José R. Cárdenas served in several foreign policy positions during the George W. Bush administration (2004-2009), including on the National Security Council staff. He is a consultant with Vision Americas in Washington, DC.

Some within U.S. policymaking circles argue that Hugo Chávez represents no real threat beyond Venezuela’s borders. Therefore, a proactive U.S. policy isn’t really needed in response to Mr. Chávez’s destructive policies. That belief was once again disproven in Nicaragua, where earlier this month erstwhile dictator Daniel Ortega was unconstitutionally re-elected president courtesy of hundreds of millions of dollars in aid from Hugo Chávez.

It is estimated that since his first election in 2006, Ortega has received anywhere from $1.5 to $2 billion in assistance from the Venezuelan caudillo to consolidate his power in Nicaragua, run roughshod over its democratic institutions, and pave the way for his perpetual re-election. (Exact figures are impossible to pin down since the transfers are not made public. However, it is thought the aid from Chávez amounts to between 7 and 8 percent of Nicaragua’s GDP.)

Not surprisingly, Ortega’s election with 63% of the vote was marred by irregularities. Observers from both the European Union and the Organization of American States, the only groups allowed in Nicaragua to observe the vote (Nicaraguan NGOs were denied observer credentials), registered deep concerns about the process.

Luis Yáñez, a Spanish legislator, said 20 of the EU’s 90 observers reported “inexplicable” difficulties gaining access to polling stations.  “I don’t understand why there are so many obstacles,” she said, “so much opacity and so many tricks in a process that should be clean and transparent.”

The State Department weighed in with its concerns here.

Moreover, in the run-up to the elections, the government manipulated voter rolls, spent Venezuelan money lavishly on social programs, and bought up numerous media outlets to broadcast nothing but government propaganda.

That Ortega was even up for re-election was itself a violation of the Nicaraguan constitution, which expressly forbids a sitting president from running for re-election. Ortega, however, took care of that minor problem in 2009 when he got cronies on the Supreme Court to rule that the ban was a violation of his “human rights.”

There is no question that Ortega has made good use of Chávez’s largesse, from lining his own pockets to subsidizing scores of domestic programs targeting the marginalized and disadvantaged. There has been Zero Hunger, Zero Usury, Roads for the People, Housing for the People, scholarships, medicines, and even street parties – all funded by Albisa, a privately held company set up by Ortega to channel Chávez’s assistance into social programs as well as personal investments.  The books are closed to the public, however, and Ortega has full discretion to spend the money as he pleases.

It is true that Nicaragua is enjoying good economic times: prices for commodities are up and Ortega has by and large left the private sector alone to pursue its interests. The latter, in turn, has largely ceded the political arena to the Nicaraguan president and sees no benefit in challenging the status quo. It is a Faustian bargain.  Even as the economic sector remains vibrant, the institutions of democracy are in the process of being hollowed out, as they have been in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador.

Many now fear that Ortega will use his newest mandate to formally change his country’s constitution to legitimize his indefinite re-election. If his Sandinistas win 56 votes in the National Assembly (up from 38), their super-majority will allow him to pass any reform he wants without any need to confer with the opposition or anybody else. Ortega will thus control the legislature, the judiciary, the electoral authority, and the majority of the media.

Such is the fruit of Chávez’s largesse: gutting democratic institutions and paving the way for a return to caudilloism, or strongman politics in Latin America. This is precisely what U.S. policy has sought to overcome in the region over the last several decades, at the cost of millions of dollars in resources and extensive diplomatic efforts.

It may be that Ortega’s brand of authoritarianism poses no security threat to the United States, but it does represent a negation of the values we as a country have sought to project, and a betrayal of those who have risked their lives to see democracy take root in the region. The United States owes them the effort to outwardly defend democracy and the rule of law from its ever-present enemies.  That task should begin by identifying who our enemies are and proactively thwarting their endeavors.