A great, enlightening Editorial from El Diario:
Presidential reelection is not human right
The march towards the re-re-nomination of the head of the MAS, Evo Morales, to the presidency of the Plurinational State to run for a fourth term of government for five years, has hit a bone difficult to crack, which could profoundly alter his long caressed ongoing political interests and on which they rely their possibilities of existence.
It is that the European Commission for Democracy, known as the Venice Commission, issued a verdict by which re-election “is not a human right as such”. In a concrete way, it determines as legal truth that the intention of the rulers to run again and govern for a set time limit is not framed within human rights.
That “legal truth” of the Venice Commission (right arm of the European Commission) was issued in response to a query made by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), an entity that requested a report to European experts about of the bad practice that some Latin American countries are doing through their constitutional courts. That Commission is made up of the best constitutionalists in the world and the value of that report is not the product of the will, but constitutes an unmovable juridical truth,
The decision of the European experts responded in that way to the OAS, due to the context “of a bad practice of modification of the presidential terms by means of a decision of the constitutional courts instead of a reform process”. The issue was up-to-date due to denunciations before international organizations against the intention of Evo Morales to go to a new re-election and to extend it indefinitely.
In essence, the Commission of the most important jurists of the world reiterates that “the right to be elected is not an absolute right”, and adds “that the limits to the deadlines do not unduly limit the human and political rights of the voters”, which clarifies that limiting the mandates of presidential or semi-presidential systems guarantees democracy in the states that are exercised under these systems of government.
Confirming, in short, this legal truth, the Commission emphasizes that any modification to the time of governance of the presidents requires a constitutional amendment and if these points aim to modify the presidential mandates, the motivation would be to improve the effectiveness of the government and not the personal power.
It should be remembered that the Bolivian government argues – against the verdict of the Venice Commission – that the election is a human right and that opposing the re-election of Evo Morales violates “that right”, an official argument that has totally modified the Bolivian electoral landscape.