Uribe's presidential temptation

Uribe has already changed the constitution once to allow himself to run for reelection. Like most of Latin America—that is, until recently—Colombia didn’t allow for presidential reelection. This was in part due to the region’s long history of dictatorial rulers. “No reelection!” was even the battle cry of the 1910 Mexican Revolution. True to post-revolutionary form, Mexico today has a strict no reelection policy; it doesn’t even allow former presidents to seek election after an intervening term.

There may very well be good arguments for reelection of any president. After all, why should the will of the people be impeded by an arbitrary term limit. Shouldn’t successful and/or popular presidents be allowed to govern indefinitely? That, after all, is the argument given in defense of Chávez’s efforts in Venezuela.

But there are three key problems w/ such arguments. First, they discount the immense advantages that a sitting president has. Second, they discount the problems associated w/ a “permanent campaign.” Third, they discount the disruptive effects indefinite reelection would have on institutional development.

First, it’s clear from studies of elections covering the globe and looking at all levels of office that (all things being equal) incumbents have a significant advantage over any opponents. Particularly, presidents can travel freely using state funds, they can go on television at any moment to give a major address, they can make decrees, etc. In short, just by “doing their job” presidents can keep a high profile, while opponents must struggle to rise above the media din. An unpopular president can be unseated, of course. But it will likely require a significant effort & a highly popular candidate (ask John Kerry about why he coulnd’t topple an unpopular Dubya).

This leads to the problem of the “permanent campaign” (a term developed for US presidential politics). If presidents can use their incumbency as an advantage in campaigns, they have incentives to pursue policy goals that will benefit them in the short term. These may very well be policies that are popular—or perhaps even necessary—for the country. But they may also be short-sighted policies that lead to long term problems.

Finally, however, is the problem of institutionality. Indefinite reelection is only necessary if there is no strong political party that can carry over policies from one administration to the next. Or, rather, indefinite reelection provides incentives for incumbents to ensure that there is no rival w/in his/her party. This is particularly problematic if succession become necessary, since it also means no one is “prepared” to assume the office. But it also says something very bleak about the incumbent’s views about the rest of the country, his/her own party, and even his/her own close supporters. Is it really the case that the leader is “indispensible” for good governance? Are the rest of the citizens so utterly incompetent that only one person is qualified to govern? What does this say about the fundamental belief in “equality” of citizens?

In many ways, allowing one consecutive reelection (as the US does) is a compromise solution. There’s no reason why presidents shouldn’t be allowed to serve only one term (though I think reelection after an intervening term is justifiable). Yes, it would make him/her a lame duck right away. But that may also help strengthen legislatures, which is where I believe political power should be located.

I hope Uribe decides not to run for reelection. Regardless of whether one supports Uribe or not (there is much to like & dislike about his presidency), the vindication of Uribe’s policies should rest in the ability to find someone who supports them & vows to continue them. Likewise, the vindication of Colombia’s democracy (which Uribe claims to have been defending all these years) is to see that it can survive a transfer of power to Uribe’s opponents.