Hidden Benefit of Non-Consecutive Terms?

With the Presidential election in the Dominican Republic to be held on May 16, all indications point to a win for PLD incumbent Leonel Fernandez. He has consistently polled well ahead of main opponent Miguel Vargas Maldonado of the PRD, and at this point the big question seems to be whether he can pull off a first round win (must get 50% +1) or have to face a second round.




Rather than look at the race, I'm more interested in discussing the fact that Fernandez is poised to be democratically elected to a third (but not all consecutive) presidential term. As far as I can tell, this is unprecedented in the course of recent democratization in the region. Fujimori was elected to three terms, but did it through trashing the party system. And he of course famously resigned (via fax from Japan) before a year was out in the third term. Garcia (Peru), Preval (Haiti), Ortega (Nicaragua), Arias (Costa Rica), and Fernandez are all currently serving second, non-consecutive terms. Uribe may very well successfully push constitutional reform to allow himself to serve a third consecutive term, but that's a few years down the road.


Fernandez first took office in 1996, served through 2000, took a term off, and returned to the presidency in 2004. This means that when he finishes his prospective third term in 2012, he will have been in the political limelight for 16 years. I wonder what effect these "off-terms" and non-consecutive terms have upon the overall political leadership climates of a given country. I imagine that those former-but-possible-future-Presidents stay very much informed and involved in what's going on, especially in their respective parties. In any case, a guy like Fernandez is not going to fade away, especially if there exists the prospect of a third term. Imagine what Bill Clinton would have been up to after 2000 if he could have run again in 2004 or 2008.
So I suppose that these off-terms allow politicians like Fernandez and Arias to reflect upon their presidencies, and hopefully gain some perspective on what could be done better. This is probably by design. But taking a term or two off, in theory at least, also motivates the politician to stay in touch with the people in the hopes of serving as executive once again. I think Ortega is a good example. Whether or not you agree with his politics, style, or dubious means of winning the presidency in 2006, he remained on the political scene after his presidency in the hopes of returning to office. So it would be in the interest of former presidents looking to regain the presidency after an off-term or two to keep in tune with what's happening both politically and in the pueblo, to maintain a reserve of popular support in a future election (as Ortega did, constitutional change notwithstanding).
In theory, they could also serve as an advocate for the people, and even potentially playing the role of a reputable, but unofficial "check" to the powers that be. With the proper outlook and motivations, this could be a valuable service to developing democracies, especially those struggling with caudillo leadership and/or one party dominance in the executive and legislative branches (think Bolivia).


I recently visited George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, Virginia. Washington, it should be noted, was not only the the "father" of the United States, but also the father of term limits. He chose to resign from the presidency after two terms, setting the unwritten precedent that US presidents would follow for the next 130 years or so. Two consecutive terms sounds about right to me, but allowing another consecutive term after some off-years may have benefits for developing democracies beyond what is usually considered.

Leadership Crisis in Haiti

As I write, Haiti is once again facing a leadership crisis. Short re-cap: protests the began on April 3 to air greivances about the rising cost of living turned violent, bringing upheaval to the capital and third largest city, Les Cayes. Receiving the brunt of the criticism is Prime Minister Alexis, who has been the face and mouthpiece of the government in the past few months regarding the cost of living crisis. Of particular concern for Hatians is the rising cost of staple foods - rice, beans, and cooking oil have seen up to 50% price increases in the past few months. This is no small matter in a country where most of the population struggles to get by on less than $2 per day. Although the violence that broke out during the protests is thought to be instigated by individuals with political and criminal agendas (rather than out of concern for the price of rice), and that violence has captutred recent headlines, this should not overshadow the primacy of the orginal message of the protests. Namely that Haitians are hungry, and the government has done nothing to help them.

As I write, PM Alexis is facing the prospect of either accepting the Senate's request for his resignation, or face a vote of no-confidence in the Senate, scheduled f0r 11:00 Saturday. There's a good chance that by the afternoon Alexis will be out - if if he does not resign, enough Senators necessary to vote him out have signed a letter stating that they would. The question remains, however, whether this coalition will remain disciplined enough to do so.

My intent is not a discussion of the news from Haiti, but rather to present another Latin American case of crisis of leadership in the absence of strong government. As is often the case in developing democracies, the benefit of kicking out an underperforming leader must be weighed against the damage done to the process of institutionalizing the legitmacy of leadership positions. On the one hand, it is certainly a good idea to toss out poor leaders, but that should not be the default action taken in hard times. Although the Haitian Senate is acting within the Constitution to call Alexis in for a vote, it will likely be disruptive to any number of other policies/programs in the works. Elections to renew 1/3 of the Senate have been delayed since November, and still have yet to be scheduled, and the government is scheduled to host a high profile International Donors Conference at the end of the month - these important events can only suffer with a government shake-up.

In other words, the removal of Alexis may do no more than buy President Preval a bit of time to try to come up with a fix to the food crisis, but this may come at the cost of other forward-looking initatives. Bravo to the Haitians for going out and protesting their legitimate concerns, but it is unfortunate that the political answer to the crisis may serve to set back other much-needed concerns.