123
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
123 points (99.2% liked)
chapotraphouse
13465 readers
872 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
the bolivian constitutional court ruled his term under the old constitution didn't count for the new one.
A questionable decision for sure, but ultimately not the issue. His 4th term was definitely illegitimate though.
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.
but have you considered
?
It's lib political thought 101. 102 of course being everything filtered through blockbuster ip.
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.
nah
And yet he won the actual elections. As I said, extremely shortsight and stupid move, and yet he never lost.
I don't get your point. Is a referendum not an "actual election"?
I was talking about presidential elections. The opposition coalitions never produced a candidate that people preferred over Evo. Cuz their policies sucked.
A plebiscite is not an election.