive powers were not.

211,888 people. So what?

You haven’t address my main questions about the economy and on how do you justify a super executive power.

I’m curious: what is a “popular alternative to capitalism”?

Ned

The main concern I have about your argument of Chavez intentionally setting it up to lose the constitutional vote is that he would have been playing with fire.

The actual result was quite close. If the result had been 50.7 yes to 49.3 no, can you imagine how de-stabilizing that would have been (just the opposite of what you otherwise argue).

So, I think your argument requires an amendment neither you nor I would want to include — that the vote count itself would be manipulated, if necessary, to be negative.

I stick with an interpretation that it was a miscalculation, with an attempt at economic ‘bribes’ being attached to increased executive powers, and failing for the time being.

A more honest proposal would have separated the progressive economic measures from the increased executive power issues. The latter included eliminating that ‘democratic’ provision of the 1999 constitution to limit the term of the President — twelve years being enough for the Bolivarian process to place other leaders onto the platform.

Paul Zarembka

I also think the no vote is a big victory for Chavez. It legitimizes the democratic basis of his socialism that was always a question until now. It also gives him an opportunity to create a sustainable socialism that goes beyond the man.

It was surprising to me, but he still has wins all over the park, whether he planned it or not, and whether he made that comment or not.

The people can initiate whatever they like, and will certainly try to get rid of presidential term limits providing that they would prefer Chavez to continue in 2012. It looks far better for all concerned if it is a popular proposal, anyway.

In fact, most of the 69 proposals would surely pass a popular vote on an individual basis even if later rather than sooner, which makes the likelihood of the vast majority being passed one way or another in the next 5 years extremely likely.