Latin Americans no longer fear the left.

      The times when political parties or left-leaning groups were synonymous with revolution, the seizing of power by force, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and Marx as god, are long gone.

      Today, the left in Latin America has learned to play and win in a democracy, to function in market-driven economies in globalized societies, and to take advantage of the huge vacuum for decades left by traditional political parties.

      The left has straightened up.

      The victory of Socialist candidate Michelle Bachelet in the presidential election held last Sunday in Chile, and the great possibilities of victory by indigenous leader Evo Morales this coming Sunday in Bolivia, attest to the fact that a left-leaning wave is spreading throughout Latin America. It is not just a flash in the pan.

      However, the left has yet to show that, besides winning elections, it can govern.

      Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Tabare Vazquez in Uruguay, Lula da Silva in Brazil, Ricardo Lagos in Chile and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela came to power through huge popular discontent with preceding governments. Latin Americans are sick and tired of so-called liberal, or right wing, politicians who filled their pockets while their countries became impoverished.

      That is why now, after two lost decades, voters are giving the left a chance. The prevailing attitude is this: the right and the traditional parties already tried and failed, so, why not let the left have a go?

      The hope is they will steal less, lead better, create more jobs, reduce social inequalities, refrain from violent repression, and, most importantly, tell the truth.

      The central challenge in Latin America is poverty. There is no other. More than half the population in Latin America is poor and lives on salaries of less than $5 a day. That is why they complain and that is why they migrate to the United States. The great tragedy of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st is that neo-liberal policies have done nothing to reduce the numbers of poor, with the notable exception of Chile.

      Lagos, the outgoing president of Chile, is the best example of how politicians of the left can be prudent (though "conservative" could be the description) in their handling of the economy without sacrificing their socialist ideas. Today there are fewer poor in Chile than when Lagos came to office.

      By contrast, Chavez, the Venezuelan president trying to extend his grip on power beyond 2013, is an example of how populism, nationalism and facile anti-American rhetoric can inflict damage on a society. In spite of soaring prices of oil, Venezuela's principal resource, there are greater numbers of poor people and less democracy in that country today than when Chavez came to power.

      Chavez, as a soldier, knows only how to use confrontational language _ the recent insults leveled against the American and Mexican presidents and whomever else gets in his way are examples _ but as a leader and administrator he has turned out to be more than mediocre. Also, his alliance with Castro's Cuba suggests little imagination and muddled, outmoded ideological thinking.

      The black hole of Latin America's left is Cuba. It's incomprehensible and inexcusable that leaders who came to power in legitimate and competitive elections pay homage to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. It is extreme hypocrisy to call for democracy for Brazilians, Argentineans and Uruguayans, but not for Cubans on the island, who can't even use the Internet freely and are jailed for voicing opposition to the 46-year-old regime.

      Castro and Chavez would undoubtedly love to sequester the new Latin American left. Now, however, being democratic is more important than being on the left. Having connections to either of these two little tyrants would be the kiss of death in today's free elections.

      As one example, take a look at the political juggling of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the Mexican Democratic Revolution Party's presidential candidate, as he tries to avoid being labeled by his opponents as the "Mexican Chavez." If that label sticks, he could lose the July 2, 2006 election.

      What all this means is there is more than one kind of left. There's a new left: efficient, realistic, young and democratic. But it has yet to separate itself from the old authoritarian left: violent, reactionary, narcissistic and horrifyingly useless when it comes to governing.

      This seems to be the new era of the left in Latin America. We'll see it in the 10 elections coming up in 2006. But to be successful, they have to provide concrete solutions to concrete problems. It is not enough simply to get into power. In the end, the left, as any other form of government, will be measured by their results, not their rhetoric.

      Fighting for the poor and exploited is as idealistic now as it was during the Mexican Revolution in 1910, or the Sandinista Revolution in 1979. It's a matter of emphasis: to defend those at the bottom and not those at the top.

      But not until now is there a real possibility that the majority of the 500 million in Latin America will be governed by the left. Let's see how it will go.

      It will be simple to figure out whether they're successful or not. If by the end of their terms there are fewer poor and more young people with good jobs, that will be called a success. If there are fewer wealthy politicians by the end of their mandates, that, too, will be a success. If by the end of their terms fewer people decide to emigrate to the North, that will be a success. If by the end of their periods in office there is more social stability and less criminality, they will have succeeded.

      Moreover, if by the end of their administrations, Latin America, as a region, can compete with China, India, the United States and the European Union, then, and only then, will they be called a success.

      Meanwhile, the left is merely a promise.