[dragonwriter]

> American media call Mugabe a dictator and call Cameroon's President a "chief of state", but both countries hold the same kind of elections.

"Chief of state" and "dictator" are orthogonal descriptions. "Chief of state" describes the ceremonial head of any state, whether or not they are actually the head of government, and whether or not they are elected, and whether or not they exercise dictatorial power.

"Dictator" refers to anyone exercising dictatorial power, whether or not they are also the chief of state (its possible, particularly, for a dictator to be head of government in a system with a separate head of government and chief of state, as might happen in a military junta in a state with a ceremonial monarch.)

[pagnotta]

I know that very well. The same goes for the term "President". I didn't say the terms are mutually exclusive, the point is the way they choose the terms to describe those considered allies and those considered enemies.

[dragonwriter]

> the point is the way they choose the terms to describe those considered allies and those considered enemies.

Well, you said that they were described differently despite being subject to the same kind of elections -- but the kind of election is only distantly relevant to whether someone is a "dictator", and not at all relevant to whether they are a "chief of state". It would be more relevant if you described a similarity that was relevant to the applicability of those descriptions, rather than one with limited relevance to either description.

Of course, the idea that the US media describes Paul Biya of Cameroon as a "chief of state" and not a "dictator" is also false; see, e.g., http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-worlds-enduring-dictators-pa...