Hugo Chavez has become one of those controversial figures that brings out strong reactions in many. Personally I have considered him a good thing for Venezuela but have been concerned by his choice of friends, some of his rhetoric, and what could be interpreted as an excessive hunger for power.

First of all, no one has been able to convince me that he is a dictator. Every election in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez has been democratic and fair according to all impartial observers. What ever the controversy over Chavez and his policies, it has all been done within the law and within a democratic system. This alone belies the claims that he is a dictator.

Second, there is no question that Venezuela, like much of South and Central America, needs to address the poverty and sharp economic divisions it suffers. Hugo Chavez is doing that. Needless to say, this pisses off many wealthy people around the world who hate to see poor people get uppity. But many of his programs are simply the right thing to do, the fair thing to do and the smart thing to do for the stability of his nation. Sharp economic divisions and high poverty lead to instability.

Simply put, Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected leader of Venezuela and has been overall good for Venezuela.

But...

As with Ecuador and Bolivia, my overall sympathy for left wing leaders who are helping correct economic disparities is a bit hindered by two things. First, I am not fundamentally a socialist and I know that if the socialist reforms of these leaders go too far, the economies of their nations could be ruined. Second, some of their rhetoric DOES make me wonder if their desire for power could lead to dictatorship. Understand that on this second front I worry about the USA under Bush as well. Excessive concentration of power in the hands of one person is not good.

That is why I was happy to see Hugo Chavez's referendum lose.

Back in the 1980's, I remember being bombarded with lies from our government about the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. We were told they were dictators. We were told that they were brutal thugs. Yet all I heard from people I knew who visited Nicaragua (including a relative) was that the Sandinistas were not brutal or dictatorial and that those descriptions could better describe some of their American supported opponants. Only some of the Misquito opposition got much sympathy from those I knew who actually went to Nicaragua rather than merely listen to the Republican lies.

But there was always some doubt in my mind. I KNEW we were being lied to, but that didn't mean I knew the truth. Even if the Contras were mostly a bunch of thugs, it didn't mean that the Sandinistas really believed in democracy.

The Sandinistas were vindicated in defeat. When a democratic election voted them out, they accepted the defeat and left office. It is only recently that they have returned to power...through the ballot box. The Sandinistas proved to be genuinely democratic. They brought true democracy to Nicaragua, and Reagan lied about them.

Hugo Chavez has been handed an electoral defeat. Elections in Venezuela are fair, according to international observers. So this is a genuine democratic defeat. It is in defeat that Hugo Chavez can prove he believes in democracy. So far so good.

Here is Hugo Chavez's reaction to the defeat, from BBC news:

Mr Chavez had expected a big win and will be very disappointed.

However, he swiftly conceded and urged the opposition to show restraint.

"To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them," he said. "I ask all of you to go home, know how to handle your victory."

I am encouraged. I do not like all that Hugo Chavez does, but he is not my President. He is the President of Venezuela and he seems a good one for the vast majority of his people. But a taste of humility, and a slowing of his reforms may ultimately be a good thing for Venezuela.