• edge [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Term limits are bullshit anyway. If a president is good and well liked they should stay.

    Our “best” (relatively) President won four terms because he implemented a basic social safety net. Capital responded by making sure that wasn’t possible again.

    It’s funny how a prime minister in Europe holding power for more than a decade is fine but a President in Latin America is suddenly a dictator for wanting more than 2 terms.

    • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Personally I’m not convinced of term limits either. It’s more about the fact he readily ignored a constitution implemented under his rule, as soon as it started bothering him.

      And I mean thats what the referendum in 2016 was about. If the people had wanted him to stay in power, they would’ve voted to increase the maximum amount of term limits. But they simply didn’t, they did not want him to go into another term. He did anyway.

        • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          A questionable decision for sure, but ultimately not the issue. His 4th term was definitely illegitimate though.

          • Chump [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            41
            ·
            11 months ago

            Think on that one again if you would. He served two terms under the old constitution, the constitutional court ruled that the terms served under the old constitution didn’t apply to the new one, then he (attempted to) served two more terms under the new constitution. Like, disagree with that if you want, but saying it was definitely illegitimate is definitely wrong, because the courts definitely ruled that it was legitimate.

            • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The court ruled that the first term didn’t count since the constitution was changed during that term, meaning it would only apply to terms started after the new constitution was adopted. Questionable but fair enough.

              After serving another term and during the third, the MAS initiated a referendum to increase the amount of terms a president could serve. Very good, if the population wanted to keep this president, this was their way to do it.

              However, the proposal was voted down, meaning the majority of the population was against an increase in the term limit. The democratic thing to do then would have been to start looking for another candidate.

      • RNAi [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        11 months ago

        And yet he won the actual elections. As I said, extremely shortsight and stupid move, and yet he never lost.