this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2026
1 points (54.5% liked)

Political Discussion and Commentary

1187 readers
79 users here now

A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!

The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.

Content Rules:

  1. Self posts preferred.
  2. Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
  3. No spam or self promotion.
  4. Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.

Commentary Rules

  1. Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
  2. Stay on topic.
  3. Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
  4. Provide credible sources whenever possible.
  5. Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
  6. Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
  7. Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).

Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.

Partnered Communities:

Politics

Science

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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).

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] matcha_addict@lemy.lol 2 points 4 days ago

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.