Yesterday, Chilean president Sebastián Piñera proposed constitutional recognition of Chile’s indigenous peoples and the establishment of an advisory board composed of representatives from various indigenous groups. His remarks highlighted the importance of giving “special recognition” to these populations as well as social and economic disparities they experience.

“I have decided that constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples is of greatest priority and deserves the greatest urgency. And the creation of an advisory board of our indigenous peoples that would be truly representative of the tradition and culture,” declared Piñera.

According to the president, constitutional recognition is one pillar of his administration’s defence of indigenous rights, the second of which is “recognizing that there was an inexcusable underdevelopment in terms of economic and social development,” he stated. “It’s no coincidence that our country’s two most underdeveloped regions in this regard, Araucanía and Biobío, are precisely the regions where an important portion of our indigenous peoples are concentrated.” He went on to highlight his ‘Araucanía Plan’, announced last August, which addresses issues such as job creation and cultural preservation in the southern region home to a large Mapuche population.

Whilst the head of state made his announcement from Santiago, his Ministers of the Interior and Social Development Andrés Chadwick and Joaquín Lavín held a second round of talks regarding the recent territorial and political conflicts with the Mapuche people in the city of Temuco. Among Mapuche demands are self-determination and the right to thousands of hectares of fertile land in Araucanía taken from them during the colonial era. Participating Mapuche representatives, agricultural producers, logging executives, and regional politicians have yet to reach an agreement.

Debates on the fate of the Mapuche people have reached a fever pitch in recent weeks, especially after fire incidents that destroyed a Mapuche school and killed a landowning couple, both widely suspected of being connected to the conflict.

Story courtesy of Agencia Pulsar.

As it was 20 years ago, constitutional reform is currently a subject of contentious debate in Argentina. And just like 20 years ago, the possibility of modifying the terms for presidential re-elections is at the centre of the issue.

Whilst there is a lot to be said on both sides on the issue of re-election, it is something that unfortunately tends to eclipse the wider and much needed debate on constitutional reform.

Supreme court Buenos Aires (Photo by Helena Andell)

The Argentine constitution was moulded on the US one, a model for liberal constitutions throughout the continent. It was drafted in 1853 and, despite going through a series of small changes, there has only been one major reform, in 1994. (Juan Domingo Perón reformed it radically in 1949, but his new constitution was abolished by the military government in 1957.)

In recent years, a number of Latin American countries – like Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia – have reformed their constitutions. A cynical observer would put these revisions down to the wish of their presidents to be re-elected. However, the changes ran much deeper, seeking to adapt the legal system to a new social and political era.

The importance of a constitution that is coherent with the times cannot be underestimated. An example of something that deserves a second look in Argentina’s constitution is the country’s support of the Catholic cult – clearly incompatible with a secular state and a pluralist, increasingly secular society. Natural resource ownership has also been in the spotlight of late. Whilst the 1994 constitution gives each province control over natural resources within its territory, anti-mining activists are concerned that this has led provincial governments to carry out their own businesses with multinational mining companies, and demand a national policy to deal with the issue. Finally, Supreme Court judge Eugenio Zaffaroni has even proposed a bold move to a parliamentary system, re-opening an academic debate from the 1980s.

Constitutions are the principal law of the land, and as such there are mechanisms that keep them from being reformed too often; special parliamentary majorities, or in some cases referendums, are required for any alteration. However, it is also true that a certain degree of flexibility is needed. A rigid constitution is bound to eventually become obsolete and irrelevant.

Honduras provides an interesting example of this. Its constitution was passed in 1982, after ten years of military rule. In an attempt to avoid abuses of power, the writers of the constitution included permanent clauses against re-election. When President Manuel Zelaya decided to hold a non-binding referendum to ask Honduran citizens whether they approved of a change to the constitution in 2009, he was deposed, accused of attempting to include the possibility of re-election. Whilst those clauses might have made sense when they were written (leaving aside the fact that dictators often don’t care about those details), the conflict they caused by making the constitution so inflexible ended up unleashing a major institutional crisis.

The Re-Election Debate

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Photo courtesy of Presidencia de la República del Ecuador)

The possibility of indefinite re-election, or the need to limit a person’s term in power, is a recurring theme in some Latin American presidentialist systems. Often seen as simply an individual’s attempt to perpetuate themselves in power, the debate regarding re-election is a legitimate one, and should not be shut down due these assumptions.

Leaving personal intentions aside, there are philosophical arguments that can be put forward to justify the fairness of a system with indefinite re-election. It is often argued that liberal democracy is built upon the concept of ‘alternation in power’, but the key should be the possibility of alternation, not the alternation itself. This can be guaranteed more effectively by free and fair elections, as well as a democratic party system, than by banning re-election.

Some also argue that a limit on presidential terms effectively limits the people’s sovereignty, by restricting the choice of candidates.

However, the anti-re-election argument is also strong. Allowing one single person to concentrate so much power for so long can debilitate the chances of other leaderships emerging, affecting even the ‘possibility’ of alternation in power. It can lead to abuse, and weaken democratic institutions.

At the same time, the idea that Latin America’s caudillista tradition of historically-strong personal leaderships could be exacerbated by long periods in power is not always relevant to the re-election debate. Perón, the ultimate example of personal leadership in Argentina, was at the centre of political life for 30 years, 18 of which he spent outside of the country. He did not even need to be president to sustain his leadership, and showed that sometimes, institutional engineering becomes almost irrelevant against stronger political and social factors.

Unfortunately, some of the more common arguments against re-election are borderline racist. Many who can’t see a problem with the indefinite re-election of prime ministers in parliamentary systems, resulting in consecutive terms of over 11 years (Margaret Thatcher in the UK) or even a record 23 years (Tage Erlander in Sweden), just seem to think that Latin Americans are “not ready” for such responsibility.

Last night, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner distanced herself from constitutional reform during a Q and A forum with students at Harvard University. Her comments came during an uncharacteristically open public address in which the president allowed audience members to ask unscripted questions.

The Head of State was grilled on a number of issues by the animated a hundred-strong audience, including for the first time, the issue of “re-reelection”.

Fernandez assured all those present at the Kennedy School of Government building that “constitutional reform is not the wish of this president”.

“It’s not about what I want, but what I can or must do,” declared the Argentine, with regard to the possibility of introducing constitutional reform, which would allow her to run for a third successive presidential campaign. She confirmed that “it does not depend on me” and is “beyond my wishes”.

The president does not usually allow for questions at her conferences, so many students jumped at the opportunity to quiz her on uncomfortable issues.

One student, who is originally from Argentina, asked Fernández about Argentines’ limited access to foreign capital when they travel abroad and the increased tax they face on credit and debit card purchases.

“You are here and you are Argentine, so obviously you don’t have dollar problems,” retorted the president. “You are lucky enough to study in Harvard. Do you think you can really talk about these currency problems?”

Argentina’s head of state also spoke about the global economic crisis and stated “the core of the international crisis was that they went from a production economy to believe that money could be reproduced by money.”

Fernandez began her visit to the US five days ago and spoke in front of the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. She was due to return to Buenos Aires this morning.

Rumors about a possible constitutional reform to allow Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to run for a third term in office sparked a vivid debate among media and political groups today.

Vice-president Amado Boudou’s alleged hints about the likelihood of “not waiting for three years push a constitutional reform through” were picked up by all main Argentine newspapers. His words were part of a speech delivered to a meeting of government supporters yesterday night in Mar del Plata.

During a morning interview with Radio 10, Boudou stressed the informal nature of the gathering and dismissed the claims. He said that the initiative “is not part of the Government’s agenda”, and eventually accused some of the media of carrying on a “strong political operation”.

Yet, the vice-president – who handed back power to President Fernández on Wednesday – left the door open for future possible revisions in government policies.

“One can’t say what tomorrow will bring. There are things that are not part of the agenda that might be there the day after. We just know what is today’s plan,” Boudou said.

Talks over the possibility of so-called ‘indefinite re-election’ have made the headlines since the beginning of 2011. An Argentine president cannot be re-elected more than two consecutive times. President Carlos Menem enhanced the last constitutional reform in 1994, allowing him to run for another term in office.

El Cronista reports that “the lack of a strong opposition to the Government makes disputes over 2015 presidential elections acquire the status of official”. The paper also learned from sources close to President Fernández that she has made no signs to open a discussion over the issue.