With Hugo Chávez we are used to certain things. Those of us whose hearts are on the left , condemned as heretics as the late Roque Dalton would say, expected the victory of the «Yes» vote in the Venezuelan constitutional referendum last Sunday. We saw it as one more in the uninterrupted string of electoral victories over almost a decade and based on the multiple indications of popular support for the Venezuelan government.

We awoke on Monday with a different outcome, and in a state of stupor that came from this, which cleared up little by little. What was there behind the percentage points in the voting, particularly the thin 1.4 percent lead of the Venezuelan opposition? Low blows inside and out, the US financing of student groups —the proof of which was published on Sunday in The Washington Post—manipulation and political attacks, incessant use of selective amnesia and hate fanned by the opposition media, reform articles insufficiently explained or deliberately falsified, betrayals, the gap that is sometimes perceived between Bolivarian policies and those policies’ expressions —as General Alberto Müller commented to me in an interview— and other circumstances that would take too long to explain.

However, if one steps back to look at what happened in Venezuela on Sunday, perhaps the balance is more favorable for the government of Chávez, despite the orgiastic coverage on Monday by the news media in that country and around the world. The opposition has stayed an orphan of its main argument. Wasn't the cardinal thesis orchestrated against the president's reform the supposed intention of his remaining in power with an arbitrary and anti-democrat government? So what type of dictator is it that immediately recognizes the results and does so with humility? When has something similar been seen in Venezuela?

An editorial of Mexican paper La Jornada commented on Monday that the electoral victory of the Venezuelan opposition is also, paradoxically, a moral victory for the movement that Hugo Chávez heads. It recalled, of course, the numerous occasions in which Chávez’ government has emerged victorious in popular elections and how much attention is being given now that the results have been unfavorable. The paper recognized that the elections occurred with spotless transparency, from the moment the polling stations opened until the closing late at night. It pointed out how the president accepted the results without ambiguity. The Mexican newspaper affirmed that these «unequivocally democratic attitudes and dispositions should be recognized.»

However, there is room for other positive readings. From now on, the electoral factor should not outweigh concrete circumstances in the adoption of tactical and strategies as concrete circumstances, which are of greater direct concern for the needs and rights of the population. A foreseeable objective for the future will be to identify additional paths for mobilizing that further consolidate an indisputably democratic calling for contemporary Venezuela.

This is not the final point of a process; there remain five years in which Chávez will be able to continue governing in line with the current constitution, which was approved soon after his arrival in power. Rather, this is a starting point.

This is a government that survived a coup and a horrendous effort to sabotage its oil industry; an administration that is well aware that money-sponsored violence is as dangerous as poverty-driven violence; a revolution that has achieved the impossible – coexisting with a right wing that is locked in its self-complacency and disdainful detachment and disgust for the poor. Such a government, I believe, has infinite reserves to transform Sunday’s electoral experience into a force that will legitimize it even more.