Former U.S. President Donald Trump has frequently suggested the possibility of extending his time in office beyond the constitutionally mandated two terms, raising concerns about the integrity of American democratic norms.
The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1951, imposes a two-term limit on presidents. However, a closer look at Latin America reveals that many countries in the region have faced their own struggles with presidential term limits, providing cautionary tales that may hold implications for the U.S.
Countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador have seen leaders successfully circumvent constitutional restrictions on term limits. The strategies these leaders employed can shed light on potential threats to democracy should similar efforts arise in the U.S.
Commonly, presidents seeking to extend their rule begin by ensuring their political party aligns closely with their agenda, thereby using their legislative control to initiate constitutional amendments. While Trump may not yet have achieved the same level of loyalty among Republicans as leaders like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua or Rafael Correa in Ecuador, this tactic remains prevalent.
In Nicaragua, Ortega utilized a compliant legislature to amend the constitution and dismantle term limits. In Ecuador, Correa did the same, showcasing how a majority in a legislative body can be leveraged to undermine democratic safeguards.
Achieving such amendments in the U.S., however, is a far more arduous task. The process mandates a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress, followed by ratification from three-quarters of state legislatures, making it significantly more difficult compared to regions like Latin America, where amendments can often be passed with a simple majority.
An additional crucial step in these maneuvers involves capturing or influencing the judiciary, as seen in Bolivia under Evo Morales. He secured a third term in 2014 with the backing of a partisan Constitutional Tribunal. More recently, in El Salvador, President Nayib Bukele obtained a ruling from a Supreme Court dominated by judges he appointed, allowing him to run for re-election despite a constitutional ban on consecutive terms.
In the U.S., we have witnessed a worrying trend of growing deference by the Supreme Court toward Trump’s agenda, raising questions about the robustness of judicial independence during such crises.
Additionally, garnering popular support is pivotal when attempting to legitimize constitutional changes. Many leaders in Latin America have succeeded in this endeavor by framing their actions as directly aligned with the will of the people. For example, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela won a referendum in 2009 aimed at abolishing term limits, thus legitimizing his extension of power.
However, the absence of a national referendum process in the U.S. greatly limits Trump’s ability to employ similar popular strategies. While local initiatives may exist at the state level, national-level plebiscites are not part of the U.S. political landscape.
Moreover, the political popularity of leaders who have successfully amended term limits often played a significant role in their actions. Rafael Correa maintained high approval ratings throughout much of his presidency, while Nayib Bukele enjoys support well above 80 percent according to recent polls. This broad popular support allowed them to present constitutional alterations as fulfilling the public’s desires.
In stark contrast, Trump’s approval ratings have remained in the low 40s, raising doubts about his ability to claim a strong mandate for seeking an extended presidency.
Another essential element in these scenarios involves military backing. The military’s support can be a determining factor in a president’s effort to defy constitutional limitations. In several Latin American nations, militaries have historically been politicized and trained to consider domestic opposition as threats, thereby legitimizing repressive actions against dissent.
However, in the U.S., military personnel are sworn to defend the Constitution rather than any individual officeholder. This foundational commitment, alongside a culture of political neutrality, offers a layer of protection against authoritarianism that has characterized many Latin American states.
Yet, rising partisan loyalties within segments of the U.S. military remain a concern, particularly given the historical context in which armed forces have sometimes sided with political leaders. As evidenced by the state’s increasing reliance on non-military armed forces like ICE, the tools available for exerting control over civilians extend beyond the military, raising the specter of potential repression.
While many in the West might view constitutional erosion as a phenomenon confined to the Global South, such beliefs can be dangerously complacent. The historical confidence in American institutions may have once been justified, but today it poses significant risks under the pressures faced.
The resilience of democratic systems is ultimately dependent on the political will to uphold and protect them. As we consider the lessons from Latin American experiences regarding term limits, it remains crucial to maintain vigilance and actively engage in the defense of democratic principles.
The situation surrounding Trump and potential attempts to extend presidential tenure signal the importance of recognizing and addressing the vulnerabilities that could lead to an erosion of constitutional norms.
image source from：https://theconversation.com/how-donald-trump-could-remain-president-of-the-united-states-255589
