Hugo Chavez was a tyrant, despite of the many good things he did for the country. It is true that he helped many of its poor citizens and did a lot to improve conditions in the country, but he took full control of the government, and that is tyranny. No matter what the intentions were, good or bad, taking power more than needed is anarchy and a tyranny government.
The Chavez regime is making it increasingly difficult for anyone to remain on the third side. Carlos has good left-wing credentials he trained in Cuba. He is broadly sympathetic to Chavez, but is also concerned about the effects of political polarization. However, working for Villa del Cine, the year-old government-backed cinema organization, he will be expected to produce what the minister of culture has termed cinema with an ideological tendency.
No, I do not think that you would classify him as a tyrant. He was the president of Venesuala, but did not use excessive force in any situations, and actually did a decent job at running his country, and treating all of his citizens fair and just, and they liked him.
Huge Chavez definitely wasn't a tyrant and he definitely improved the living conditions in his country by almost half. He really wanted to take care of his people. He is an overrated leader by the far left though. This guy is celebrated almost as if he's some sort of saint.
A tyrant is defined as a cruel and oppressive ruler. Given Hugo Chavez's history I believe it would be difficult to classify him as a tyrant. He believes is socialist ideals and he has supported the poor in his country over the wealthy. He has met opposition from wealthy Venezuelans and has also received criticism from the Human Rights Organization, but there is nothing in his history that directs a person to believe he is an outright tyrant.
This man was great. As a Leninist myself, I loved his implementations of true Socialist ideals in Venezuela to make it a strong economic superpower in South America. Of course when Hugo did not give in to exporting oil to North America, and stating his disapproval of American foreign policy; his image was destroyed by the U.S.
They painted him as a tyrant, dictator, etc etc just because he was a socialist and won the hearts of Venezuelans, lowered employment, brought the GDP and GDP per capita skyrocketing, and stood up against the United States. Why do you think a large majority of Venezuelans flocked to pay tribute to this man at his funeral, while Americans scoffed and praised his death as if "another dictator is gone, horray for freedom!"
There may have been flaws in his political work, but no politician is 100% perfect, but Chavez was far far from a tyrant.