VENEZUELA: Millions of Venezuelans have just ratified Hugo Chavez's leadership in a weekend referendum, but the convincing margin of victory failed to impress the conservative opposition alliance which rejected the result.
Venezuela's volatile political scenario requires a minimal understanding of some complex variables. The National Electoral Council (CNE) ratified the result that gave Chavez victory but two members of the executive council subsequently cast doubt on the figures.
In divided Venezuela, three of the five CNE executives are regarded as pro-Chavez with two more considered anti-Chavez. At every step of the referendum process, one part of the CNE pledged faith in the process while their colleagues held separate press conferences in which the official story was routinely disowned.
So it goes in almost every organisation in Venezuela. There are two versions of every story, tailored to suit the political orientation of the person with the microphone. It is one of the great ironies of politics that the same opposition which demanded the recall referendum to oust Chavez, originally voted against this constitutional provision when it passed through parliament.
The anger and disappointment of the opposition was hardly a surprise as the recall referendum, following three violent efforts to unseat Chavez, was the last card left before fresh presidential elections in 2006. It now seems possible that Chavez could win re-election and govern the country until 2012.
The opposition claimed victory in advance of Sunday's vote and, given the hostile opinion polls, insured themselves against total humiliation by clutching to the "fraud factor" as their last hope of spoiling the party.
Not that fraud is any stranger to the Venezuelan democratic system. When the opposition ruled the country (1958-98), electoral authorities were subordinate to the mainstream parties which, in one celebrated incident, packed 500 voters into a single house in Caracas, to ensure a safe majority in a local election.
On this occasion however hundreds of foreign observers, led by former US president Jimmy Carter, declared the referendum process free and fair and at time of writing had not found any flaws in the count. The observers have a parallel vote count to guarantee a fair contest, so it's hard to believe that Chavez would bother trying to steal the vote.
The opposition may well rein in the dogs of war while foreign dignitaries walk the streets of Caracas, but by next weekend they will probably be ready for a guarimba, Venezuela's remarkable upper-class intifada. Magical realist master Gabriel Garcia Marquez would have been hard pressed to invent such a phenomenon, which involves burning barricades and urban insurrection led by yuppies in designer clothes.
The outcome of the referendum vote has regional consequences as Latin-American governments tentatively emerge from the shadow of Uncle Sam, seeking independent economic and diplomatic pathways. President Chavez has been the guinea pig who popped his head over the parapet and challenged the backyard bully, rejecting US aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Argentina and Brazil, progressive governments have a deep affinity with Chavez but they prefer insinuation to indignation.
The Venezuelan dilemma is simply a repeat of every other battle for democratic dignity in the region. For the past five years a bitter power struggle has divided Venezuelans as the middle class rejects Chavez's government plan to redistribute oil wealth and increase citizen influence in public affairs.
President Chavez has now won eight electoral victories, but the opposition has consistently refused to accept the results and has turned to sabotage and insurrection instead.