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?
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.