Hugo Chávez was recently reelected President of Venezuela (or how Chávez has renamed the state the “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela”) for his fourth consecutive term, putting into question the legitimacy of the nation’s claim to democracy. Despite the country’s political strife, economic turmoil, increasing violence, and international isolation, Chávez’s seems to have no problems making friends among America’s political left and liberal celebrities. This ‘moral support group’, that has decided to circle its wagons around Venezuela’s strong-arming government, has boastfully deemed Hugo Chávez its Latin American hero.

Actor Sean Penn has continuously run to the defense of his “dear friend” Hugo Chávez and has wholeheartedly assured the rest of us that Venezuela is a transparent democracy. Danny Glover is making his visits to Venezuela routine, and is apparently never too shy to ask for a handout. Oliver Stone has gone as so far as to portray Hugo Chávez in his documentary film “South of The Border” as some sort of Hispanic intellectual. In actuality, Chávez’s background is not much more than that of an uneducated military thug, reminiscent of Saddam Hussein. The Australian journalist John Pilger also pledges appreciation for Venezuelan Chávismo, and its distribution of oil-based wealth among the countries most impoverished (as long as you have registered with the correct political party of course), in his documentary “The War on Democracy”.

As far as political authors go, Naomi Klein’s position is that Venezuela’s media problems do not lie with Chávez’s media take-overs or censorship, but with public media: “It is absurd to treat Chávez as the principal threat to a free press in Venezuela. That honor clearly goes to the media owners themselves.” Although, on the Press Freedom Index Venezuela falls 117th, just between Oman and Zimbabwe.

More famously, acclaimed author Noam Chomsky, who accuses the western press of “demonizing” Chávez, wrote in his 2010 book Hopes and Prospects:

“It (Venezuela) ranks first in assessment of the current and future economic situation, equality and justice, and education standards. True, it ranks only 11th in favoring a market economy, but even with this flaw, overall it ranks highest in Latin America on matters of democracy, justice, and optimism, far above US favorites Colombia, Peru, Mexico and Chile.”

Though it could be said that this kind of inaccuracy is purely commonsense, according to a 2012 IDD-Lat study Venezuela falls absolutely last in security, institutional quality, least corruption, and democratic development, among all other Latin American countries. Obviously to make such an assessment demonstrates that Chomsky is either completely ill-informed to the political realities of South America or, worse yet, he is being dishonest so as to prove a point.

For over more than a decade we have seen Hugo Chávez tear apart Venezuela’s congress, constitution, democratic processes, legislative system, and all international economic commitments. Not to mention his use of the country’s economic funds as a personal piggy-bank to be used for everything, from buying half-million dollar Bentleys, to elections. Although Hugo Chávez praises communist states like Cuba, and endlessly barks out terms such as “socialism” and “democracy”, in no way could it be said that Venezuela is a functioning democracy or a socialized economy. Perhaps it’s true that Hugo Chávez has been legitimately reelected by the people of Venezuela four consecutive times (although it is impossible to be sure, as he negated the entry of international election observers since 2006), but one should take into account the threats of a military coup, made by the pro-Chávez paramilitary group “Los Tupamaros”, and by Chávez himself should he not be reelected. Nevertheless, even if one does not take these factors into account, truly what person with any appreciation of the democratic process would want to live under a leader whose rule was never ending and absolute? What other name but dictator could one designate? Bearing in mind even a democratically elected dictator is still, nonetheless, a dictator. Of course, Venezuela would not be the first example of a society that had freely voted away its own liberty in the name of security.

Writers and directors like Naomi Klein and Oliver Stone are unapologetically requesting that I be impressed with today’s Bolivarian Revolution, and Hugo Chavez’s equal repartition of misery. Unfortunately, I am sorry to say, I do not consider a monocracy the ideal manner of government, even when the appointed Monarch is one of benevolence. Nor do I believe for a moment that any of these Chávez fan-boys would ever enjoy dwelling beneath the shadow of an indefinitely throned ruler, and nor would I.