Term limits really irk ambitious men.

And by “ambitious” I don’t mean the word in its modern, approbative meaning. In the old days, ambition was an excess of the drive for position, power, wealth, what-have-you. Ambition was not a virtue. It was a vice.

And the old meaning of that word fits Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías perfectly.

A person who really wants what’s best for his people works with his people, in a variety of ways, to organize support for change. He supports others in leadership. He knows when to bow out.

A person who just wants to remake the world in the course of consolidating power, on the other hand, merely wants followers. Mutual co-operation? Even-handed dealing? Not interested. Not if it means sometimes playing second fiddle, or back-row bass. Or not playing a big part at all.

Which is why term limits must rankle Chávez so. They require a man of ambition to step down after a fixed stretch of service. The dream of life-long leadership in the highest position? That is the dream of tyrants. It corrupts the souls of men who would lead . . . and of citizens who would follow.

Venezuela used to be a democratic republic: The country had constitutional limits on those in power, including term limits for its top position. Fourteen months ago, President Chávez sought a constitutional change to allow him to run for another term. Voters rejected this attempt. Narrowly. But Chávez, having consolidated his hold on the media and other institutions since then, came right back with another vote to end the limits. This time he won. He can now serve for life.

Norte Americanos ought not gloat. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently voided his own term limits. And he didn’t even bother to allow a public vote on the issue.

So, who’s the more anti-democratic, Chávez or Bloomberg? Continued...