Colombia Shows Us How It's Done

[Pangloss]

Columbian president Alvaro Uribe put on a freaking clinic on democracy in action this week, showing every other nation on this planet how it is bloody well done. What an amazing story.

 

That hostage rescue was just a great story all by itself, but it's fitting into a larger picture of Columbian success against Farc that's really impressive. I think it actually makes me jealous -- I wish my own government and intelligent services could pull off this kind of stuff.

 

The dramatic helicopter rescue of the hostages, all accomplished without a single shot being fired, is already seen as an amazing intelligence operation. All pulled off by a Latin American intelligence outfit long viewed with scorn and derision by the major countries. Not anymore!

 

Even better, this boosts internal AND external support for Uribe. Not only has he won instant international admiration and gratitude, he's also won a great deal of awe and respect. His approval rating is at a whopping 80%. Farc is now seen as on the run and facing inevitable defeat -- this in a country where corruption and criminal control is legendary. A place where nobody ever thought a free and law-abiding society could ever happen.

 

Even Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has come on board, of all people. Just six months ago Chavez was calling for Farc's international status to be changed from terrorists to freedom fighters and threatening war with Columbia; today he's cheering Uribe's success and regretting his earlier harsh words! That's incredible.

 

And the punch line couldn't possibly be any better: In the process of doing all this, Uribe rescued a political opponent!

 

The Beeb has a great writeup of the whole situation here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7489173.stm

[ecoli]

the problem is, the current constitution may not allow Uribe run for another term in office. This doesn't detract from his accomplishments, but it may limit his future influence, personally.

[Pangloss]

Yah, apparently they changed their constitution to allow him a second term, and may do it again to allow him a third term. Kind of an odd way to do it, but we don't as yet have an over-arching set of guidelines for constitutional manipulation amongst free nations, so it's hard to really condemn that approach.

 

This Reuters article has some interesting bits on the subject of Uribe's soaring popularity and the possibility of a third term:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN06348039

[CDarwin]

Nice to know that meddling American imperialism can at least occasionally help along the spontaneous generation of a functioning democracy.

[Aardvark]

Kind of an odd way to do it, but we don't as yet have an over-arching set of guidelines for constitutional manipulation amongst free nations, so it's hard to really condemn that approach.

 

'An over-arching set of guidelines'?????? And who exactly is going to set and enforce them? The whole idea of nations being free is that they are free.......

 

As long as Uribe is subject to a free and fair election, whether Columbia has term limits or not is Columbias business, not of some 'guideline' setters.

[swansont]

Are you speaking, perchance, of Colombia (i.e. the country)?

[Sisyphus]

Are you speaking, perchance, of Colombia (i.e. the country)?

 

That would make more sense than the university, wouldn't it?

 

'An over-arching set of guidelines'?????? And who exactly is going to set and enforce them? The whole idea of nations being free is that they are free.......

 

As long as Uribe is subject to a free and fair election, whether Columbia has term limits or not is Columbias business, not of some 'guideline' setters.

 

And what if they're not subject to free and fair elections? Are you implying it's not their business then? If not, then whose business is it?

Edited July 7, 2008 by Sisyphus

[Pangloss]

'An over-arching set of guidelines'?????? And who exactly is going to set and enforce them? The whole idea of nations being free is that they are free.......

 

As long as Uribe is subject to a free and fair election, whether Columbia has term limits or not is Columbias business, not of some 'guideline' setters.

 

I said guidelines; laws is a whole other subject. But there is a perfectly valid criticism (or at least concern) regarding countries that change their constitutions to allow presidents to seek further terms in office.

[Aardvark]

I said guidelines; laws is a whole other subject. But there is a perfectly valid criticism (or at least concern) regarding countries that change their constitutions to allow presidents to seek further terms in office.

 

 

As long as those Presidents are seeking further terms of office through free and fair elections then it's hard to see any legitimate concerns or criticisms. If the voters want to reelect someone for a 3rd or 4th or 12th time in a row, that's their democratic choice.

[CDarwin]

Wait, no, never mind, I misread Pangloss so my snarky comment is unwarranted.

[Pangloss]

As long as those Presidents are seeking further terms of office through free and fair elections then it's hard to see any legitimate concerns or criticisms. If the voters want to reelect someone for a 3rd or 4th or 12th time in a row, that's their democratic choice.

 

I'd be fine with that, and set aside the whole constitutional line in the sand. Constitutions seem to mean different things to different countries.

[Aardvark]

I'd be fine with that, and set aside the whole constitutional line in the sand. Constitutions seem to mean different things to different countries.

 

 

If you think that a constitution is something that should be set in stone, never to be amended, then i'd like to know your reasoning. On what grounds could a constitution be considered perfect and unalterable?

 

As long as the laws of the land are set, changed and amended by free and fair democratic means then i can't see any valid criticism or concern.

[Pangloss]

I'm not defending it, I'm saying it's one of the standard complaints. It has been used as the basis for frequent criticism against Hugo Chavez, for example.

[Aardvark]

I'm not defending it, I'm saying it's one of the standard complaints. It has been used as the basis for frequent criticism against Hugo Chavez, for example.

 

Ok, i can think of a lot of reasons to criticise Chavez but amending the constitution through a democratic vote seems to be pretty low on the list (although there are some doubts about how free and fair his votes have been)

[Sisyphus]

I'll repeat the question, since I think it's quite relevant to this little tangent:

 

And what if they're not subject to free and fair elections? Are you implying it's not their business then? If not, then whose business is it?

[Mr Skeptic]

The problem is that allowing someone too many terms in office breaks the balance of power. Instead of doing their job, they focus on building themselves a little empire. Consider the likelihood of replacing one of the politicians who don't have term limits, even in a free country like America. Now consider a similar situation in a country with a dictator problem. You might end up with a dictator that always gets re-elected.

[CDarwin]

The problem is that allowing someone too many terms in office breaks the balance of power. Instead of doing their job, they focus on building themselves a little empire. Consider the likelihood of replacing one of the politicians who don't have term limits, even in a free country like America. Now consider a similar situation in a country with a dictator problem. You might end up with a dictator that always gets re-elected.

 

We called him FDR.

[Pangloss]

We called him FDR.

 

Well I think you were just being humorous, but I can't let that comparison pass. At the time there was no law against running for a third term, just a tradition dating back to Washington that the 30 (?) presidents after him had followed. But of course none of those previous presidents were leading the country through war when his second term expired. And even so FDR said he wouldn't run; he was drafted by the delegates at the convention.

 

And, most importantly, he had an opponent in a real, honest-to-god election that fall (10 pts if you can name him without looking it up, playas! (one of my favorite sports-bar-trivia questions, hehe)). Anyway, that makes him quite unlike, for example, Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe.

[CDarwin]

Well I think you were just being humorous, but I can't let that comparison pass. At the time there was no law against running for a third term, just a tradition dating back to Washington that the 30 (?) presidents after him had followed. But of course none of those previous presidents were leading the country through war when his second term expired. And even so FDR said he wouldn't run; he was drafted by the delegates at the convention.

 

And, most importantly, he had an opponent in a real, honest-to-god election that fall (10 pts if you can name him without looking it up, playas! (one of my favorite sports-bar-trivia questions, hehe)). Anyway, that makes him quite unlike, for example, Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe.

 

Dewey, wasn't it?

 

And all that's true, but for an American president he was certainly our demagogue. Congress was at his whim, he tried to neutralize the Supreme Court, and he profoundly changed the way the Federal government operates.

[Pangloss]

Not Dewey (but perhaps I should have brought up the '44 election in my previous post as well).

 

FDR was the closest thing we have had to a demagogic dictator, yes. But only because the actions he took were legal as well as popular. Demagogic dictators are also very popular, of course, but they're not democratic.

[ParanoiA]

Not Dewey (but perhaps I should have brought up the '44 election in my previous post as well).

 

FDR was the closest thing we have had to a demagogic dictator, yes. But only because the actions he took were legal as well as popular. Demagogic dictators are also very popular, of course, but they're not democratic.

 

Hmmm...doesn't that make him oddly akin to GWB?

[Pangloss]

Very much so. In fact if it weren't for Iraq and the chickens finally coming home to roost on gas prices, he would probably be enjoying Clinton-esque approval ratings right now, and likely with a Republican majority in Congress. Very much like the situation in 1940. In fact, had Saddam actually had nukes ready to roll, you could add an ongoing war to the list of similarities as well.

 

Fortunately for the ABB crowd, we now have the 22nd amendment.

 

(And so we will have our first two-term president to be seen as a "failure" since Ulyses S. Grant, who, ironically, did run for a third term.)

Edited July 9, 2008 by Pangloss

[ecoli]

he was running against republican Wendell Willkie (you don't forget a name like that ). And, IIRC, he won on a campaign promise that he'd keep America out of war.

 

Well look at that, another 2000 GWB parallel.

[CDarwin]

Not Dewey (but perhaps I should have brought up the '44 election in my previous post as well).

 

Ah, well Dewey is the one I know.

 

FDR was the closest thing we have had to a demagogic dictator, yes. But only because the actions he took were legal as well as popular. Demagogic dictators are also very popular, of course, but they're not democratic.

 

 

Fareed Zakaria would get you on that. Usually they are democratic, they're just not constitutional. There's a difference between the two concepts. In the West we have mostly liberal democracies, so it's difficult for us to imagine the illiberal democracies and liberal autocracies that do often exist.

[Pangloss]

Well, that goes back to the point I made in post #3 about constitutionality. He'd have a point, but he would also be incorrect, by way of the caveat I brought up and Aardvark supported, which is that there's no objective measurement of what (if you'll forgive the pun) constitutes a constitution.