Henrique and Hugoliath (The Economist)

IMAGINE an election in which the incumbent routinely commandeers the nation’s airwaves for endless campaign broadcasts while his opponent gets just three minutes a day. The incumbent uses all the resources of the state—money, vehicles, buildings—for his campaign, and he has branded state social-welfare programmes as his own personal gift. He controls the courts and the electoral authority. His opponent’s supporters fear that the ballot is not secret, and that for those of them who work in the public sector, voting against the incumbent could cost them their jobs. That is Venezuela’s presidential ballot on October 7th. No wonder that Henrique Capriles, the opposition candidate, calls the contest between himself and Hugo Chávez, who has ruled Venezuela for almost 14 years, one of David against Goliath, and that one of his allies says that the election will be “free but not fair”.

Yet despite all these unfair advantages, Goliath is threatened. Although he rules as an autocrat and has hollowed out Venezuela’s democracy, Mr Chávez’s legitimacy derives from the ballot box. That is both his greatest strength—and his biggest potential weakness. Unlike his idol, Fidel Castro, Mr Chávez has regularly held himself accountable to the voters, and so far always prevailed. There are two main reasons for that. Even his biggest detractors would have to concede that the president is a political communicator of genius, who enjoys a unique rapport with many poorer Venezuelans. Second, he has been fortunate that his rule has coincided with an unprecedented rise in the price of oil, his country’s main export. That has allowed him to shower tens of billions of dollars on social programmes, and to deploy largesse in order to pose as the champion of the downtrodden throughout Latin America. Had it not been for the oil boom, Mr Chávez would surely have long since become a footnote in Venezuelan history.

A convincing challenger

But there are clear signs that Mr Chávez’s appeal is finally fraying (see article). And so it should: by any objective standard, he has squandered his extraordinary oil windfall. His regime is corrupt and incompetent. His hounding of the private sector has made the country ever more dependent on the state oil company, which he has turned into a bloated all-purpose development agency. Venezuela’s infrastructure is decaying. Unchecked violent crime has made it one of Latin America’s most dangerous places.

For its part, the opposition has learned from its travails. It has put aside past squabbles and united behind Mr Capriles. He is sensibly trying to close Venezuela’s partisan divide by promising to maintain and improve most of Mr Chávez’s social programmes, while pledging to crack down on corruption and boost the economy by seeking the foreign investment the president has shunned.

For all these reasons, Mr Capriles deserves to win, and he just might do so. Although most opinion polls give the president a five-to-ten-point lead, many voters say they are undecided. And although the campaign has been unfair, the electronic voting system itself seems tamper-proof.

If Mr Capriles does win, it will be up to the army and the rest of Latin America to ensure that the result is respected. The unpicking of Mr Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution would make for a difficult transition. Even if Mr Chávez prevails once more, he is unlikely to enjoy the sort of landslide he got in 2006. His health is uncertain and his pre-election spending binge will force him to tighten the purse-strings later this year. Win or lose, Latin America’s most controversial autocrat is a diminished figure.