However, in Venezuela's case, Chavez has been using the loads of oil money unwisely during good times, and now Venezuela is set for a hard landing. Chavez was a military leader, and will almost definitely use violence and force to stay in power if he deems it necessary. Furthermore, the presidential terms are to long if you're going to have unlimited reelection.
P.S. As way of explanation, I support authoritarian governments for developing countries (what some here derogatorily refer to as 'turd world countries'). But, if they have to have some sort of representative government, I think a parliamentary form of government is the best option for them. An American-style presidential system is too complex and unwieldy for them. That's why I consider the concept of unlimited reelected to not be entirely bad, although it would be better if Venezuela had a parliamentary system, and no Chavez, of course.
Wow. You are wrong on all points.
You are thinking weak countries need strong leaders to become stronger. Wrong. Strong political leaders make weak countries. These countries are weak because they are corrupt, they are corrupt because the leaders have too much power. If you want a strong country, give that country the kind of weak central govt the USA had, and it will THRIVE.
It is even more important for term limits for Presidents, to stop precisely the abuse the Chavez is engaging in, destroying democracy through power on incumbency, and limited govt for these countries than for advanced nations.
US system is superior because it divides legislative and executive powers. The more divisions of power, the better for the people, while at the same time a singular executive ensures unity in executive action where needed.
USA had many unforgettable presidents when it was a developing nation. They served us well.