dear andrew dale,
i'm a little slow on the uptake here, would you please explain the difference between "indefinitely" and "the removal of term limits"?
so sorry to have troubled you.

james, doncaster, uk

You 've got some really scarey people reading your column Mr Aaronovitch.

uperry, Canterbury, kent

History keeps repeating itself and the apologists keep making the same mistakes over and over again. It is of course entirely possible that the likes of Mugabe and Chavez start out with the very best of intentions. But power corrupts and they, like so many leaders, develop messianic tendencies and become cut off from reality. The same could happen here but of course we have checks and balances to stop this from taking full root. In less developed democracies the apparatus can more easily be dismantled. It will happen in Venezuela as it is happening now in Russia and has happened in Zimbabwe. It could even happen in South Africa. I hope I'm wrong but history shows that I'm probably not.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

During the Vietnam War, university students in the US proved one of the main group of actors in opposition to the US government's warmaking.

It's a little more than ironic that - in addition to local media - it's the Venezuelan university students who protested loudly and on videotape shown around the world against Hugo's Constitutional <i>reforms</i> prior to the recent election.

Priceless!

Jack Coupal, Lexington, Kentucky USA

Why does Aaronovitch not write critcal articles about dictators who are pro America i.e Musharraf, Mubarak etc. His arguments would sound more geniune if he was scathing about actions of Musharraf, but he always seems quiet about actions of pro western regimes.
I don't know what Aaronovitchs views are about Musharraf, but people of his ilk seem to think that Musharraf is the best hope for Pakistan - simply because he seems to be pro- Washington. Imagine Chavez doing what Musharraf is doing in Pakistan? People like Aaronovitch would go mad.
Aaronovitchs view seems to be that it is only worhtwhile condeming dictators if they are anti western and democracy is only good if it means government friendly to Washington.

Suleman, Birmingham, UK

David, if as you say your Spanish is poor, so you should not write about things you can’t clearly understand.
I’ll try to help, the King Juan Carlos simply told President Chavez “man why don’t you shut up “he had forgotten that here in South America Spanish kings had been kicked out long ago.
I know the problems English people have with the Greek language but you should not forget that Chavez was clearly elected in a democratic way, and to change some points of Venezuela’s constitution he called his people to a referendum respecting and admitting the results. Last but not least when a president is with the people he is then a populist?
Improve your Spanish and visit Venezuela again o if not, may you kindly can shut up!

maria clara, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Poor old Aaronovitch. made to look a complete patsy over his support for 'democractically elected' Bush's crazy wars, never able to own up. So now what? Join the neo-con feeding frenzy over Chavez, who, unlike Bush or Bliar has been repeatedly re-elected by a majority of the voters, smearing him as a 'dictator'. I'm sure they'll reward you in good time with a sinecure at some right-wing think-tank where you can carry on speaking shifty lies to the weak, and congratulating the powerful for their vitue

Conall, Margam, Wales

Interesting that it takes a King to talk to a Dictator.As for a mad dictator better that than a mad President and Vice president dreaming of WMD and tilting at windmills in the middle east.Don Quijote here I come.

Andrew G O'Donnell, Sacramento, USA/CA

What's everyone's problem with Mugabe? Has he started wars that killed millions in Africa? Perhaps had he done this, as Paul Kagame has done, he'd be a respectable guest at that summit in Portugal...

All discussions on Mugabe of course omit the role of the International Monetary Fund, except of course to provide a kind of justification for the awful results of its policies; that is, it can't be worse than Mugabe's policies, the supposed ne-plus-ultra of economic mismanagement. Ten years of IMF rule caused incredible damage to Zimbabwe, particularly to its education and health systems. Now we see Western leaders lecturing Zimbabwe about its low life expectancy when these result in part from the sort of austerity the IMF demanded and executed there for a decade. This was followed up with comprehensive financial sanctions in place since 2002. Neighbouring Zambia and Malawi suffer from similar tolls from AIDS and the IMF, yet their leaders are not openly blamed for this as Mugabe is.

Rich, Montreal, Canada

What's so wrong with nationalising resources David?
Is it because it is inefficient? I guess efficiency means profits being funneled into the hands of a local elite and much of it being syphoned north.
It's disgraceful they should want to use their own resources for their own ends!
Seriously, there is something wonderful about someone sticking two fingers up to the Yanks and the system they foist on Latin America and the rest of the developed world to it's detriment.
Yes, Chavez can be a pain in the backside and I am glad that Venezuelans had the wisdom to reject his bid for long term power.
But Venezuela IS a republic and Chavez WAS democratically elected.
This piece largely consists of absurd conjecture.

Jason, London, England

The reason that the 'Ken Livingstone's' keep backing this type of regime are obvious. They have never had a Marxist/Communist state that has worked and are desparate for one. So every time one comes along they immediately think ' this is THE ONE'. What they fail to understand, or more likely don't want to understand, is that such a state cannot succeed. Capitalism is not perfect but it's the best that is currently available.

John, Reading, uk

What a load of twaddle. Chavez came to power in free, fair, democratic elections, and has used to wealth of the country to benefit it's poor - what a concept! The referendum he recently lost was not to keep him in power indefinitely (despite the misleading headlines in the Western press), it was just to remove term limits.

And as for the "bolivarian bonfire" Jeff K mentions, I can imagine the sort of Latin American regimes you've spent your career propping up - probably the sort of kleptocracies that butchered their populations in the 10's of thousands. As long as they're right wing, eh?

Andrew Dale, London,

It can be difficult to tell whether the comparative rarity of a benevolent leader in a progressive state (such as Singapore) is evidence of embedded defect in the dictator model, or of preferable alternative to the chaos which can be enabled by democracy where preparation has been inadequate.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

Mr. Aaronovitch is so far off mark, it's unbelievable. Chavez has not only won elections that were free and fair, but the only election he lost by "one point" he accepted its results without question. As far as democracy goes, his track record cannot be questioned.
Chavez has also forged a new face for South America, which has long been the stomping ground for dictators propelled into power by the USA. Was the writer around when Pinochet murdered tens of thousands in Chile, when as many if not more "disappeared" in Argentina? Has he witnessed the plight of the "invisible" on the continent--the indigenous people?
More than these, has he noted that Venezuela is using its immense oil wealth not to buy into bankrupt banks in the UK and Europe, but to help the poor in South America, the Caribbean, and even in the USA? Or fact that poverty has been a "staple" in South America long before Chavez was born? Chavez is a saviour...not a dictator.

Raffique Shah

Raffique Shah, Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago

Mr. Aaronovitch is so far off mark, it's unbelievable. Chavez has not only won elections that were free and fair, but the only election he lost by "one point" he accepted its results without question. As far as democracy goes, his track record cannot be questioned.
Chavez has also forged a new face for South America, which has long been the stomping ground for dictators propelled into power by the USA. Was the writer around when Pinochet murdered tens of thousands in Chile, when as many if not more "disappeared" in Argentina? Has he witnessed the plight of the "invisible" on the continent--the indigenous people?
More than these, has he noted that Venezuela is using its immense oil wealth not to buy into bankrupt banks in the UK and Europe, but to help the poor in South America, the Caribbean, and even in the USA? Or fact that poverty has been a "staple" in South America long before Chavez was born? Chavez is a liberator...not a dictator.

Raffique Shah

Raffique Shah, Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago

How to be a mad dictator, what kind of dictaor you like? It's the
people who create dictators, some turn-out to be helpful and
other get the taste of corruption; How many billion dollars-usa,
poured in to pakistani-dictators,and yet millions of american-
have'nt recovered from Katrina-disaster, why are you such a
hypocrite,like you dide'nt know, some time dictators are good,if
they go on fighting between-selves, Afghanistan will be best-ex
first you game them arm to fight Russian communism,that gave them terrirism,had these terrorist not had done 11th sep-
2001, nobody would have nticed,whats going on,in that part of
the world,howmany east-europeans murdered by dictars????
Cllr Ken Tiwari(Oxford UK)

Cllr Ken Tiwari, Oxford, United Kingdom

"The other day I was asked if, given what had happened since, it had been wrong to support the Lancaster House agreement that led to majority rule in Zimbabwe. The problem was, of course, that it came too late. Mugabe was partly made possible by the conditions that created him: racism, colonialism and tribalism."

This is the lame excuse of a liberal that has now been caught with his pants down. This argument obviously makes use of the tenet that no-one can disprove the theory that earlier introduction of black rule would have lead to a different result. Using this logic you can ward off the criticisms from the disenfranchised and impoverished whites of southern Africa ad nauseam. However you err in thinking there is no precedent. All of eastern Africa is your precedent. And basically all of those countries are failures, with dictators or with nominal "democratic" governments. Even these basket cases prove the whites in former Rhodesia and South Africa were right.

sensenbrenner, düsseldorf,

Those Zimbabwe 1980 elections were neither free not fair. In the BBC series "Rebellion!", Mugabe clearly indicates to the Brits that he will win, and precisely how - he has cells working in almost every province voting.

The British at the time turned a blind eye, as long as it didn't get out of hand. Now they are hoist with their own petard. And serve them right.

Richard Flynn, Huntingdon, UK

Well, lets see what Chavez does next. But aside from his annoying but rather inconsequential and internationally self-defeating anti-American/anti-"fascist" diatribes his little neighborhood watch/political cadre teams are worrying. Let's hope that he doesn't head down the road to Room 101 anytime soon, but then, if he does, the Venezualen people are the ones to blame for it.

Steve, San Jose, California, USA

Dave, I agree, diverting some of that lovely oil cash towards helping educate and house the poor is pretty worrying - and Chav's desire to stay in power so he can help them even more is downright disturbing

john motor, london, london

David Aaronovitch's ridiculous claim about President Chavez being a mad dictator is particularly inappropriate in the week when Chevez’s acceptance of the referendum defeat has been internationally recognised as clear evidence of democracy in Venezuela.

President Chávez and his supporters have won 11 national votes since his first election in 1998 – more votes than any other Western country. Further, it was the Chávez government who introduced extra rules of democracy into the constitution including the mechanism of a recall referendum to hold the President to account half way through his or her term of office.

Liz Hutchins, London, UK

It is not so surprising to me that these dictators develop what could generously be called a blind spot about the wisdom of their approach, but it is somewhat surprising that people, especially the "poor" keep supporting them despite all the evidence that things are not working as intended. Well, not totally surprising, because i am living in the Philippines recently, and you can see how ill informed and depressed the poor are, and how they would rejoice at the suffering of those better off, combined with the hope of a better life. But even allowing for that, why trade one form of oppression for another? And yes, the good professor reminds us how little an education can do for some people.

Richard Stone, San Mateo, California, USA

I find your analysis compelling and correct. I have spent most of my business career working in South America (I have since retired) and I am amazed how the guns of accusation always seem to be turned towards liberal democracies rather than inwardly in a very much needed self critique. This past summer I consulted and was sent to Venezuela to help investors extract their assets from the bolivarian bonfire Chavez has built. I saw first hand how Chavez first squelched the open debate and then sent bully boys into the neighborhoods so that decisions went the right way. Some of the left, had they political memories of any note, would has sworn the black and tans had been let loose in Venezuela. In my view the Venezuelan trajectory is tragically close to Zimbabwe and its fateful end.

Jeff K, Mission Viejo, USA

The way the UK state apparatus is developing in all it s manifestations, it seems that Mugabe/Zimbabweism is what faces us too.

dhrowlands, cardiff,

Actually, it still amazes me how many otherwise intelligent analysts confuse the term „dictator“ with „totalitarian“. Franco, Pinochet and Mussolini were dictators. Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot were totalitarians. Though there are many differences, the principal one was pointed out by Socrates. „If I do not like your laws I have alaways had the chance to sell my house, pick up my bags and get the hell out of here.“ (free translation). Now among the former group, the dictators, such a thing was possible. In the latter, it was impossible, because you have no house and no bags to sell since they all, as well as you, belong to the state; and furthermore, you are not allowed out of the prison-country due to some Berlin Wall or other. Now our friend Hugito is, of course, aiming for „totalitarian big time“ as he is a confessed Marxists whose dearest heroes are Che Guevara, Castro, Mao and Lenin. If it weren’t for some obstinate pockets of resistance that are driving his mentor and string-puller, Castro, out of his beard, he would have long ago have had all of Venezuela singing comrade songs in Mao suits.

eugene, heidelberg, germany

"as in Chile"? Meaning, after a brief but regrettably necessary interlude of monetarist dictatorship?

Serious and non-rhetorical question: was Mugabe circa 2007 Allende's "Ghost of Christmas Future", too? If not, why not?

Phil, Manchester,

Interesting analogy, but to suggest that both Mugabe and Chavez were voted in by "fair" democratic means boggles the mind! What are you smoking? I want some!

Laurence X Odhner, San Francisco, United States