On February 21, Bolivians will head to the polls to cast a yes or no vote on whether the constitutional two-term limit for presidents and vice presidents should be amended. The outcome will decide whether Bolivia’s current president Evo Morales will be permitted to run for office again if he so chooses.
Recent polling (10/26, 11/4) indicates that the vote will be close, with the intention to vote yes ranging from 46-49 percent and no from 39-45 percent, with 9-11 percent undecided. The current Bolivian constitution, approved in 2009 when Evo Morales was already president, establishes that presidents are limited to two terms (i.e. one reelection). President Morales was first elected in 2005. He was re-elected in 2009 and then was granted permission to run a third time in 2014 on the grounds that he had only served one term under the new constitution.
Why does it matter if citizens in Bolivia vote to approve a constitutional change that would pave the way for President Morales to run for a fourth term?
In an op-ed published in October 28, 2015 in Los Tiempos newspaper, Bolivian economist Roberto Laserna reminds his fellow citizens that the February 21, 2016 referendum only indirectly questions the permanency of president Morales. Ultimately, the vote will weaken legal certainty and stability of the rules of the game – i.e. democracy and rule of law. Read the translated text of the article below.
Brent Ruth is a Program Officer for Latin America & the Caribbean at CIPE.
The referendum: a challenge for democracy
By Roberto Laserna
On a global scale, democracy appears to be going through a recession. In the past ten years, the number of countries governed by democratic governments has decreased and based on indicators of strength of institutions and respect for the laws, the quality of democracy has also declined. These trends have led Larry Diamond to come to the conclusion that democracy is in recession. After several years of expansion and improvement of democracy in the world, its deterioration is evident.
In Latin America, the problem is the persistent decline in the quality of democracy. The political institutions have been weakened, in many cases losing the ability to perform their functions. Additionally, many of the laws are obsolete or have been modified to meet the immediate needs of the rulers. Some are already authoritarian but with a thin layer of democratic coating.
I believe this is explained by a predominant participatory approach that simplifies the concept of democracy to a matter of voting. In this approach, democracy widens and deepens as more people vote, and more issues are decided and authorities elected at the ballot box. This approach has led to relaxed voter eligibility requirements and has transformed the right to vote into an obligation that may even carry punishment for abstaining. It has also increased the number of public offices decided by a public vote.
This approach has lost sight that, originally, citizen participation was not an end but rather a means of establishing limits on power, which is the main objective of democracy. Citizen participation arises to limit power, establishing controls that prevent authorities and government officials from abusing the power bestowed upon them and employing it for their own benefit. The introduction of the citizen vote broke the power structure in which a divine ruler held all the power and instead distributed it among the general population. The citizen vote has also facilitated the setting of term limits and the possibility of revoking the delegation of power, so that turnover and transition also limit power and prevent abuse.
Since the goal of democracy is to establish limited and controlled power, the rule of law is even more important than the citizen’s vote. The existence of explicit rules and institutions capable of enforcing these rules give certainty to everyone and allow a citizen, even isolated and alone, to defend himself from any abuse of authority or group.
This dimension of democracy, which defines its essence and its main quality as a system of government, was largely ignored. We built plebiscitary regimes but not rule of law in Latin America. As a result we have weak democracies and they continue to weaken despite the high voter turnout and the number of times citizens go to the polls.
Bolivia experiences this tension with particular intensity because their constitutional rules, modified under pressure and conflict a few years ago, are again exposed to the possibility of reform, calling citizens to vote again.
However, the referendum can also be an opportunity to mark a turning point, to reverse the trend and begin to assert the need to restore the rule of law and strengthen institutions. Voters in five regions have already sent the first sign of rejection of the use of popular votes for handling autonomic rules. Additionally, several surveys found a majority willing to reject a new constitutional reform that would remove presidential term limits. It is not a rejection of the President, who continues to enjoy high popularity, nor is it a critique on his administration, which is still viewed positively by citizens, but rather democratic statements that suggest people want to live under rules that are respected by all and are not changed to meet the needs of individuals or groups in power.
It is true that some Bolivians disrespect the law and circumvent it as much as possible. But it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a growing aspiration to live under the rule of law, with laws that are reasonable and easy to meet, so that anyone can find shelter and protection in them, without fearing that an official will abuse or try to change them according to their own objectives.
We must remember that the referendum only indirectly calls into question the permanence of President Evo Morales. What is really at play is legal certainty and the rule of law. No one should change the rules of the game while it is being played. Therefore, we must consider the referendum an opportunity to appeal to citizen participation, so that, as it was in the beginning, it can become a way to rebuild a system whose rules and institutions are able to ensure freedom and restrict all powers for the common good.
Roberto Laserna is an economist at the Research Center for Economic and Social Studies (CERES) in Cochabamba, Bolivia, and is President of Fundación Milenio in La Paz, Bolivia. Laserna’s op-ed originally appeared in Spanish in Los Tiempos on October 28, 2015. It has been reproduced in English with his permission.