Limits on presidential terms – 03/03/2024 – Marcus Melo

The canonical explanation for the dilemma of the independent republics of Latin America in the 19th century was that they had to choose between tyranny and anarchy. They chose the first. In Bolivia, in 1826, Simon Bolívar maintained that “a perpetual president, with the right to choose his successor, is the most sublime inspiration for a republican order”.

Only later will the dilemma take on a new content: tyranny or democracy. The idea of ​​limits on presidents’ terms is part of the objective of ensuring alternation of power and preventing presidents from remaining in office.

Presidents seeking re-election were victorious 70% of the time between 1788 and 2008, in an exhaustive database of 2,230 cases. In Latin America, from the late 1970s to 2017, incumbents sought re-election 27 times, and only lost 3 of them. The incumbent’s advantage is clear. The potential for abuse of power is high.

But limits undermine an essential component of democracy: holding governments accountable. Elections are intended to reward or punish performance. Thus, there are two essential democratic values ​​in conflict, and the solution is not obvious.

When the federalists invented modern presidentialism, they did not set limits for reelection. The limitation came through self-restraint: George Washington declined to continue in power, generating an unwritten convention of just one re-election. Only after its violation by Roosevelt was a constitutional amendment approved (1951) to that effect.

Over the past 30 years, 60 countries in Latin America and Africa have imposed limits. There are currently term limits in 35 Constitutions of African countries; only in 4 do they not exist, and in 28 the limit is re-election. In Latin America, there are limits at 15, but not at 4; in 11 of them, the limit is one term (with or without the possibility of non-consecutive re-election).

The effectiveness of the limits depends on the party system, the strength of the opposition, the robustness of the judiciary and civil society. The quest to remain in power — violating constitutional limits — has been the objective of recent authoritarian populist experiences. The Bolivarian dream almost came true, in Bolivia itself, when Evo Morales tried to be re-elected for a fourth term even after being defeated in a plebiscite.

The discussion of term limits, however, does not occur in a vacuum of interests. And it has served different purposes. This is what the case of Porfirio Díaz, in Mexico, reminds us, who rose to power shouting the flag of limits to remain in power for 27 years. The question “who is interested in changing the limits?” deserves specific analysis.

LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access five free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.