How long will the president rule?

Latin American lessons for Russia

Recently, President Vladimir Putin casually mentioned that it would be possible to increase the presidential term to five to seven years, arguing for this idea by the fact that almost half of the first term is spent getting acquainted with affairs and there is not enough time to implement the plan. And the speaker of the Federation Council, leader of “A Just Russia”, Sergei Mironov, recently expressed confidence that an increase in the term of presidential powers in Russia will be legislated already in 2008, after the next presidential elections. The experience of countries that are going to increase the presidential term shows that such a measure often leads to the rejection of the change of power by legal means as a basic norm of democracy and attempts by rulers to become lifelong leaders of nations.

Let us turn to the experience of Latin America, which is quite familiar to the author through his professional activities, which provides plenty of food for thought. Let us analyze specific situations in various countries of the continent regarding the length of tenure of the highest official.

Let's start with the northernmost country in the region - Mexico. There, the term of office of the head of state is set at six years. The President is elected by a relative majority in one round and is not eligible for re-election. This rule has been in effect for a long time. Moreover, so far not a single president has attempted to violate the established law. True, in Mexico, where the Institutional Revolutionary Party dominated the political scene for almost 70 years, a peculiar know-how known as dedaso - the principle of the pointing finger - was successfully applied. The president named a successor, who was subsequently automatically approved by the congress, and then easily elected by citizens, since administrative resources were used to the fullest. Democracy was controlled and limited. Now this country has abandoned its own invention and is moving in line with global trends. However, the last elections, held in July 2006, revealed a significant flaw. In a situation where the question of the winner of the race was determined by a microscopic difference in votes, the need for a second round became obvious - for greater legitimation of the national leader.

In Costa Rica , a small Central American republic famous for its democratic traditions, since 1949, after the end of a short civil war, the head of state has been changed regularly every four years. He is elected in two rounds. The right to re-election to office was absent until 2005. Then the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court approved the amendment. In accordance with it, a veteran of political battles, ex-President Oscar Arias, took part in the 2006 elections, achieving victory with a minimal advantage over an opponent nominated by a rival party.

In Brazil, after the military, which has long ruled the country, leaves for barracks, presidents are also elected for a four-year term. There, since 1994, prominent scientist Fernando Henrique Cardoso was elected head of state for two terms. In 2002, he handed over power to Luis Ignacio (Lula) da Silva, who was nominated by the Workers' Party and won after three consecutive failures. In 2006, in a competitive fight with his rival from the opposition party, Lula again achieved victory in the second round. During the pre-election debates, the competitors agreed on the desirability of amending the legislation to increase the mandate to five years. But this idea has not yet become flesh and blood.

In Chile , after the 1988 referendum, held under the slogan “No to Pinochet!” and marking a turning point in the history of the country, heads of state began to be elected for a six-year term. They replaced each other without thinking about extending their powers. In 2005, according to an amendment adopted by parliament, the presidential mandate was reduced to four years. It was according to this scheme that Michelle Bachelet was elected, becoming the first woman at the top of the power pyramid in Latin America.

When the initiative to change the presidential term in one direction or another comes from the current head of state, doubts inevitably arise whether it is of a selfish nature? Let's look at two more examples.

In Argentina, until Carlos Saul Menem was elected president in 1989, the presidential term was five years. But he was not eligible for re-election. In 1994, shortly before the next elections, with the consent of the opposition party, a constitutional reform was carried out, according to which the mandate of the head of state was reduced to four years, but the current head of state received the right to re-election. In accordance with this amendment, Menem was re-elected in 1995. Then an incident occurred. In the elections held four years later, Carlos Saul Menem intended to run again, arguing that he was elected for four years for the first time. However, legal scholars rebelled, and the president abandoned these intentions, hoping to run in the next election cycle. He then took part in the 2003 election campaign, took a narrow lead after the first round, but withdrew on the eve of the second round. Under the circumstances, victory was awarded to his rival, the current head of state Nestor Kirchner, whose mandate ends at the end of 2007.

In the upcoming elections in October, the restless Menem intends to run again on the right wing of the now split Justisialist (Peronist) party. But this is not prohibited by current laws. Just like the current Constitution of Russia, it does not prohibit the current president, after missing two terms in a row, from running for a third.

An extraordinary incident occurred in Peru . In 1990, the presidential election there was won by a 49-year-old agronomist engineer, a modest, little-known rector of an agricultural university, an ethnic Japanese, Alberto Fujimori. Having taken office, he energetically, without any swing, set about overcoming the economic recession and political chaos. And he achieved impressive success. The mechanisms of the neoliberal model, although not without slipping, began to produce tangible results. The government managed to cope with hyperinflation and improve GDP dynamics. Foreign investment has increased significantly. In 1993, a referendum approved a new constitution, which gave the head of state broad powers, including the dissolution of parliament and the judiciary, as well as the right to re-election immediately upon completion of the previous mandate. Accordingly, in 1995, Fujimori was elected for a second term.

On the distant approaches to the next elections in 1997, parliament approves a law on the true interpretation of the constitution. This law established that Fujimori's first term as president should be considered not 1990-1995, but 1995-2000. This decision was argued by the fact that the effect of the constitution does not extend to the past. It is clear that parliament, manipulated by the head of state, could not pass a different resolution. Thus, a legally dubious loophole was found for the nomination and subsequent election of the current president in 2000.

But it was a Pyrrhic victory. Soon a huge scandal broke out, caused by the television showing an episode of giving a bribe in the amount of 15 thousand dollars to an opposition deputy for switching to the pro-government faction. Under the current conditions, the hapless president was forced to announce the reduction of his mandate to a year and the holding of new elections. A short time later, he went to the APEC summit and asked for asylum in his historical homeland - Japan. Followed up by faxing his resignation letter. The indignation of parliamentarians knew no bounds. As a result of a heated, many-hours-long discussion, they reached a verdict that prohibited him from holding elective positions in the future. The situation returned to normal only after the early elections in 2001.

Venezuela has had a system of representative democracy for almost forty years, since 1958. Presidential and parliamentary elections were held regularly every five years. The head of state had the right to be elected a second time only after ten years had passed after the end of the previous mandate. This norm was established in order to suppress attempts to usurp power. With Hugo Chavez coming to power in February 1999, the situation changed radically. The Basic Law has been reformed. The mandate of the head of state has been increased to six years. He received the right to be elected again immediately upon completion of his first term. Then, in accordance with the new constitution, elections for all branches of government were held in July 2001. Chavez was re-elected, and his mandate began in January 2001. Thus, as a result of legal tricks, the first two years were written off as a “transitional stage.”

In December 2006, regular elections were held, in which the incumbent president again won. Now Chavez is hatching plans to extend his powers for an indefinite period and has provided a theoretical basis for this idea. He recently said these words: “I believe that the people, if they so desire, should not be deprived of the right to choose any compatriot for the third, fourth, fifth or sixth time so that he can steer the ship of state.” Today, in ruling circles, there is an idea that the Venezuelan people have chosen not just a president, but a national leader, who should be given unlimited powers to implement their program for building a “bright future.” Isn't it very similar to the discussions being conducted by the ruling elite of Russia in relation to Vladimir Putin?

So if Vladimir Putin transfers the post in 2008 to the one whom voters prefer, and subsequently in Russia they decide to legislatively increase the presidential term, this will be a transparent and legal decision that will not cause any complaints. Subsequently, it is possible to adopt amendments to the Constitution and, in accordance with them, give Putin the opportunity to run again for the highest post in the country at the next (or extraordinary, if there are legal grounds for this) presidential elections. This would be a move that organically fits into generally accepted democratic norms and rules. Otherwise, a conflict similar to the Peruvian one cannot be ruled out.

In Russia, too, a significant part of the establishment, fearing for their privileges and business assets, would like to find loopholes to extend the powers of the current head of state. And the voice of the people was clearly manifested in the recent exclamation of an Orenburg machine operator, who asked the president live: “What will we do without you now?” To which the head of state replied with dignity: “I’m not going anywhere”...

Emil DABAGYAN, leading researcher at the Institute of Latin America of the Russian Academy of Sciences