This past week, Bolivia’s people sent a clear signal to Evo Morales that three terms as president are enough.  By a slim margin of 51% to 48%, the referendum proposed by Morales’ Movement to Socialism (MAS) Party to allow him to seek for a fourth presidential term was defeated.[1]  Democracy, rule of law, and long-term economic development in Bolivia were the real winners.

The Bolivia case sheds light on a worrying recidivist trend in recent years of demagoguery and democratic decline in the developing world.  Morales is far from the lone executive in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa or other parts of the world to try to extend their tenures in power through questionable means.  We have witnessed constitutional manipulation (Bolivia, Ecuador), popular referendums (Venezuela, Rwanda), patsy place-holding proxies (Russia), and judicial malfeasance (Honduras).  Morales himself had secured a constitutionally-prohibited third term in 2014 by virtue of the Bolivian Constitutional Court’s ruling that his first term “didn’t officially count” because a new constitution was passed in the middle of that term in 2009.  In short, the violation or outright abrogation of term limits is a threat to democracy that is not bounded by region or limited by underhanded tactic.

Why should we worry about the violation of term limits, you might ask?  Isn’t stability a good thing in often-volatile countries?  If it’s the will of the people, isn’t it inherently anti-democratic to prevent people from electing their president of choice?  These are all valid questions, and, I would argue, they have equally compelling answers.

To the first question, term limits matter because democracy, choice, and alternation in power matter.  The advantage of incumbency is huge in all democracies, nascent or established.  In our own country, numerous studies show the massive benefit bestowed on incumbents for a variety of reasons such as name and party recognition, the benefits of experience, and campaign financing.  From 1982 until 2006, incumbents in the US House of Representatives were re-elected at an astounding 95.7% rate.[2]  If we allow presidents to run indefinitely, we are likely to get imperial presidents, especially in developing countries.  This is bad for the quality of democracy and often leads to corruption and cronyism (see Mobutu, Zaire).[3]  Furthermore, it tells the opposition party that they have no democratic means by which to gain power and therefore encourages and legitimizes violent conflict as a means of political expression.

To the question of the promotion of stability, I would assert that a stable democracy with a history of peaceful transfer of authority has a better shot at long-term investment and development than a nation in which one ruler sits upon the throne indefinitely.  The debate and discussion promoted by a healthy, genuine contest of power produces more accountable, transparent government.  Some may point to Lee Kwan Yoo in Singapore or Paul Kagame in Rwanda as the counter-examples.  These leading lights, I would argue, are the exception rather than the rule.  For every Lee Kwan Yoo there are five Hugo Chavez’s who bankrupted their country; for every Kagame, a liberator turned dictator like Nkrumah in Ghana or Museveni in Uganda.  While inspirational, once-in-a-generation leaders can bring a country out of civil war or set a formerly backward nation on the path to development, there are often negative side effects for human rights and freedom of expression, both of which we now see in Rwanda and to a lesser extent Singapore. The country must always come before the iconoclast.

In regard to the last, anti-democratic charge, I believe that the dangers of dictatorship outweigh the desires of the general will in regard to the executive.  Because it is such a position of power, prominence, and visibility, the presidency is unique.  As such, it merits unique protections that are perhaps not necessary for legislators, whose long-serving experience may well benefit these bodies.  But we must guard against the danger that people will become enamored of this leader or that.  This is how democracy dies.  Not with a bang, but with a vote by a smitten populace, or manipulated legislature, or a cherry-picked judiciary.  By keeping term limits in place, we hope to ensure that good people come and good people leave and prevent the dangerous consolidation of authority that leads to dictatorship.

The example of Barack Obama in the United States is an enlightening one.  Many of my friends have said that, rather than choose between an uninspiring Hillary, an unrealistic Bernie, and a clown car of Republican reactionaries, that they would rather elect Obama to a third term.  While I love President Obama and the changes he has wrought, this would be a terrible idea.  First off, without the knowledge that this would be his last term and the freedom that it has afforded him, you would not have had the ballsy moves and initiatives of the last three years.  You would have had the same impressive-but-ultimately-disappointing version of Obama that we had for his first five years.  The fact that, by his own admission (“I don’t have to run again”) he has no more elections has freed his hand and his pen, signing bold executive orders on immigration, gun control, and a host of other issues.  Furthermore, the prospect of an indefinite Obama administration might just be enough to fracture our democracy and make today’s polarization seem tame by comparison.  Term limits are in place for a reason, and they should stay that way.

Boiled down to its essentials, the argument goes like this: term limits promote a healthy, rotating, representative government that assures both sides the opportunity to state their case and a legitimate chance to have their turn in power.  This democratic consolidation increases stability and allows for greater domestic and foreign investment, both of which are directly predicated upon said stability.  Once people are confident and investing, growth and development can then ensue.

Refocusing our attention on Latin America, the recent histories of Colombia and Venezuela provide a telling and illustrative contrast.  In 2009, Alvaro Uribe, the then-president of Colombia was finishing up a highly-successful second term in which he dramatically improved the security situation, successfully courted domestic and foreign investment, and turned around a previously-moribund economy.  Thinking that his continued presence in the presidency was indispensable, he sought to change the constitution to allow him to run for a third term.  Wisely, the Colombian Supreme Court denied his request, his successor was then elected, and Colombia has continued along its previous path to progress.  Venezuela too had its own transformative leader in Hugo Chavez. Chavez did successfully reduce poverty and improve social services for the poor, despite cracking down on dissent and increasing the country’s dangerous reliance on oil.  After multiple attempts, Chavez was eventually able to change the constitution to stay in power well past his original two terms, and the results were disastrous.  Today, Venezuela is a country on the brink of economic and political collapse[4]; its future uncertain.  There are many differences in these two cases, but a central fact is that one nation upheld term limits, and one did not.  And that has made all the difference.

Only a few days ago, Morales said that he would honor the results of the referendum and the defeat of his bid to seek another term.  This is welcome news.  However, if history is any guide, we should be wary of the finality of Morales’ concession, as his mentor and role model Hugo Chavez faced a similar popular defeat in 2007, only to put the matter to a vote again in 2009, this time securing the indefinite extension of term limits that he initially sought.  Morales has undoubtedly done some positive things.  During his rule, poverty has decreased and the average annual growth rate has been an impressive 5% for the past several years.[5]  But if he is able to repeal term limits, we know how the story ends.  We’ve seen the unfortunate mess that Venezuela has become.  Here’s hoping that Bolivia, and Morales, continues to use the example of its Bolivarian compatriot in avoiding the same disastrous mistakes.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35651063

[2] http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/rdrenka/ps103/Spring2010/congressional_incumbency.htm

[3] Check out Michela Wrong’s outstanding book on this subject for an in-depth look: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NJL75U/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/29/venezuela-is-on-the-brink-of-a-complete-collapse/

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/world/americas/bolivia-to-vote-on-term-limits-amid-growing-doubts-about-its-president.html