Yes - it's a victory for democracy and had both sides been given an equal opportunity to put their case the result would have been even more pronounced.

The problem was many of the proposed reforms would have been beneficial:

- Article 21: Outlawing discrimination.

- Article 64: Reducing the voting age.

- Article 87: Increased workers' rights.

- Article 90: Reducing the working week.

- Article 103: Free university education.

- Article 113: Outlawing monopolies and giving the state control over the exploitation of natural resources.

- Article 256: Redusing the power of judges.

But a many would not have been:

- Article 11: Giving the President the power to take control whatever part of the country he wanted to so that he could 'defend the nation'.

- Article 67: Allowing the Government to fund electoral activities [as of it doesn't already!]

- Article 225: Giving the president the right to appoint as many vice presidents as he wanted.

- Article 230: Allowing Chavez to be re-elected indefinitely.

- Articles 337, 338 and 339: Allowing extreme powers once a 'state of emergency' has been imposed.

So what was Chavez was attempting to do was persuade people to support these 'reforms' whilst at the same time giving him the power and ability to stay in power forever.

Given the resources and the effort that Chavez's supporters put into this vote, it does seem remarkable that he lost. It is perhaps an indication that he no longer has the backing of the poor who had once so much hope in him. Whilst the police and military are strutting around the country with their new guns and powers, the ordinary people are feeling the effects of their brand of revolutionary justice.

It is very easy to see Chavez as a new Marti or Castro, but the simple fact is that he lacks the intelligence and personality to inspire people and it seems that he is now beginning to lose the support of the very people who put him into power.

Chavez admitted defeat in the referendum.

So, some dictator then.

It doesn't mean Chavez has lost the support of the poor, but many people in the country did not like the new proposal, including my wife, who normally votes for Chavez. Her opinion is that Chavez needed humbling, and that he was going too far. In particular, she didn't like unlimited terms. But the choice was the referendum, not between Chavez and the opposion, and at the end of the day, most people support Chavez than the opposition any day.

In the end, the last laugh is on the opposition. Chavez has shown that he is no dictator, the sheer number of elections should prove that. He may be egotistical, a bit paranoid, and perhaps even a little mad, but he is not a dictator, and his camp have come out in a far better light than the hard-core opposition, who have constantly resorted to violence, admitted on camera they were not going to accept the results even if Chavez won, and even murdered a Chavez supporter trying to go to work. Who are the democrats in this equation?

Anyway, the fact he will have to step down in 2012 means he has to give space, now, for other people to take over when he has gone, and this should encourage a faster transfer of power away from the state and to the people. I hope defeat will puncture the Chavez ego a bit. He will be a far better leader if he continues with the same policies, but more humble.

Funny that such a power-hungry "dicatator" would allow his proposals to be defeated by a vote .... eh? Unlike the past puppet Regimes, who simply would have imposed his will on the people.

Guess it's back to the drawing board for Chavez' Government. I hope the people will tell him which reforms they disagreed with.

That's not what the vote says. It simply means that some were threatened by some of the measures. Perhaps votes should be held more often, for individual reforms, rather than a litany of items such as this.

Plus, don't discount the CIA's hand in influencing the 'no' vote. After all, this is what they do ...