Malacasta -

You do realize that dictators can be elected (or obtain power by otherwise legitimate or constitutionally mandated means), correct? "Dictator" does not just mean "illegitimate ruler" - quite the contrary, many countries' constitutions provide for the election* of a unitary executive with amounts of power regarded as extreme by the Western world. This level of power - typically to sidestep or cow any kind of legislative assembly - is what is traditionally understood by a "dictator," or, colloquially, "that guy who can do whatever the hell he wants."

By this definition, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are both most definitely dictators.

* - I asterisk 'election' because you're essentially saying I have to cede, by virtue of your axiomatic declaration, that elections in Venezuela and Iran are, by Western standards, transparent, fair, and otherwise uncorrupted by sectarian or fundamentalist pressures.

The entirety of my first retort to that statement: Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Finally, a note on Hamas: I don't think anyone's stated Hamas is a dictatorship - I'd more label it a thugocracy - but I think it would be the perfect launching pad for a thread on "lamentably elected parties across the world." If you wanted to create a category of "entities that hold power within a group of people that the United States finds abhorrent," Hamas is your best bet - say what you will about their platform (and I'll say, for one, it's genocidal - at best), but they do appear to hold, or at least recently have held, the legitimate support of a plurality of Palestinians.

I think my original response, however, was germane to this thread and speaks for itself.