With the victory of leftists Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua just in the past month, it would seem as if a year-long string of defeats for the Bolivarian Revolution — most exemplified by Mexico and Peru — has been broken. With Fidel Castro regrettably still alive, Evo Morales looking to impose his will on Bolivia’s productive regions, and Hugo Chavez ready and willing to steal the up-and-coming election in Venezuela, things are looking less optimistic than ever.

However, I think that the image of such waves and counter-waves (like the “leftist wave” sweeping Latin America, and the anti-Chavez wave in Peru and Mexico) is just a matter of electoral timing. Elections in certain countries in which Chavez’s message is well or ill-received come at different times, but if a group of such labeled countries go to the polls around the same time, it affords the misconceptions that perhaps election results in one country spill over to the others. The fact that Ortega and Correa have won around the same time has nothing to do with the other, but everything to do simply with each countries’ demographics, history, and economy.

1) Chavez’s message is of the populist-socialist variety, so it will appeal to the poor people of Latin America who feel especially disenfranchised by an overbearing and corrupt oligarchy.

Nicaragua and Ecuador? Definitely! A small and corrupt minority of people have grabbed the reins of government for hundreds of years, using it to fatten their wallets, while leaving the rest of their countries to live like animals. In some countries it is particularly bad, and it is there that this message will most resonate.

2) Chavez plays the race card, appealing broadly to the Latin American indigenous population.

Countries that have especially large indigenous populations would definitely succumb to this. For centuries the white, Spanish-descended elite has oppressed the “backward” Indian populations of Latin America, ruling the continent despite being in the vast minority. Chavez says that the Indian majority should overthrow this white ruling class and take majority power. This is where Bolivia and Ecuador come in. So the populist-socialist message combines with the racial message.

3) Chavez plays the anti-imperialism card, singling out the United States, which for Latin America is the perfect scapegoat.

The United States’ history in Latin America is long and complicated. From the Monroe Doctrine to funding the Sandinistas to paramilitary death squads in Guatamala to the War on Drugs, the United States is seen in many quarters of Latin America as imposing its view on the entire hemisphere. Especially in Central America, where the United States has repeatedly intervened in countries’ internal affairs, is the anti-imperialism card most likely to play out. Others just jump on the bandwagon.

Chavez also has the added benefit that some of his ideological opponents have played themselves out and been discredited through scandal and dysfunctionality, thus discrediting the ideology altogether. Free trade and markets are seen as ideologically fused with the leader, so if the leader goes down in flames, so does the idea. That’s why Chavez and all his redistributionalist policies are on top right now — he’s charismatic, and people perceive that its working. That’s why in some countries, like Nicaragua and Ecuador just now, the results of the elections may have been a foregone conclusion whether held this month or a year ago.

Yet for every message there is a counter-message.

However, many countries that are economically more developed and stable, providing ample opportunities for individual prosperity, will not be affected. While Mexico and Chile still have their respected oligarchies, the middle class is growing and loving it. One only has to look at how Mexico’s northern regions voted for conservative Calderon earlier this year to see that. At some point the opportunity beats out the poverty. If the beast is to be humbled, the oligarchs — so afraid of competition for their money — must realize that they will likely be rich as hell no matter what and open up the economy for growth so that those at the bottom can feel it too.

Pan-Indian racial solidarity is also not the only identity in Latin America that is powerful. There is also the nationalist identity. This is how Alan Garcia in Peru put a halt on Chavez’s interference and decisively won the presidential election there — despite a large Indian population! Countries that do not have large Indian but rather mestizo populations will not succumb to this message anyway, but if the message can be made for being loyal to the country rather than Chavez, then it is possible to overcome him.

Lastly, the anti-imperialism message can easily be overcome. Northern Mexico voted for Calderon because NAFTA has brought wonderful opportunities to Mexico that are simply trickling down from the border. Economic growth and prosperity are expanding there; I’ve seen it for myself. The United States and current governments who are willing to do business with it can easily defeat the anti-imperialism types by bringing about the wonders of free trade and foreign investment. If this brings prosperity, rather than greater wealth for the oligarchs, then the United States if anything will be more of a friend than an invader. The message can also be turned on Chavez who, in these recent years, can be seen as interfering in the internal affairs of other Latin American nations much moreso than the United States. There is the possibility, like in Peru, where he can be seen as the imperialist.

The trend in Latin America is going two ways, and the anti-Chavez message is becoming stronger as the movement learns how to push back. The elections in Nicaragua and Ecuador surely add to his count, but it cannot be dismissed that in the last year there has been formidable pushback that will only continue. In Venezuela itself Chavez is facing the greatest threat to his power ever — a democratic candidate with immeasurable support.

It is possible that in a week and a half that Chavez will no longer be with us anymore. If he does not conduct free and fair elections, we may see Latin America’s own democratic colored revolution against his socialist tyranny. And since he is at the top of this personality cult called the Bolivarian Revolution, cutting the head off the snake may itself cause the whole movement to shatter.