World elections since 1900 every 4 years: Who would you vote for to be international president?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Apologism for Chavez and his thugs is not acceptable. This man murdered hundreds, imprisoned hundreds of thousands of opposition politicians and voters, slaughtered journalists and priests, rigged elections, and got in bed with the most corrupt politicians and vilest cartels in Venezuela. Very nasty man. He makes Vladimir Putin look like an angel by comparison.

Chavez was not a man who rigged elections. You are thinking about Maduro.
Chavez, while imperfect, was a fundamentally good man whose economic policies were ultimately unsustainable if rather well-intentioned. Maduro is more the degenerated form of Chavez, as much as he was his heir.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I will defend Chavez' good intentions economically until the day I die. The party system prior to 1999 was rotten to the very core (comparable to Mexico under the PRI) and Venezuela needed a change in scenery. Chavez also ushered in much-enhanced welfare for the poor people of the country and he also recognized the role the US had in harming the country, though his way of proceeding in the aftermath was not infallible and reasonable people can disagree on the merits of how he approached the United States.

I would also say that a lot of the hatred of Chavez was nursed from elite elements who simply did not care for the poor people of Venezuela and had sour grapes because Chavez wanted to solve the economic inequality of the country by levying more taxation. They no longer had control over the government and Caracas was no longer firmly in their pocket. So they left. It is hard for me to feel much sympathy for these people since their elitist intentions are plainly out there for the world to see. The hardship they were being subjected to was...gasp...being asked to pay their fair share to help the country's poor.

Elitism is a long-running curse in Latin American society. And if it gets any worse - yes it does. Dark-skinned Venezuelans were firm Chavismo because of the nature of his opposition and of his program, which sought to better their situation. You thought racism wasn't as much of a thing in Venezuela? Ha, good one. Latin American race relations are just as messed up as America, just in different ways. Specifically, the rich and wealthy (read: a group disproportionately pale compared to the wider population) look down on those who are darker-skinned, despite an increased amount of inter-racial marriage in Latin America relative to America and no taboo associated with marrying down the social ladder. Sad but true.

Given all this it's hard for me to really see Chavez as a bad guy. Maduro on the other hand had relatively few of Chavez' good elements and many more flaws. People fleeing Chavez b/c he wanted to increase taxes were at least mostly not refugees while those who fled after the stuff hit the fan in 2014 have an unchallengeable claim.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez, and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999. At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,

Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.

Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.

Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,

Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.

Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.

Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...

The results of Chavez's policies have not helped the poor in the long term. The entire country is worse off.

Not really, when you consider that welfare levels skyrocketed for over a dozen years, bankrolled by oil revenues. This was an extraodinary and in fact excessive investment, which should have included more efforts to diversify beyond oil. "In the long term" includes the oil boom and not just the oil bust.
The old establishment in the country would never have gone to these lengths to provide for the poor.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It bears mentioning that previous Venezuelan governments were so corrupt (and even more entwined with organized crime) that it is not really credible to use the corruption card against Chavez,

Bothsidesism is not really credible to use.

and it was clear that people were fed up in 1999.

Yeah, and they should have been. But "anything else" doesn't mean better, as we saw in US in 2016.

At least Chavez put oil revenues into welfare programs as opposed to just singularly focusing on looting it and dumping it in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands or somewhere else.

Oil revenues themselves are a form of looting anyway, there was no way for the structure of this economy to realistically work to benefit the most people of Venezuela. The grass isn't always greener.

Would you rather have corruption with a side serving of trampling the poor or corruption with the side serving of helping the poor? Because half a loaf is better than none and corruption is normal. That's just par for course in Latin America...

The results of Chavez's policies have not helped the poor in the long term. The entire country is worse off.

Not really, when you consider that welfare levels skyrocketed for over a dozen years, bankrolled by oil revenues. This was an extraodinary and in fact excessive investment, which should have included more efforts to diversify beyond oil. "In the long term" includes the oil boom and not just the oil bust.
The old establishment in the country would never have gone to these lengths to provide for the poor.

Yeah, because populism doesn't work. The quick fix never does (see: stock buybacks and now COVID). Chavez was more interested in maintaining power than building a better future for Venezuela. He's a Donald Trump when Venezuela needed a Barack Obama.

The old establishment of Venezuela had many Donald Trumps who loved gimmicks and short-term fixes in order to keep the wool over people's eyes.
Only Chavez had a long-term plan to actually make the country more successful, unfortunately it relied on oil prices being high enough in perpituity to keep it funded.