Peter Krupa

Finally, after nine years of bullying, Chavez has lost a vote. I suppose a lot of people now are charmed by how graciously he accepted defeat. But his acceptance of a defeat at the polls just goes to prove something I’ve been saying for years: There is nothing wrong with the technical apparatus of Venezuela’s democracy.

Some otherwise moderate pundits like Andres Oppenheimer have suggested in the past that Chavez rigged his other electoral victories, perhaps because they simply couldn’t believe that people, given a choice, would vote away their own freedom.

The truth, however, is that Venezuelans, like centuries of democrats before them, were just voting their pocketbooks. Hand-outs were plenty, cash was flowing, and who cares if he’s buying $4 billion in military weaponry?

On Sunday, however, Venezuelans looked at their bare grocery stores, their soaring inflation, their lack of sustainable employment, and while not exactly voting against Chavez, they were none too damn excited about having him until 2050, so many of them just stayed home.

The mechanism of democracy rotated on its pivot, and suddenly Chavez found his political machine failing. He had perhaps the biggest war chest in the history of electoral politics - literally billions - plus he held the strings of everything from social programs to the national oil company.

Having calculated that all he needed for complete legitimacy was a vote in his favor, he left the mechanism of democracy independent, hoping to twist it with overwhelming force of charisma and dollars. But he couldn’t.

So here is the lesson of Chavez’ loss: With a little luck and 20,000 college students making a ruckus, you can still win a rigged game.