News that President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has refused to renew the licence of an opposition television station has been taken up internationally as confirming the authoritarian turn in his regime. It is indeed a worrying trend, taken together with restrictions on the courts and pending changes to the constitution.
But these events must be seen in the context of Venezuela's deep political divisions and the opposition's utter failure to come to terms with Mr Chávez's repeated electoral success and popular legitimacy.
The RCTV station in fact led and provoked the violent coup attempt against Mr Chávez in 2002. Since then it has not ceased its outright opposition to him and has never retracted its support for that violence. Its political line draws on hard right-wing neoconservatism, inspired by the Fox news channel in the United States.
It shares much of this ideology with most other sections of the Venezuelan media, based on vested interests of powerful sectors opposed to Mr Chávez's social reforms. The station has not been banned and is free to continue its cable and satellite channels. Most Venezuelans polled say they oppose the measure because RCTV runs several favourite soap operas.
It is more surprising that it has taken so long to make this decision than that it has been executed. Nor is it surprising that Mr Chávez should seek to even up the media balance by introducing a public service station in its place. It is less convincing to say this is state-controlled - many others are in democratic states - than that its introduction lacked due process and open competition.
The political methods increasingly resorted to by Mr Chávez include decrees and direct action rather than legislation. The legal and constitutional changes already made and in prospect all tend to eliminate checks and balances on governmental power. The assumed logic is towards a personalised autocracy and away from democratic politics.
Such a Madisonian criticism of Mr Chávez's populist radicalism is disingenuous - and premature. It disregards the systematic irresponsibility of Venezuela's opposition parties and the social interests they represent. Many of these conventional safeguards have in fact functioned to protect such interests. The opposition refuses to stand for parliament and remains unreconciled to Mr Chávez's repeated electoral mandate, based on a radical programme of change to address inequality by using the country's oil wealth. This should be properly recognised by those making considered criticisms of his political methods.