Greg Weeks posted a brief comment on the recent proposal (finally formally unveiled) by MAS to allow for presidential re-election in Bolivia. This was seen coming for a while (it was discussed in public discourse for several months). But it came late to the formal agenda of the Constituent Assembly, which has basically thrown a monkey wrench in the works—and this as the Assembly seems unable to make its original August deadline for a draft constitution (which was supposed to go to public referendum on 6 August).
Weeks makes a few key points: 1) the move to allow re-election is a widespread phenomenon in Latin America, 2) in such moves the key issue is how the re-election measure is decided (e.g. whether by consensus or plebiscite or imposition), and 3) we need to consider what re-election (in abstract) means for democracy.
I don’t think re-election per se is bad for democracy—though I do think that indefinite re-election is. But I also have broader Linzian objections to presidentialism as a whole.1 If it’s true that incumbency has advantages, then it’s not a surprise that presidents (around the world) tend to win re-election. Latin American presidential systems give their presidents greater powers than the US presidency has, which suggests that the region’s presidents are better positioned to be re-elected, regardless of their ideological position.
Re-election of presidents—particularly in new democracies—may hinder the institutionalization (an important component in democratic consolidation). If sitting presidents must run for re-election, it suggests that no other figure in the party is capable to stand as a substitute for the former leader’s platform. Going back to an older Weberian notion: political leadership moves from charismatic or traditional authority, and moves towards rational-legal authority instead.2
Democracy needs strong, vibrant, institutionalized political parties.3 Instead, “movementism” (which views “parties as bad and seeks instead looser social movements rooted in civil society) is en vogue across Latin America. But the problem w/ such “anti-party” ideas is that they resemble “classic” 1930s populism, which generally degenerated into another round of caudillismo. Re-election of popular sitting presidents doesn’t encourage the institutionalization of political parties.
In the Bolivian case: the push to re-elect Evo Morales suggests that MAS (as an organization) not only depends heavily on a single leader (a mark of caudillismo or charismatic authority) & that no other figures in MAS are able to challenge Morales, but it also means that MAS doesn’t have to groom future party leaders. One of the weaknesses of the pre-2003 Bolivian party system was precisely that the parties were dominated by individual leaders (Sánchez de Lozada in the MNR, Paz Zamora in MIR, Banzer in ADN, etc.). Do MAS supporters want to go down that road again?
-----
1 Juan Linz, “The Perils of Presidentialism,” Journal of Democracy 1 (Winter 1990): 51-69.
2 Max Weber, “Politics as a Vocation” (1919; ebook).
3 S. M. Lipset, “The Indispensability of Political Parties,” Journal of Democracy 11 (January 2000): 48-55.