You did not answer the question. You merely repeated the claim in question, which is not useful to the discussion.
matcha_addict
joined 2 years ago
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 And by the way, the US elections, for example, do not publish such tallies at all.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).
Results were released. Not sure what you mean by tabulated, but I assume you're repeating the talking point about the tallies, which are the tallies from the individual polling stations. Those were also released. But the criticism was that the government announced the results before releasing those individual polling station tallies, citing technical problems.
What makes one a dictator then, if it's not being unelected?
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.
And last, abducting a world leader is unprecedented. Heads of state have always had a level of immunity that all nations respected even when they're at war, as they are vulnerable. Don't kill me and I don't kill you.
Even when they executed Saddam, it was done under the guise of a new Iraqi government doing it. This however is completely different.
The US attack has changed the game, and it may have set the precedence for future head-of-state targetings in the future. But the US likely doesn't care due to their overwhelming superiority.
For the most part, this was an air attack. USA's air superiority over Venezuela is massive, they didn't stand a chance.
The US struck military bases before the abduction, ensuring air defense systems are disabled.
The US used low flying helicopters, advanced dark flares to distract air defense systems, and conducting the attack at night made the response even more difficult.
The Venezuelan army is undertrained and underfunded, so imagine it compared to the largest military in the world. I would bet the army is not very skilled at operating air defense systems anyways.
And BTW, they did fight back, even if it seems they didn't. But they just didn't stand a chance.
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.