Yesterday, the Colombian Supreme Court handed down a decision on the "Yidis-gate" scandal in which a member of Congress was bribed to vote in favor of approving Uribe's reelection. While the guilty verdict wasn't surprising, the Supreme Court took the extra step of questioning the legality and legitimacy of Uribe's 2006 reelection.
Uribe took that rather personally, and around midnight last night, the president appeared on TV to call for a national vote to repeat the 2006 election.
Confused as to what that means? So is everyone else.
Congress will need to draft the legislation for the referendum which would clarify the details. The referendum could allow Uribe to finish out his current term with increased political legitimacy (at 80% approval, does he really need it?). He could use this referendum as a stepping stone to reforming the constitution. Or, most questionably, he could try to get a new four year term out of this rerun vote, claiming that this is the repeat of the 2006 election that the Supreme Court is questioning.
It wouldn't be the first time in recent Latin American history that a president tried some legal tricks to stay in power longer than the constitution allows. There are still a number of steps and institutions standing in the way of Uribe running for reelection, but with the strange action he took last night, it's unclear what will happen next.
Contra-Cronkite
2 hours ago
15 comments:
I have long supported Uribe but the best thing he could do for his country is step down at the end of his current term. His speech last night was Hugo-esque. He like many a Latin leader has convinced himself that he is the "indispensable man." If he truly loves Colombia he steps aside and lets someone else give it a go. He is on top right now, it's as good as its going to get before the ugliness begins to creep in - if it hasn't already
I agree with thecardinal. I think that Uribe's done a good job as President, but two terms/eight years is enough for anyone to be President here in LA, be it Uribe, Chavez, Correa or whoever, no matter their political stripe.
Thereafter (if not, antes) they all begin to suffer from "Solo Yo"itis. The major symptom of this illness is the delusion that their (pick your President) respective (country cannot advance/improve/change or survive without their leadership and only their leadership... Nope, Uribe should go when his term's up..
I'm opposed to any president changing their own term length or limits once in office. I disagreed with Uribe's first reelection reform for that same reason, but this one if it goes through seems far, far worse.
I agree with everyone here. Uribe is the most popular president in the Americas and will be remembered as one of the great ones if he finishes his term as planned.
"I'm opposed to any president changing their own term length or limits once in office. "
I agree. Fujimori started this trend, soon followed by almost every other LA leader who enjoyed high approval rating at some point: FH Cardoso, Menem, and later, Chavez. The only significant exception is Mexico, were for historical reasons the 1-term limit is sacrosanct.
In Brazil, FHC had a very succesful first term, only to ruin much of said success by doing shady deals with parlimentarians to get re-election passed (a la Uribe), and then waiting until after the elections to float the currency, plunging the country into a deep economic crisis that might have otherwise been averted
Wow, Uribe has some balls. He bribes Congress in order to barely get a 2nd term, gets caught, then uses that as an excuse to tighten and extend his control over the country. He should resign. Of course elementary logic says the vote that should be revoked is the one that was deemed to be corrupt - in the Legislature - a vote that was 16 to 14 and would have been at least a tie without Medina's bought vote. The general election is not in dispute.
And then he goes on to attack the Supreme Court, accusing it of having paramilitary ties. He promises an investigation only now curiously, not a year ago when the original allegation was made. The only problem being that the material witnesses are no longer under Colombian control due to his brilliant decision to extradite the para leaders. I wonder why he does not want to investigate the "one-third" of Congress that Mancuso said his organization controls.
Yeah, whatever, Leftside. If they do the referendum, wanna bet on whether or not he wins?
A jaw-dropping exchange at today's State Dept briefing. First, they didn't even know about the news. Second, they mock the idea of comparing Uribe's and Chavez's similar moves. Third, they manufacture events in Venezuelan that never occurred (close a newspaper) in addition to the standard mis-characterization and mis-statement of facts.
QUESTION: Tom, what does the United States think of President Uribe -- of Colombia’s call for a referendum that could give him a third term or allow him to run for a third term?
MR. CASEY: I’m not quite sure where that issue stands right now. But that’s an internal matter for Colombia and Colombians to decide. Obviously, any changes that might be made to their electoral law or to their constitution that would be required would be something that would be for the Colombian political process, and ultimately, if it involves a referendum, the Colombian people to work out.
QUESTION: Was that the same reaction -- was the reaction from the podium the same when Chavez tried a similar strategy?
MR. CASEY: Oh, so the reaction should be equivalent to a democratic leader proposing a democratic change in his country, in a country in which there have been free and fair elections in which media can operate freely, in which those who have committed abuses against labor leaders and others are being prosecuted?
You would like me to make an equivalence between that and someone who was elected democratically, but who has never governed in that way, who has closed down newspapers, closed down television stations, arrested his opposition, recently eliminated more than 300 opposition candidates from being eligible to vote based on a rather flimsy pretext of the possibility that they might face charges in the future?
I’m sorry, I can’t really go there for you. (Laughter.)
Actually, Vicente Fox did want a second term (which was laughed out of Congress) and tried to foist first his wife, then Santiago Creel on his party.
What's amusing -- or appalling -- here is to see the "spin" from the U.S. when it's their favorite coke-dealer trying to change the rules, not the less liked oil supplier. Once again, we see people outside the country trying to insist on changes to Latin American legal opinions to suit their own preconceptions.
Yes, the evil imperialist media always back their man in Bogotá. Always.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/world/americas/28colombia.html?_r=1&ref=americas&oref=slogin
"What's amusing -- or appalling -- here is to see the "spin" from the U.S. when it's their favorite coke-dealer trying to change the rules, not the less liked oil supplier."
Talk about spin, that statement made me dizzy.
Paul: Hear hear. Nice to see that Grabman is as lucid as ever.
I give an example of how easy it is to spin developments to fit one's own agenda, and Bevis and Butthead think they've discovered the holy grail.
Not the holy grail, just another lame-ass Leftist cliche machine.
Uribe's referendum proposal looks to me like he's just asking for a reaffirmation of his presidency. If so, big deal. Until that's clarified, all this "dictator" stuff is just trash talk from people who don't like Uribe for whatever reason.
Bevis and Butthead. Nice. Your penetrating intellect mesmerizes yet again, as it always does.
Post a Comment