Hugo chavez is dead

[Nikka]

R.I.P. :dead-1:

[Fancy fancy]

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has died, his vice-president has announced.

Mr Chavez had not appeared in public since he returned to Venezuela last month after cancer treatment in Cuba.

An emotional Nicolas Maduro made the announcement on Tuesday evening, flanked by leading Venezuelan political and military leaders.

Earlier, he said the 58-year-old Venezuelan leader had a new, severe respiratory infection and had entered "his most difficult hours".

One of the most visible, vocal and controversial leaders in Latin America, the former army paratrooper won the presidency in 1998 and had most recently won another six-year presidential term in October 2012.

Continue reading the main story
Hugo Chavez

Born 28 July 1954 in Sabaneta, Barinas state, the son of schoolteachers
Graduated from military academy in 1975
Had four children
Keen baseball player
Last May, he said he had recovered from an unspecified cancer, after undergoing surgery and chemotherapy in 2011 and a further operation in February 2012.

However, in December 2012, he announced he needed further cancer surgery in Cuba, and named his Vice-President, Nicolas Maduro, as his preferred successor should the need arise.

Mr Chavez remained out of public view, finally returning to Venezuela in February

[Fancy fancy]

You know what, I don't know if this guy was good for Venezuela or not (and latin America & what he stood for) so I ain't gonna comment & leave it to the more well informed.

I think Latin America is changing though. :salad

[bluesoul]

R.I.P. :dead-1:

julian assange: *gulp*
rest of the world: huh?

[Stavros]

Nothing personal, but I could never get excited about a man who saw no problem linking socialism with nationalism. Had Venezuela not become so polarised in the years before he was elected, it might not have needed someone like him to shake up a corrupt and ossified political culture. But then Venezuela has an abundance of oil and has money to spend -but is it spending on the right things, building for a long term future, or just giving away gifts to people in return for votes? Oil-rich states that play games in international politics usually mess up in the long term; Chavez could have built strong relationships with Colombia but chose confrontation instead -I think he liked it, but neither country benefited as a result.

Either way, beauty pageants are BIG business in Venezuela, and although I don't know many -well, any!- Venezuelan transexuals (cue Nikka -you must know some!), that at least is not going to change.

[GroobySteven]

He was certainly on his way to dictatorship.

[GroobySteven]

julian assange: *gulp*
rest of the world: huh?

That's funny!

[Prospero]

Not as clued as I should be on south america either, but I certainly recall a lot of bad publicity about the repressiveness of his regime.

[Bigshot88]

R.I.P. :dead-1:

It used to annoy me when he would threaten or insult my country, until I realized that the guy was just a provocateur and a clown of the highest order. Got plenty of those insulting us to go around, so no point going around angry at all of them. Rest in peace.

[buttslinger]

Castro supposedly slept with 35,000 women in his life. It's good to be Dictator.

[Dino Velvet]

R.I.P. :dead-1:

I'm with 'ya, kid. South America smells better now.

Larga vida al conductor del autobús!

[explorerchick]

Ding Dong the Wicked dick is dead

[robertlouis]

He was certainly on his way to dictatorship.

Indeed. How quaint to have a leftist leader in South America after all the hideous fascist thugs propped up by the CIA over the decades.....

[RallyCola]

maybe now Venezuela will stop selling all its oil to china and joe kennedy.

[robertlouis]

maybe now Venezuela will stop selling all its oil to china and joe kennedy.

How awful that another - independent - country doesn't put the US first. SMH.

An alternative view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-poor-leftwing-figurehead (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-poor-leftwing-figurehead)

[GroobySteven]

Indeed. How quaint to have a leftist leader in South America after all the hideous fascist thugs propped up by the CIA over the decades.....

Yet not original. The saddest part of these people who original aim to give the country back to the people is that power almost always corrupts (see Castro for good example) and their ego-mania takes over their morals.

"There was Chávez the dictator who jailed opponents, sponsored terrorists and left his people hungry. And there was Chávez the hero who empowered the poor, deepened democracy and stood up to the US.The reality was more complex and fascinating. Chávez was a hybrid, a democrat and autocrat, a progressive and a bully. His "Bolìvarian revolution", named after the 19th-century revolutionary Simón Bolìvar, embodied these contradictions. He created a personality cult, abolished term limits, curbed private media and put the armed forces, legislature, judiciary and state oil company, PDVSA, under his personal control. He turned a blind eye to Farc guerrilla camps near the Colombian border and hailed the likes of Mugabe, Gaddafi and Assad as brothers."


While no fan of the US propped dictators and the US certainly over-reacted to Chavez's digs at them, in much the same way they've over-reacted for decades to Cuba (and made themselves look fools to the rest of the world) - Chavez seemed to become fairly similar to those same dictators and spent too much time just trying to snub the US, instead of working with them.


The most interesting part of the article is that we'll never know what his overall plan or legacy would be, I don't he could have written his death by natural causes at 58.


PS - so much for Cuba's miracle cures?

[Prospero]

Perhaps he should have taken a leaf from Fidel's book and made longer speeches. Castro sometimes spoke for seven or eight hours.

[Bigshot88]

How awful that another - independent - country doesn't put the US first. SMH.

An alternative view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-poor-leftwing-figurehead (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-poor-leftwing-figurehead)

I love the UK and have lots of friends there, and as a man of English descent I consider myself a kinsman to them. But I notice that Brits seem to feel incredibly entitled to bile spititing hatred of US foreign policy considering that we learned at the feet of the masters. 90 percent of the ethnic and political struggles in the middle east and africa exist because some Englishman took a pencil and drew a line on a map during the colonial period, cynically seeking to divide groups to prevent them from forming strong national identities. Or how about when they flooded China with opium in order to control tea prices, nearly causing the whole country to collapse into ruin as a result
I don't feel we're any better than the UK where these matters are concerned, because I'm not one of those Americans who likes to ignore the ugly parts of our history. So I suppose my question is, where do UKers get this selectiive memory issue when it comes to imperialistic foreign policy? Secondly, why is it so strident and intense? I don't understand why despite history, Americans have a generally positive view of the UK, but it seems like the British never pass up the chance to point fingers and call us scum
Just a civil, reasonable question. I'm not attacking anyone.

[Prospero]

And Bigshot that is a a good question.

The trouble with this is that many of us Brits, RL and myself included, certainly DO accept the crimes of the past by the British Empire. nd to a considerable extent this shapes much present day thinking by those of us on the Liberal-Left part of the political spectrum.

But that does not exonerate the world's largest and only real superpower from its own foolish and sometimes criminal behaviours on the international stage. The invasion of Irq, for instance, with UK support. There are other instances but this will do as an example. I don't think it is inappropriate for an Englishman, or frenchman, or german or Japanese to criticise US foreign police - or engage in debates about the nature of US domestic politics - simply because we all have, largely ackowledged, skeletons in our wardrobes. What the US does, internationally and externally impacts on us all.

I love the US - visit several times a year - have family and many friends there. A second home to me really. But I cannot and will not stay silent about its geopolitical behaviour - and feel we have every right to speak out.

The fact you do not hear much here from other parts of the world is almost certainly because of the demographics of this site... with Americans and Brits dominating the discourse.

[Prospero]

And I have never called the USA or its people scum. My strongest criticism - as you'd see if you read my many posts in the politics section - is for those on the Right Wing of US politics who are, in my view, guilty of betraying the US people in manifold ways.

You don't see much discussion of UK politics here because -- well I doubt if most people here would read it. And there don't seem to be too many UK Conservatives who post to this site.

But wait until Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair die. You'll certainly see a fair bit of discussion about their records.

[GroobySteven]

I don't feel we're any better than the UK where these matters are concerned, because I'm not one of those Americans who likes to ignore the ugly parts of our history. So I suppose my question is, where do UKers get this selectiive memory issue when it comes to imperialistic foreign policy? Secondly, why is it so strident and intense? I don't understand why despite history, Americans have a generally positive view of the UK, but it seems like the British never pass up the chance to point fingers and call us scum
Just a civil, reasonable question. I'm not attacking anyone.

It's a good point (and this thread is soon to be moved to the political section).
Being a Brit who has lived and worked in the US for almost half my life, I have a good perspective on both and your comments above, I've heard multiple times. It's simple. You are bringing up points on Imperialism which are historical and clearly out of date in modern times. It's akin to bringing up historical facts of American forces genocide on Native Americans, their country being built on slavery or the fact that some states practiced cannibalism, fairly recently.

The US came into the WW2 fairly late (and through being forced into it) and their has been ongoing issues with their insistence (perhaps not unjustly) about how they "saved our asses" yet made a huge amount of money out of that war and I think there is probably some issues left over from there but the real reasons why British people complain about the US politics are multiple fold.
The US has meddled and bullied (and often with the UK governments help, even though the majority of people in the UK didn't want it - and in coming elections voted against those parties) in many foreign policy disasters. Their "chicken-licken" war against Communism was puerile and going to war with Iraq (and dragging the UK into it despite most public not wanting to - thanks Tony!) under the excuse of of weapons of mass destruction was extremely damaging. I also think many in the UK are disgusted at the way subsequent UK governments have bowed to US pressure, so much of the ire is unfairly places at the feet of the US when it the UK government could have listened to it's people.

Finally, and with no disrespect intended - it's because every time we see the US on the news, you come across as a bunch of absolutely mental, crazies. I see this in the US news also. There are things that go on in the USA which just seem so outrageous, immature, out of touch and over-the-top that the rest of the world, find it hard to see the US as a credible country. From the polarization of politicians and the inability to find middle ground, from the amount of gun deaths (and the unwillingness to blame it on guns despite the statistics), from the apparent on-going racial issues/tensions, the anti-abortion lobby and the terrorism that goes with that, vote fixing and allegations of stolen elections, the madness of the health and pharmacutical industries not allowing booze to 21 yr olds but allowing them to go to war at 18, the hypocrisies on human rights, etc.

On the other hand, the UK loves (obsesses) about many US things from music and entertainment, much of the culture and we're possibly one of the larger tourist groups to visit the US. American's generally get a warm welcome in the UK. Perhaps it's because we see a warped refection of what we could become ... or what we once were.

The second greatest trick the US ever pulled, was convincing the world that they were the "greatest country on the Earth".
The greatest trick the US ever pulled was convincing their own people, that they were the "greatest country on Earth".

While most nation's people are patriotic, only the US people appear to be as blind as some dictatorship's countries. The US is the only Western country where I've ever heard people who criticized the government being called "unpatriotic" and to "leave the country if they don't like it."

[mastersack]

hi may i bottom

[Bigshot88]

Prospero, senchai, all good input and good points that help me see the other perspective. As an American living in America it's easy to forget how pervasive our culture is in other countries and how crazy a lot of it must seem.
Part of the problem is I'm a liberal, which has sadly become a dirty word in our discourse, so much to the point where I would probably lose my job if my supervisors knew my politics. I can't even discuss things like abortion, marriage equality, or religion with them. Believe me, I am aware of how the conservative movement makes us look as a country. It frightens me. But I also can feel things churning beneath the surface indicating that the average, centrist American is just about fed up with the extremes' domination of the discussion.
This does help me understand why the criticism is so vehement and current. Though it would help to remember that average Americans like myself are nieither on the extreme politically nor are we roaming the halls of power where these sorts of subversive, machiavellian political plots are hatched.
Thanks for the articulate and civil discourse.

[GroobySteven]

Bigshot - you are hitting the nail right on the head. I've so many US friends who are like you and sick of the hijacking of their politics by specific interest groups on both sides of the fence, it's time that the US had a middle-ground party.
It beggars belief to many, that the word "liberal" has became so demonized and I find this particularly infuriating.
I think what's important for someone like yourself to understand, is that Brits only get what they know of Americans via TV which of course are often extremes (the same as Americans think we all drink tea non-stop, have terrible teeth and are either happy chimney sweeps, related to the Queen or Mr.Bean). Many Brits have visited the US - and most of us know, that it's the extremes which cause the problems and also create the stereotypes.

[Stavros]

I love the UK and have lots of friends there, and as a man of English descent I consider myself a kinsman to them. But I notice that Brits seem to feel incredibly entitled to bile spititing hatred of US foreign policy considering that we learned at the feet of the masters. 90 percent of the ethnic and political struggles in the middle east and africa exist because some Englishman took a pencil and drew a line on a map during the colonial period, cynically seeking to divide groups to prevent them from forming strong national identities. Or how about when they flooded China with opium in order to control tea prices, nearly causing the whole country to collapse into ruin as a result
I don't feel we're any better than the UK where these matters are concerned, because I'm not one of those Americans who likes to ignore the ugly parts of our history. So I suppose my question is, where do UKers get this selectiive memory issue when it comes to imperialistic foreign policy? Secondly, why is it so strident and intense? I don't understand why despite history, Americans have a generally positive view of the UK, but it seems like the British never pass up the chance to point fingers and call us scum
Just a civil, reasonable question. I'm not attacking anyone.

You are right that memory is selective -historically, North America was more important to the British Empire economically thany any other colonial region, and while India has retained its historic fascination there aren't many people familiar with Warren Hastings, 'the Mutiny' or Gandhi's campaign against the Salt Tax. The history of the British in Africa is even less understood, there were no major commemorations of the second Boer War (1899-1902) ten or so years ago -perhaps because it was a military failure: a war that was supposed to be over in a month dragged on for more than two years and at the time was the most expensive military campaign the British had undertaken since the Napoleonic Wars, and exposed the strategic weaknesses in the high command that were not dealt with before the 1914-1918 War, and can even be seen in the mess we got into in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years.

Some issues, like Mau Mau appear in the news but is poorly understood, and your remark about lines on a map forgets that the lines in the Middle East were drawn with the connivance of the French and that before the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 the British were doing secret deals with the Russians (Imperial), the French and the Italians which divided up the Ottoman Empire for their own benefit. The lamentable history of three Anglo-Afghan Wars since the 19th century never exercised its warning over successive British governments, and anyway Tony Blair speaking to the US Congress in 2003 said in effect that history has no meaning. His action in Iraq was based on what he thought was achievable, and was not 'distorted' by Britain's record in creating the state after the First World War.

For my generation, the Vietnam War was the one event that undermined my image of the USA as it wanted to be seen, possibly because we did not know at the time of the atrocities the US troops committed against the Japanese - it was made worse by the fact that militarily the US forces were unable to achieve anything decisive while in the process dragging in Cambodia and Laos and looking humiliated in the process when these states became Communist.

Most of us admire the US for its attitudes to democracy, the greater flexibility of society and the economy and the riches of its culture, yet cannot understand why the values of freedom and democracy are and have been left behind when it is in 'the national interest' to support some ruthless dictator abroad because he is 'on our side' -the history of the relations between the US and Saudi Arabia ought to be an embarrassment. There have also been some positives, in both British and American Imperialism, but the modern world is often characterised by its self-absorbed anxieties instead of its successes, or maybe we take the advances of science and technology for granted. We really should be amazed every time we turn on a computer or smart phone.

Chavez on one level may have been good for Venezuela, but most states are complex organisms and on balance I think he took the country in the wrong direction, but we shall wait and see what happens next.

[irvin66]

El gran comandante, el presidente ha muerto, viva el presidente! 8-)

[mattavs1]

Chavez was a great man, one of the few leaders who ever really did something for the poor. Absolute nonsense that he was a dictator. He won 4 elections in a row, the last time just a few months ago with more votes than ever.

[Human-After-All]

He was certainly on his way to dictatorship.

Ridiculous thing to say.

Even US officials like Jimmy Carter applauded Venezuelan democracy. What are you basing this notion on?

Venezuela had its problems like an extremely high crime rate for example, and Chavez did court some unsavoury allies (then again, the US and the UK back up the dictatorial Saudi Royal Family as well as the autocratic regime in Egypt and elsewhere (until the writing was on the wall for those regimes.

The only people I've ever heard with gripes against Chavez are Venezuelans who lost money after the Bolivarian revolution, the kind of people who backed the previous regimes and the kind of people who backed the 2002 coup, (eg: people who's families lost money when oil was nationalised). The fact is, real progress was made under Chavez administration.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/hugo-chavez-was-a-democrat-not-a-dictator-and-showed-a-progressive-alternative-to-neoliberalism-is-both-possible-and-popular-8522329.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-people-venezuelan-president

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/4/1349347635293/Venezuela-key-indicators--009.jpg

[Ben]

Chavez was a great man, one of the few leaders who ever really did something for the poor. Absolute nonsense that he was a dictator. He won 4 elections in a row, the last time just a few months ago with more votes than ever.

It's true. He did win again and again and again... and again.
I'd just add that all forms of concentrated power -- whether it's the CEO of a transnational corporation or the President of the U.S. -- isn't healthy for a meaningful democratic society. (I mean, in the U.S. and Britain and a slew of other so-called First World countries [really state-corporate-capitalist countries] we've what should be called: the unelected dictatorship of Capital.... I mean, in America about 70 percent of the population have no say or sway on public policy. None. Does that really sound like a meaningful and profound democratic society?
And the further up the income ladder you go, well, you get more influence. And at the very top -- think: the Kochs, Adelson, Pete Peterson -- you basically get what you want.
Read: Affluence and Influence by Martin Gilens.

Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/)

The Venezuelan leader was often marginalized as a radical. But his brand of socialism achieved real economic gains

[irvin66]

Chavez was a great man, one of the few leaders who ever really did something for the poor. Absolute nonsense that he was a dictator. He won 4 elections in a row, the last time just a few months ago with more votes than ever.

I agree with you. He did much for the poor that was pressed in the shit and they were never seen. He was a father of the nation that made the poor and the landless were given a new hope for the future. Those who say he was a dictator is a reactionary imperialist fools who are brainwashed by capitalism...:ignore:

[Ben]

Noam Chomsky - Difference between Democratic and Totalitarian Societies


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVajvrI6x_k

[Stavros]

The link below is to a book which offers a different perspective on the record of Chavez in power in Venezuela; by two academics who would not be welcome in the drawing rooms of Noam Chomsky or (in the UK) Tariq Ali (who wrote a greasy, tearful artice on Chavez in The Guardian a day or so ago).

The authors argue that Chavez presided over a Hybrid form of democracy which uses both democracy and autocracy to impose its will on the state -numerous elections validate the government which then fails to engage in any meaningful debate with the people, which has introduced the military into many areas of the economy that have nothing to do with national security; that has failed to implement economic reforms to encourage the growth of the non-oil economy, that uses oil revenues politically, and which thus produce the paradox of a regime that appears to be using its democratic mandate to 'help the poor' but which on investigation uses short-term measures to disguise its strengthening of the state and the military. Chavez came from the military, and they have done best out of his years in power.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pxgkx1rRkJQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=success+and+failure+of+hugo++chavez++&ots=zPJW5eIj9w&sig=1snvb620HZyQIs9hihdQ6Z1A2-8#v=onepage&q=success%20and%20failure%20of%20hugo%20%20chavez&f=false

[Human-After-All]

The link below is to a book which offers a different perspective on the record of Chavez in power in Venezuela; by two academics who would not be welcome in the drawing rooms of Noam Chomsky or (in the UK) Tariq Ali (who wrote a greasy, tearful artice on Chavez in The Guardian a day or so ago).

I haven't read the book but all of those exact same criticisms could be levelled at US Democracy, the military-industrial complex, the lack of effective representation, the lack of any significant political divide (forget the media depiction of left and right, in terms of political science, both parties are centre-right) which means that elections are a mere formality, etc.

[Stavros]

If you can't tell the difference between the USA and Venezuela, between a federated structure which separates powers between the Presidency, the Judiciary and the Legislature, a state that doesn't own its energy industries and is not almost entirely dependent on oil; and one that plays politics with its single resource and has failed to promote the diversity of economic behaviour the state desperately needs, then what hope is there for even a balanced view of Chavez's record?

[broncofan]

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/11/3121746/grandson-of-holocaust-survivors-announces-run-for-venezuelan-president

I followed the last election in October and was disappointed that Radonski was constantly referred to by the free press..ahem I'm sorry I mean the state run media in Venezuela as representing the Jewish-Zionist bourgeoisie. It's very much in the spirit of democracy to have a state run media organ slander your rival for his Jewish roots by claiming he's a fifth columnist.

I'm not saying Chavez did not do anything useful for his people, but for those who want to portray him as a saint, I'm not drinking the koolaid. The state media in Venezuela did this on numerous occasions under Chavez' regime. Chavez also had ongoing surveillance of synagogues to ward off the influence of zionism, and when acts of vandalism took place against a synagogue it was later found out the police were involved. That's more than a national security excess to have plain clothes police forces covertly intimidate a minority.

We've had many discussions in here about the supposed redundancy of our political parties in the United States and in every iteration the differences in the positions taken between our two major political parties have been discussed. The Democrats supported PPACA, while the Republicans wanted a health care system with a gutted version of Medicare and vouchers. What would qualify as choice? A third party that supports a nationalized system of witch doctors?

[yodajazz]

Seems to me, any nation that nationalizes assets, is viewed as an enemy of the US. For example the coup in Iran in the early 50's was supported by Britain and the US, partially out of fear that the new democratic government would nationalized it's oil production. Here is the link to an article which give a very favorable view of the progress under his leadership.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/03/the-revolution-within-the-revolution-will-continue/

[notdrunk]

Seems to me, any nation that nationalizes assets, is viewed as an enemy of the US. For example the coup in Iran in the early 50's was supported by Britain and the US, partially out of fear that the new democratic government would nationalized it's oil production. Here is the link to an article which give a very favorable view of the progress under his leadership.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/03/the-revolution-within-the-revolution-will-continue/

I am calling :bs:. During World War 1, the United States government temporary nationalized the railroad system in the United States. The British, an United States ally, has nationalized businesses (e.g., Rolls-Royce and British Steel). Interestingly, the British government owned majority of the shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

[hippifried]

Ah here we go again. Chavez did NOT nationalize Venezuela's oil. It was already nationalized. I don't believe any of Venezuela's petroleum reserves were in private hands during Hugo Chavez's lifetime or before. Any more gripes about the horrible atrocities that must've been committed because Chavez was reading the "wrong" books & quoting the "wrong" authors?

[broncofan]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/29236/hugo-chavez-s-real-legacy-is-one-of-vicious-anti-semitism-against-the-jews-of-venezuela

Here's an article about Chavez' anti-semitism. To echo what someone said in another thread, don't they deserve to be treated as human beings and equal citizens? The Chavez years were not very fruitful for this part of Venezuelan society.

There were no atrocities, just harassment, demonization, state sponsored vandalism and large-scale immigration.

Chavez was also a 9/11 truther. Some may say this is his viewpoint and he's entitled to it (well he is/was); however I think it's a despicable viewpoint for a head of state. There are some views, including those where an individual denies atrocities for which the evidence overwhelmingly supports, that act as a smokescreen for a most distilled hatred. Again, if Chavez was good for his country's economy, that's great but it doesn't change his civil rights record.

I also don't see Holocaust denial as trivial. Is someone a Holocaust denier because they associate with a Holocaust denier? Well no, but if they frequently invite a man to their country and have their closest diplomatic relations with a head of state who held a Holocaust revisionist conference, it makes one question their moral authority. He uttered not one word of rebuke to Ahmadinejad for the hatred he incited. Even Fidel Castro, a staunch enemy of Israel was able to demonstrate the difference between hatred of Israel and hatred of Jews. He spoke out in disagreement with the actions of the former, but in defense of the latter with his rebuke of both Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

I think some believe that Chavez' intemperate, cranky, and often patently unfair criticism of the U.S makes him a hero of the left. Some of his criticism was bound to hit the mark, but there are many U.S citizens who fairly criticize their government and aren't turned into heroes for it. To criticize one's government is a patriotic duty. It's not somehow made better through excess or by making it irrational (9/11 truth).

[broncofan]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/02/24/venezuela.human.rights/

"The 319-page report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights says a lack of independence by Venezuela's judiciary and legislature in their dealings with leftist President Hugo Chavez often leads to the abuses."

I'm more interested in the centralization of power in Venezuela, the constitutional changes to eliminate term limits, the disadvantages of politicians running against the incumbent given state ownership of media, and the threat to those who challenged the power of the Chavez regime than I am in economic outcomes. The arguments that Chavez improved the economy and quality of life of Venezuelans and that he weakened democracy and achieved status as a quasi-dictator are not mutually exclusive.