Many South American countries forbid immediate presidential re-election; others only allow two terms. Supporters of Colombian president Álvaro Uribe succeeded in getting a change to the rules for that country so that Uribe could run again (thereby leading to the nickname ReUribe); in a somewhat related move, the former president of Perú, Alberto Fujimori (now relaxing in a Chilean jail) first rewrote the constitution to allow for a single re-election, and then manipulated to judicial system to allow him to run for a third term, which certainly cost him popular support (but not as much as the other stuff).

The Venezuelan constitution also provides for an unusually long presidential term, six years.

My question is, why is Hugo Chávez not capable of finding a credible candidate to succeed him? He's had lots of time, and will probably have six years more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rici:
My question is, why is Hugo Chávez not capable of finding a credible candidate to succeed him? He's had lots of time, and will probably have six years more.

---

Rici,

Here in Canada, as in the U.K., heads of government are allowed to serve as many terms as they can get elected for.

Chavez is not looking to be declared President for Life. He is looking (according to reports) for the power of Venezuelan voters to choose him for additional terms.

Obviously, Chavez might be teetering on megalomania, being supposedly unable to find a replacement for himself anywhere in the country?

But let's leave that for the future. To paraphrase FDR: He's OUR [the left's] megalomaniac.

What that means is that his brand of populism improves the living standards of the majority and resists the ability of the US to intervene in the region. (Said interventions generally being disastrous.)

I got tripped up by US neo-con bullshit defenders of democracy once, by defending Chavez's recent attempts to stack Venezuela's Supreme Court with his own appointees. It required the approval of the legislature, and I therefore said it didn't appear to be an un-constitutional power-grab.

A smarter babbler pointed out that the Canadian situation is far worse, with absolutely no oversight over the PM's automatic selection of SCC justices, so who were we to talk.

quote:

---

got tripped up by US neo-con bullshit defenders of democracy once, by defending Chavez's recent attempts to stack Venezuela's Supreme Court with his own appointees. It required the approval of the legislature, and I therefore said it didn't appear to be an un-constitutional power-grab.

A smarter babbler pointed out that the Canadian situation is far worse, with absolutely no oversight over the PM's automatic selection of SCC justices, so who were we to talk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Explain to me please why that is a bad thing (except for George W. Bush).

---

It's a different electoral system and a different political culture.

A president has much more power than a prime minister, for example.

Whether it is, in theory, a good thing or a bad thing is hard to say for sure. There are many arguments pro and con, and you hear a lot of them in the South American political debates. My observation, though, is that most of the South Americans I know (who are of course mostly Peruvians or from neighbouring countries) are concerned about caudillismo and see the ban on re-election as an appropriate measure to prevent it.

Here in Perú, in fact, the popular protest against congressional re-election was sufficient to get many parties to withdraw incombent congresspeople from their lists for the upcoming election. The thought is, I think, that the more entrenched someone becomes in power, the more likely it is that they will build antidemocratic and corrupt backroom networks.