Hugo Chavez was perhaps democracy’s most abject embarrassment. From his election as president of Venezuela in 1998 until the coup that caused him to step down late last week, Mr. Chavez had established a record of irresponsible, ineffective and unaccountable leadership that was the envy of despots everywhere. Breaking promises to end corruption and cronyism, driving his oil-rich country deeper into poverty, alienating skilled workers and educated professionals, befriending the likes of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein, condoning the massacre of peaceful demonstrators – he had pretty much made the complete transition from representative of the people to tyrant.

The final straw, after the slaughter of 14 striking workers last Thursday by Chavez supporters, was his order that the military should open fire on fellow Venezuelans marching in protest. Military commanders refused to follow that monstrous order and instead compelled his resignation.

It was a coup and now it’s not. Mr. Chavez was returned to power Sunday and, although the precise conditions military commanders attached to this second chance are unknown, the general outline seems to call for responsible and moderate rule. His public statements are – for him, at least – conciliatory, even apologetic. Given the opportunity to blame all his woes on the United States, a favorite pastime of the old Chavez, the new demurred.

Credit that, in part, to surviving a brush with political death. Credit the other part to some rather astute diplomacy by the United States. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations refrained from openly criticizing Mr. Chavez, despite all the provocation he offered. The Bush administration was especially wise not to turn cartwheels upon hearing of his ouster. There were no expressions of regret, but nothing was said that needs to be taken back.

This was wise primarily because the world’s leading democracy cannot support something as undemocratic as a military coup unless circumstances are dire and there is no alternative. The alternative is democracy – congressional elections later this year in which Venezuelans can pass judgment on the Constituent Assembly Mr. Chavez now controls and, in 2006, a presidential election. Mr. Chavez, then, now has four years to do what he said he’d spend the last four years doing.

Another reason the United States must proceed cautiously here is oil. Venezuela provides 15 percent of U.S. imports and, while the Chavez government is no stranger to the politics of oil, it is one of the more rule-abiding members of OPEC, meeting but rarely exceeding quotas. The health of the U.S. economy simply depends more upon stable supply than upon rock-bottom prices.

In between the principles of democracy and the craven thirst for oil lies a third reason improved U.S.-Venezuela relations matter. Latin America is a political and economic mess – Colombia is ravaged by guerrilla warfare, terrorism stalks Peru, Argentina is bankrupt. The region needs an anchor of democracy. Sadly, Venezuela is as good as it gets. If Mr. Chavez follows through on his post-coup promises and allows dissent to be heard, it could even get better.