As we debate the pros and cons of the recent SOE, and the challenge facing our government in trying to turn back the tide of crime and violence in our little Belize, and we observe the drastic methods and approaches attempted in other countries, inevitably the discussion must lead to the question of “how we are governed”, the type of leadership we produce in our elections, and whether the system is working the way we wish it would. The very idea of dictatorship and totalitarianism is abhorrent to most of us, but the way that democracies have developed and been subverted by big money in many situations, there is a constant cry, in the mighty USA, as well as in little Belize, that the two major parties dictate the flow of power from one to the other, and third parties don’t stand a chance in the current electoral system. In Belize, many citizens have referred to PUDP, as an indication of their feeling that the big money people still have more sway than the masses, regardless of which party is in power. With the work of the Constitution Commission near wrapping up, here are two late suggestions being proposed for consideration: 1. Don’t set term limits for aspiring leaders; and 2. Make the Elections Commission an independent, non-partisan body, paid from the public purse, but appointed by, and answerable to a board consisting of representatives of the Senate and all active political parties, with the incumbent party in government having the least number of members on such board.
Great leaders are a treasure, while political opportunists and scamps give a bad name to the job of politician. Father time takes its toll on all of us; and if not the party, then the people, in free and fair elections, will determine when a former popular leader should “hang up his gloves”, if he/she doesn’t make that personal decision to step aside. It is only when the incumbent has subverted the electoral system that the perpetuation of power becomes a threat to the people’s democracy. Apparently, it was to guard against this slide into fake democracy, where elections have been rigged, and the people are then left with what is actually a functioning authoritarian leadership posing as a democracy, that the idea must have come about to limit the term of leaders in democracies around the world. And some have called for Belize to follow suit, just as we did in the 1990s with our economy, following the privatization band wagon, to our great detriment, leading in short order to the dreaded Super Bond. We would discourage any such piece of legislation, which may accomplish more harm than good. Would Belize have achieved independence among the major international furor surrounding the Guatemalan claim, if Father of the Nation, George Price was forced to step down in his political prime after three terms in, say, 1974? Not that his successor might not have been up to the task; but, as in any sport, why risk changing a hugely successful, winning formula, if you don’t have to. In every area of industry, and in other areas of government, even the courts, age is seen to bring greater wisdom, and only infirmity, internal party decisions or personal choice should cause a popular and successful leader to step down, as Price did in 1996.
This term limit question brings two cases in our region to mind: Honduras and President Manuel Zelaya a couple decades ago; and now Bolivia and former president Evo Morales in the present moment. Both were very popular “left”-leaning leaders; and it is widely suspected that there was outside pressure against them. It raises the question of what and whose purpose do term limits serve?
In 2009, a military coup removed Zelaya from office with compliance of the Constitutional Court, after he had only expressed the intention to try and amend the Constitution to remove the term limit so that he could vie for re-election again. Hundreds of thousands of Hondurans took to the streets to protest his removal, and according to phr.org, “While the legitimacy of Zelaya’s removal is still widely disputed, the brutal response against peaceful protesters by the government of interim-president Roberto Micheletti is well-documented. Local and international NGOs reported daily attacks and violations of fundamental rights directed against civilians protesting Zelaya’s ‘impeachment.’”
The term limit question is currently in strong focus in the South American nation of Bolivia, which is scheduled to hold presidential elections in August of this year. Apparently, past three-time president Evo Morales is aspiring to run again for president, and has a lot of support, but the term-limit roadblock stands in his way.
Bolivia’s first Indigenous president, Morales, who served for three consecutive terms, 2006-2009, 2010-2014, and 2015-2019, is being blocked by their Constitutional Court from running in their August 17 election because of its ruling on “Article 168, which establishes that the president and vice president can be reelected ‘only once continuously.’”
Tensions are high in Bolivia, as supporters of Morales, who is still only 65, are agitating fiercely in his favor. This is a clear case where the term-limit law is fueling discontent and possible violence, where all that people want is the right to vote for the leader of their choice. There is no guarantee that Morales would win, but in a true democracy, the people should decide who they want to lead them.
The situation remains in crisis, with protesters in support of Morales accused by the authorities of “blocking highways in central Bolivia” and trying to “interrupt democratic order”.
Declared a defiant Morales, “Only the people can ask me to decline my candidacy… For 14 years, we maintained a single exchange rate, distributed the state’s wealth to the people through public works projects and bonds, and defended our natural resources against the voracity of the Empire and its transnational corporations.” (www.telesurenglish.net)
If after 14 years the people are not fed up with you and do not want to run you out of town, there must be something good that you have done, why they want you back.
Is national leadership a plum to be shared by young aspirants who are yet to taste such power, or is it a responsibility to be borne by those, old or young, whom the people want to lead them? What is democracy, if it limits the power of the people to choose? Is democracy then a willing agent for big powers to control the leadership of small nations, and Constitutional term-limit provisions just another tool of neo-colonialism?
Belize should not go the way of term limits for our leaders; but surely, and urgently, we should do something about the structure and makeup of our Elections Commission to free it from the snare of party-political interference and control.
Truly free and fair elections are vital to achieve Power to the People!