 |
SPECIAL REPORTS |
| |
Knowing
When To Leave In Latin America
Los Angeles Times
As Latin
America's military dictatorships fell one by
one in the late 20th century, incipient
democracies across the region sought to
stamp out caudillo caudillo
culture with constitutions that limited
their newly elected leaders to one term in
office.
No more strongmen ruling in perpetuity. So
powerful was the no-reelection sentiment
that the Honduran Constitution even included
a clause saying that its single, four-year
presidential term limit could not be amended
in the future.
But as democracies took root and civilian
governments tried to implement ambitious
economic and political reforms, they began
to feel constrained by term limits. Soon,
elected leaders from right to left sought to
extend their mandates. Driven by ego and
arrogance as well as ideology, some pursued
the changes legitimately through the
legislature. At least that was the case when
the leaders of Peru, Argentina and Brazil
sought second terms in the 1990s.
Problems arose, however, when Peruvian
President Alberto Fujimori and Argentine
President Carlos Menem still weren't
satisfied and, despite charges of
corruption, sought third terms. Other
leaders went even further, using and abusing
the tools of democracy to eliminate term
limits altogether. That would include
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who lost
one referendum to extend his term before
winning passage of a second in February, and
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, whose
allies on the Supreme Court lifted a ban on
reelection last week, raising fears that
Nicaragua might return to the kind of
entrenched power that Ortega took up arms to
defeat in 1979.
Just how long is too long for a president to
serve? It's up to each nation to decide for
itself, of course, and the answers vary
widely across Latin America. Mexico, which
fought a bloody revolution to end the
35-year dictatorship of President Porfirio
Diaz, has since limited its leader to a
single six-year term. El Salvador has a
five-year term without reelection; Chile has
one four-year term. Like Brazil and
Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador changed their
constitutions to allow for two four-year
terms. Whether four years or eight, all of
these options seem reasonable.
But while we don't believe in
one-size-fits-all democracy, we do believe
in alternating governments. The longer a
single party stays in power, the more likely
it is to take control of the courts,
electoral institutions and the national
purse strings, making it harder for
opposition parties to compete. This is why
the move to lift term limits has been so
emotional in the region, leading to
everything from a fistfight among
legislators in Argentina when Menem sought
to change the law in 1993 to a
civilian-military coup against Honduran
President Manuel Zelaya over the issue in
June.
Even the most popular leaders make mistakes,
run out of ideas and curb appeal, and
eventually lose fair elections. But those
who manage to remain popular longer than
usual also should leave office on time, or
they risk undermining the political system.
In Colombia, President Alvaro Uribe has been
toying with a national referendum that would
permit him to seek a third term in 2010, an
election he would likely win. Most
Colombians believe the conservative leader
has successfully fought back against leftist
guerrillas and drug traffickers, but 12
years is still too long for the good of
democracy. He would do better to leave while
he is still a hero to his supporters, and
give others a chance.
The same is true for Chavez, Venezuela's
leftist leader, who has vowed to stay in
office for years to come to complete what he
calls his Bolivarian Revolution on behalf of
the poor. Besides holding the presidency, he
controls the legislature and courts, wields
influence over the media and doesn't
tolerate dissent.
This is exactly what the political elites in
Honduras feared. Zelaya ignored the will of
Congress and the Supreme Court in pursuing a
referendum on whether Hondurans favored a
special assembly to rewrite the country's
constitution. He hadn't specifically raised
the question of term limits, and likely
couldn't have made a change before the end
of his own presidency, although many
speculated that this was what he intended to
do. But Zelaya was close to Chavez, and his
opponents took the preemptive step of
ousting him, a move deemed illegal by the
international community.
Ortega took a new approach to extending his
rule in Nicaragua last week. He circumvented
the National Assembly, which his Sandinista
party does not control, and a national vote,
which he might have lost. Instead, he took
his petition to lift a ban on consecutive
terms to six pro-Sandinista judges who make
up the constitutional branch of the
Nicaraguan Supreme Court. They agreed with
his argument that the prohibition on a
second term violated his rights. His critics
accuse him of using the levers of government
to perpetuate his own power.
A president should lead the government, not
use it to his own ends. Latin America
suffered long and fought hard to throw off
its repressive regimes. Too much power
should not be concentrated in the hands of
one leader, regardless of ideology, or any
leader who overstays his welcome. Latin
Americans have wonderful role models in
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva and Chilean President Michelle
Bachelet, who are sticking to their term
limits despite their popularity. The others
should look admiringly at this example and
follow suit. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
