I come for a civil discussion. Sorry, my question is a bit complicated.
Note: I am not asking people to argue whether Maduro is a dictator or not. You are free to do so and I will engage, but that’s not my main question.
What I’m asking is, how come most people, especially uninformed people or those who know very little about Venezuela, call Maduro a dictator? Even well-meaning critics of the abduction?
I’m not looking for “well they’re uninformed” answer. I am, sincerely curious how such an opinion is so, widespread?
I would expect uninformed people to take a simplistic, reductive approach of “well there were elections so I guess he can’t be a dictator”. That is assuming they speak on the matter at all.
A simplistic, surface level investigation reveals: there were elections. They were internationally monitored. Highly automated voting system. Etc. It would also reveal they’re challenged by international community, but I imagined most people would be skeptical of that.
I am not denying the presence of arguments against the validity of the elections, but none those arguments are the result of surface level investigation.
What are your thoughts?
A point on ruling by decree: Maduro was already democratically elected when he requested approval to rule by decree, and extended it or re-requested many times to combat Venezuela’s deepest crisis in history. The rule by decree doesn’t negate the election he won.
On your second point: that’s the conclusion from sources with a clear bias and partisan funding. The tallies were released. You’re probably talking about tallies from the individual polling stations, which were released with a short delay, citing technical issues. And by the way, the US elections, for example, do not publish such tallies at all. So it is strange to call Maduro a dictator without saying the same of every US president, and every other world leader whose elections do not make polling station tallies available at all (let alone before announcement).
I want to be clear here, I am simply answering your question about why people think Maduro was a dictator. I’m sure there are counterpoints. Though ruling by decree is a notable feature of dictatorships, and knowing no more about it, it seems odd that a decree was needed if he was already ruling.
On a side note as my comments may come across as supportive of the actions of the US, if we were going to have a world police there is no way I’d want the US involved.
Yes you’re right, I think the fact that the Wikipedia article emphasizes the rule by decree without explaining further can explain why many people arrive to they conclusion, you’re right. I appreciate your answer there!
To add a bit more detail about why the rule by decree was needed, it wasn’t about a need to stay in power. Venezuela’s government system has limited presidential powers. The decree granted him more powers in order to be able to respond to the economic crisis.
The decrees that he requested often times would last 30 days, 60 days, etc. Although the longest one exceeded a year iirc. I’m adding that as a clarifying detail on the role of the decree.