Mizuki’s Reviews > 獨裁者的進化: 收編、分化、假民主（新版） > Status Update

That would probably be the reason, to disguise the dictator's rule as appearing democratic.

I am suspicious of this book, though, because at least the info on the goodreads page lumps Venezuela among the other dictators. Couldn't he have picked Cuba, or one of the numerous other Central and South American dictators?

John wrote: "That would probably be the reason, to disguise the dictator's rule as appearing democratic.

That's the point the author had been making in the first few chapters.

I am suspicious of this book, though, because at least the info on the goodreads page lumps Venezuela am..."

Cuba probably doesn't fit into his narration of dictatorship learning and pretending to be democracy.

Venezuela? If not Cuba, many other Latin American countries could have been listed. In listing Venezuela, the author may have fallen for the Venezuela-bashing ever since the defeat of the 2002 military takeover.

Military takeovers followed by "return to democracy" probably fit this narrative. Many Latin American countries follow this pattern. Yet Venezuela is cited having defeated military takeovers.

The Obama Administration declared Venezuela an "extraordinary threat to the national security" of the US, a monumental absurdity.

I can't link to it, but the Trump State Department posted in 2019, then deleted, a sadistic boasting of economic ruin of Venezuela.

John wrote: "Venezuela? If not Cuba, many other Latin American countries could have been listed. In listing Venezuela, the author may have fallen for the Venezuela-bashing ever since the defeat of the 2002 military takeover.."

According to the book the author acknowledges Venezuela isn't a full dictatorship and Hugo Chávez is a legally elected president with popular support to back him. The author even agrees the democratic politicians did nothing to improve the lives of the poor people during the 20 years before Chavez came to power.

So in the case of Venezuela, the author wants to talk about how authoritarianism and populism can damage and threaten democracy than just downright labeling Venezuela as a dictatorship.

the 2002 military coup seems nothing like a desirable method to build up a proper democracy but what Chavez had done to secure his power (e.g. election manipulation, if you voiced your disagreement with the government, you might lose your job and other crash down) really doesn't put him under a good light.

Military takeovers followed by "return to democracy"

That's a lie, after military takeovers things usually turn for the worse and people's rights and freedom get stripped away.

Many Latin American countries follow this pattern. Yet Venezuela is cited having defeated military takeovers.

I know that, elected governments had been overthrown for like.......plenty of times. Though I know very little about the situation in Venzuela, but if Chavez had enough support from the people and the military to withstand a coup, then he must have done something right to ensure the survival of his regin.

The Obama Administration declared Venezuela an "extraordinary threat to the national security" of the US, a monumental absurdity.

That's BS, USA government has done whatever they can to try overthrowing every single leftist governments in the South America.

I assume that your final paragraph agrees with my paragraph just above. "a monumental absurdity."

I don't think that I'll say anything more.

John wrote: "I assume that your final paragraph agrees with my paragraph just above. "a monumental absurdity."

I don't think that I'll say anything more."

Now when I think about it more carefully, if Venezuela counts as a authoritarianist and/or dictatorship, then Singapore and Malaysia definitely share be labeled as ones too.

That sounds right. Perhaps even if Venezuela doesn't count.

John wrote: "That sounds right. Perhaps even if Venezuela doesn't count."

The governments of Singapore and Malaysia have both done pretty much the same things Chávez is accused of doing.