Presidential elections in the past two weeks in two key Latin American countries, Colombia and Peru, provided some interesting points both on the state of democracy in South America and on the general trend of attitudes toward the United States.

The first, in Colombia, pitted President Alvaro Uribe against several contenders. Mr. Uribe had to amend the Colombian constitution to run for a second term. In spite of that and the mixed results he has had both in attaining national reconciliation between leftist and rightist armed, extremist elements and in controlling Colombia's drug culture, he won handily with 62 percent of the vote.

The United States has provided Colombia considerable aid during his time, putting it third after Israel and Egypt in sheer dollars received. The generosity is justified as part of the U.S. anti-narcotics program, but it also involves military assistance, useful to Mr. Uribe's government in fighting off rebels and in protecting an Occidental Petroleum pipeline against outlaw and insurgent activity.

The second election, in Peru, was odd. The outgoing president, Alejandro Toledo, in spite of a good start and Indian bloodlines that should have endeared him to the majority of voters, got into trouble early in his term because of his policies and recorded low popularity ratings.

The two principal candidates in the final round of Peruvian elections were Ollanta Humala and Alan Garcia. Mr. Garcia, as president from 1985 to 1990 wracked up a catastrophic record, particularly in economic terms. Inflation hit 12,000 percent at one point and Peru defaulted on some of its debt. His opponent, Mr. Humala, was considered either a military strongman or a military wild man, and, to boot, was backed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, flush with oil money to put behind him and obvious in his willingness to interfere in the Peruvian elections.

Mr. Chavez probably cost Mr. Humala the election in the end. Mr. Garcia won comfortably. Although he claims to have cleaned up his act, the thought of him in charge of the country's fragile economy again is enough to put many Peruvians' teeth on edge.

Perhaps the best point about both the Colombian and Peruvian elections is that they took place in an air of general peace and tranquillity, even though both countries have something of a history of violence.

The second point is that both elections indicate that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's influence has reached its peak and is now falling. Mr. Chavez and Mr. Uribe of Colombia do not get along well; Mr. Uribe won. Mr. Chavez backed Mr. Humala, who lost in Peru.

It may be that Mr. Chavez's hopes -- and the Bush administration's fears -- that the volatile Venezuelan president was going to play an increasingly important role in Latin America, in league with Cuba's Fidel Castro, Bolivia's new president, Evo Morales, and Brazil's quasi-leftist president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, were ill-founded.

Colombia and Peru recorded different, but idiosyncratic and independent, election results. That is a very helpful outcome for those two countries and for overall U.S. relations with Latin America. Growing polarization between Mr. Chavez and the United States serves no purpose.