The difference between a modern republic of self-governance and the ersatz "democracy" of many underdeveloped countries is that the former is ruled by institutions, the latter by men.
So which does Colombian President Álvaro Uribe want for his country?
In a republic, institutional order is bound by a rule of law designed to protect the rights of individuals against each other and against the power of the state. Property rights, civil liberties and human progress all fare better when state actors, even those who are wildly popular, are constrained by institutional checks and balances.
For most of the past seven years Colombia has seemed to be inching ever closer to this higher ideal. Many aspects of daily life here have improved immensely since Mr. Uribe took office in August 2002. The rebirth of personal security and the professionalism of the military that is largely responsible for it are both products of Mr. Uribe's leadership.
So too is the improved investment climate, and the fact that the state oil company can now make use of private capital. The state telecom company has been partially privatized. Teachers unions have had to accept some limitations on their generous pensions. Colombia has signed and ratified a free-trade agreement with the U.S. (yet to be ratified in Washington) and has begun to look to Asia for new trade, tax and investment treaties.
Having watched their country climb out of what seemed like a bottomless pit of despair in 2002, Colombians have had reason to believe that they were leaving the Latin American world of caudillo government. But now there is concern that Mr. Uribe's efforts to hang onto power by altering the constitution, so that he can run in the May presidential election for a third term, will undermine the gains the nation has made and jeopardize future progress.
On most days Mr. Uribe maintains that he is only a bystander in the project to change the constitution; it is the people who are trying to recruit him. Yet there is at least a grain of truth to claims that he has fomented the amendment drive.
The issue might have died in Congress last December had not his interior minister revived it. "He should have worked to create a government that isn't just about him," one Colombian legal expert from Mr. Uribe's side of the aisle complained to me. Instead, "he allowed the re-election project to go forward" and now election year chaos looms.
The chaos is due to the fact that time is running out. The constitutional court, which must rule on whether a popular referendum on the third term can be held, will recess next week. That could push a decision to mid-January.
Even if the court rules in Mr. Uribe's favor, it is not clear that the referendum could be organized before the March deadline for candidates to declare their intention to run. If the referendum is held and Mr. Uribe loses, which is possible, given the participation-rate hurdle that he has to clear, an uribista candidate is going to have a late start at campaigning.
Because of this time line, supporters of Mr. Uribe's vision for the country say that his re-election bid puts the party's chances to win the May election at risk, while opening the door to a president who is too soft on national security. This is troubling given the current state of affairs.
Organized criminal networks financed by U.S. and European drug consumption remain a threat to the Colombian population. One of those is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which has an alliance with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.
Mr. Chávez's military threats are not taken seriously here because the Venezuelan forces are known to be in shambles. But there is concern about Mr. Chávez's informal destabilization efforts. His militias roam the border area, and he has closed the busy crossing at the city of Cúcuta. Speculation that organized crime may be infiltrating the Colombian judiciary cannot be easily dismissed either.
Many of Mr. Uribe's cohorts say that Colombia would benefit most with a new uribista government to tackle these problems and continue with economic liberalization. Third terms, they point out, are notoriously tired. They also worry that he is setting a precedent that will harm the country later on. If he can stick around endlessly, what's to stop a Chávez-like figure from doing the same some time down the road?
Most importantly, they argue that a modernizing Colombia requires leadership that defends the rule of law, not one that manipulates it when convenient. "We believe that Colombian law should apply," Luis Carlos Villegas, president of the Colombian business group known as the National Association of Industries (and a longtime supporter of Mr. Uribe) said in a media interview earlier this year.
"We don't deny that Uribe has been one of the best presidents in Colombia," he said. But he went on to add that there are "dozens" of Colombians who are qualified for the job.
There can be no doubt that Mr. Uribe loves his country. What better way to show it than to stand for the rule of law by stepping aside as it demands?
No comments:
Post a Comment