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?

  • matcha_addictOPEnglish
    3·
    25 days ago

    Your points in first two paragraphs are valid. Your 3rd paragraph is also valid for someone who is familiar with Venezuela and has kept up with it in the news over the years. But it is not something someone with surface level knowledge and investigation would have come up with, especially for the many people who couldn’t point the country on a map. Which is why I find it puzzling.