Presidential elections in Venezuela differ from those in the U.S. in that they are more than a tame contest for votes and leadership. Instead, they are a brawl between conflicting ideologies and radically different views for the future.

The presidential election in Venezuela took place on Oct. 7, resulting in the victory of incumbent Hugo Chavez over challenger Henrique Capriles. This win marks Chavez’s fourth term; yet polling statistics indicate that the election results were somewhat close. Fifty-four percent of the vote went to Chavez while 44 percent went to Capriles, according to BBC.

“This election was important because it is a test of the constitutional process there,” Assistant Professor of History Alvis Dunn said in an email interview. “In this case, Venezuela can claim victory as participation was very high and there have been no incidents of fraud or voting irregularities reported.”

Despite no allegations of voter fraud, violent rallies that took place prior to the election suggest deep resentments held by the two candidates’ constituencies. According to Al Jazeera, one shooting at a campaign event weeks prior to the election claimed the lives of two men.

What could account for this violence?

“One would have to point to the extreme nature of polarization there, but perhaps most important is the general environment of violence found in Venezuela most recently,” said Dunn. “The causes are complex and numerous but the country has an extremely high homicide rate and the state seems unable to do anything about it.”

Vcrisis.com, an anti-Chavez organization and website, describes the leader as “the darling of a small fringe of fundamentalists, terrorists, and radicals.” Although the website has recently stopped providing news updates and is now inactive, it contains an extensive collection of articles and data strongly criticizing and analyzing the Chavez legacy.

The website also cites various “… systematic violations of civil, political and human rights under Hugo Chavez’s tenure,” as documented by “reputed human rights NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.”

A recent article by El Universal, a news site based in Caracas, features psychologist José Uzcátegui explaining that the Chavez presidency functions on a paradigm of “fearocracy.” Uzcátegui discusses how Chavez has created a system that threatens his constituents, reminding them that as much as he has given to Venezuela he can also take back from Venezuela.

As Chavez’s reign extends into a decade of service, doubts still linger about his capacity to carry the country forward with his model of democratic socialism. His re-election however, is probably welcomed by some of Venezuela’s neighbors; in recent years Chavez has provided cheap Venezuelan oil to nearby countries such as Nicaragua and Cuba.

The condition of Chavez’s health is also questioned by many. Last year he was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 58.

“My sense is that the great majority of Capriles supporters will always be concerned about Chavez,” says Dunn. “A heightened concern would be fear that a Chavez facing death might work unconstitutionally to make sure his policies are so deeply ingrained in the national system as to not be reversed no matter what the future might bring.”