Hugo Chavez is set to open another referendum on allowing himself to be elected for another term in office beyond constitutional limits, but with the last referendum vote to increase his term in office losing by a small majority and his lack of popularity abroad being adopted by many in Venezuela itself, recent history will likely give him the measure he needs to either win or lose him power beyond Venezuela’s Constitution.

A list of pros and cons would easily draw a deep line on anyone’s page whether or not Chavez is more of a benefit or weakness for Venezuela and its neighbours. Recent diplomacy from Brazil had gained the release of captured Colombian government officials and other kidnap victims from the FARC, an action Chavez accomplished as well last year around the same time. The result was positive in both instances and gave Chavez a lot of clout, but support and documents found by Colombian officials during the two month Cold War between the two countries claimed evidence that Chavez was supporting the FARC in its battle against Colombia as well, illustrated for many Colombians by Chavez’s support for the FARC being recognized as a legitimate governing power after the release of some hostages to Venezuela. Eventually the rift was returned to status quo, and the Colombian government gave the FARC a strong coercive response, weakening the organization and pushing for more assertive diplomacy as video of Ingrid Betancourt and the ability of the Colombian Army made international headlines. Support for the FARC, even in Venezuela could not have helped Chavez, nor had nasty words from the respected democrat of Spain the King Juan Carlos towards Chavez in a public conference, helped Chavez be seen as a democratically elected leader in the process. Despite this, Chavez is still strongly supported in Venezuela. In recent regional elections he gained about half of the vote, and in the past referendum and in recent polls, he could win, albeit by a slight majority due to popular support in the country.

Poverty and rights should be the main focus for elections in Venezuela. Recent moves and disappearances have been brought to light against Venezuela’s opposition leaders, highlighted by the ejecting of officials from Human Rights Watch for a critical report on Chavez’s years in office. In the last month recent anti-Semitic actions in the country that were at least passively supported by the Chavez’s government, came through a policy of advancements towards Iran and comments on the conflict in Gaza. The reduction of oil prices and inflation numbers has brought Chavez closer towards losing financial supports for many of his anti-poverty programs in the last four months. While many of the programs during his term of office supplied much needed anti-poverty measures towards Venezuela and even other private individuals in Latin America, oil revenues may make this more difficult, and may make him lose his popular support to an unknown degree among his supporters in the country and reduce his influence in the region through less aid and loans to other Latin American countries.

Recent changes in the world economy have likely affected Chavez greatly. Some journalists and experts on the region believe this latest referendum is an attempt to gain support before the effects of inflation and the lack of oil revenue hits Venezuela’s poor. Poverty reduction is important for any future leaders of Venezuela, but populism and popular support can be easily lost if the balance of power changes, and funding cannot be provided for political support. With the election of Obama, Chavez has had to appeal in a positive manner towards the US, as did the President of Iran, and try to open dialogue towards the new President as scapegoating Obama would likely hurt Chavez more than help him. With the US regaining some legitimacy post-Bush and Brazil filling in the diplomatic gap with its own non-antagonistic poverty reduction strategies, Chavez might win the referendum, but lost popular support quickly after taking office for a third term beyond his rights in the current Venezuelan Constitution. Moves by Obama might make a world of difference in places like Venezuela and Iran, assertively addressing issues affecting the US, regional peace and minority and opposition rights in Venezuela and similar governments worldwide.

BBC World News this past weekend held an interesting discussion on the current global financial crisis and its possible future effect on the world economy in its show The World Debate. The discussion surrounded the policies governments, CEO's, banks and international financial institutions used that brought us into crisis, and how those institutions could remedy or perhaps worsen the current crisis, and passively accept responsibility the gains and losses in their communities.

The World Bank and IMF were addressed, as a constant debate in developing nations became a catalyst in the current situation. In the past, economic conditions that forced many countries into an economic system of development to secure loans were seen as forcing the allowance of poverty through savings. With some successes, many countries' small growth were dissipated with a recent hit from developed nations which either never took their donated policies seriously, or were irresponsible in forcing and international financial system that leads to crisis rather than growth over time. This perspective is not new in the developing world, and with many countries either finally producing some growth, paying back loans, and even becoming economic powerhouses, sacrifices by developing nations and their losses coming from abroad.

Banks and CEO's were diligently attacked in the debate, seen as the cause and maintaining the concern of many in the process. CEO's in fact, which have been criticized over the years for being overpaid, used to disassemble rather than build up their companies, taking decisions which border on legality and failing their communities through immoral investments were targeted in the debate. While many CEO's have since then been replaced, the way CEO's and obtained and trained and valued will likely have to change. Banks, as corporations themselves have become nationalised in many countries, and in others are facing tough government and public scrutiny as the cause and result of the credit crisis. The problem of confidence, more confidence of banks to lend as opposed to the confidence the public and industry requires of banks in a society was addressed in the debate. Credit, as a necessity of a healthy economy for small and large companies alike, private individuals and governments, is and always was the centre of the problems. Banks and financial institutions, while being seen at the same standard as other industries are in fact legislated with a great deal of legal rights, and government protection. The exchange is that those banks agree to lend and operate in sensible actions and respect its increased power and responsibility over society and various industries.

The actions of governments will likely have a large effect on the international financial order and the way commerce is done in their own nations. The beliefs that credit is the sole problem of this crisis are neglecting the informal agreement between banks, government and industry that are necessary for society to operate. Immoral and illegal activities must be determined as such before confidence in society can ever be restored. Eventually a new informal agreement between nervous banks and governments need to be reached, but no constructive plan to reform this relationship seems to be on the horizon. Microcredit financing, and small and medium sized business credits, often a success story in developing nations, might be an alternative to frozen credit markets in developing countries. Return to basics and reaffirming the informal contract between banks, governments, industry and society is not only an imperative, but is the only alternative to the global economic challenge.