In Venezuela, President Maduro was an elected leader who was corrupted into a tyrant. While President Maduro was originally elected and just recently re-elected to another six year term, many are condemning his most recent election as a fraud and calling his government illegitimate. By both the pre-democratic and post-rise of democracy definitions of tyranny, President Maduro is undoubtedly a tyrant. In regards to pre-democracy tyranny, he is not a king nor does he have any divine right to be in power. He has seized power from the people and is no longer an elected leader. Now looking at the post-rise of democracy definition of tyranny, President Maduro is the exact image that supporters of democracy fear. He was an elected leader who used his power to consolidate more power to himself from the legislature of his country, and then used all the power he has gained to remain in power; he has not only watched his people suffer but has also contributed to their suffering as well. Inflation and poverty have been on the rise in Venezuela as a result of President Maduro’s nonexistent policies and basic services. According to Aaron Kliegman with the Washington Free Beacon, “It is all too common to find dying infants and helpless patients in hospitals… and most Venezuelans are struggling to buy enough food to feed themselves and their families… with countless Venezuelans starving” (Kliegman). President Maduro is also becoming more aggressive in his attempt to remain in power, often resorting to violence to silence his opponents and protesters who speak out against him. He has become exactly what the modern democratic world would call a tyrant and, without any justification or legal right to his power, he is a tyrant in the eyes of the pre-democratic world as well.
In addition to this, an NPR article written on January 23, 2019 stated that Juan Guaido, the Venezuelan opposition leader and the elected head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, has declared himself as Venezuela’s interim president amidst the growing unrest in the country, and this declaration was meet with cheers from the Venezuelan people. Many North and South American countries have declared that they do not recognize President Maduro’s government and have announced their support of Juan Guaido, leading President Maduro to announce that all diplomatic personnel had 72 hours to leave Venezuela (Cheslow). Protests are erupting across the country with Caracas local Carlos Gonzalez exclaiming, “This government, they destroy our democracy, and I want our democracy back… I want our rights back. It’s all I want” (Cheslow). In effect, there are now two tyrants vying for control of Venezuela: President Maduro representing the more sinister version modern democracy has come to know and Interim President Guaido representing the pre-democracy version that sought power through unconventional means in order to help his people. In ancient Greece, a tyrant almost needed the approval of the people in order for them to rise to power while today a tyrant rules in spite of his people. While the people of Venezuela demand change, President Maduro has refused to cede his power leading the people to support the naming of Juan Guaido, the elected leader of the Venezuelan National Assembly, as interim president of Venezuela. It is a war of tyranny, modern versus ancient, one fighting for democracy and one fighting against it, and we must wait and see which one wins out as Venezuela continues to spiral into chaos.
Ethan Fessler
Word Count: 515
Works Cited:
Cheslow, Daniella, et al. “Venezuelan Opposition Leader Guaidó Declares Himself President, With U.S. Backing.” NPR, NPR, 23 Jan. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/01/23/687643405/anti-maduro-protesters-march-in-cities-across-venezuela.
Kliegman, Aaron. “Venezuela’s Tyrant Gets Six More Years.” Washington Free Beacon, Washington Free Beacon, 10 Jan. 2019, freebeacon.com/blog/venezuelas-tyrant-gets-six-more-years/.
The West in the Pre-Modern World 
Regarding the classification of Mr. Maduro as a tyrant by any definition, I can hardly agree more. His re-election is considered fraudulent by dozens of countries around the world, and even his own people. And in the modern sense, he has kept the military loyal to him, blocking even humanitarian aid from entering the country. At the end of January, hundreds of Venezuelans had been killed, and even more imprisoned. However, I strongly disagree with the characterization of Mr. Guiadó as such. His claim to the presidency is not based on his own whim, but on the Venezuelan Constitution itself (see his op-ed in the Washington Post). Now, one could consider Mr. Guiadó a tyrant if the elections results were considered valid, but the vast majority of the international community holds the elections as invalid (in fact, one can almost form a conclusion based on the countries in support of the Maduro regime: Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Turkey). Thus, because Mr. Guiadó’s claim to the Venezuelan presidency is derived from their own constitution, he cannot be considered an extra-constitutional leader (the ancient definition of a tyrant).
–Tom Vilinskis
LikeLike
I agree with your statement that President Maduro of Venezuela is a tyrannical leader. He fits the definition perfectly and the current state of Venezuela is evidence of that. The citizens face starvation and violence at the hand of the government daily. I found your argument to be accurate and well thought out. However I feel it could have been a bit stronger if you discussed how President Maduro started out as a populist leader and how he initially came into power. You could have also made the connection with his populist predecessor, President Maduro. Overall, I agree completely that President Maduro is a tyrant. His fraudulent elections and consolidations of power are irrefutable evidence of that. The state of Venezuela is dire and the citizens are the only ones who regain stability by overthrowing President Maduro and allowing Juan Guaido to run the country, who is recognized as the elected leader of Venezuela by the United States.
-Harrison Goodrich
Word Count:162
LikeLike
I find it interesting to think would the people of Venezuela and the rest of the nation have supported Maduro if he began to reform the nation when he usurped his power? In the ancient world, a ruler was applauded for his great works even if he did have absolute power. Today, we normally say that dictatorship and absolute rule are wrong in themselves, but I argue that if Guaido executed a coup of Maduro and assumed absolute rule of Venezuela in order to reform the nation, he would be adored by the people. What I am implying is that though we assign a negative connotation to the word tyrant, we still do not believe that absolute rule is always bad. I believe that deep down we still view absolute rule in the way of the ancient Greeks: it is acceptable if the absolute ruler uses his power for the good of the state, but he becomes a tyrant when he uses that power for his own advances.
-Andrew Mitchell
168 words
LikeLike