Wiki-Constitutionalism

The strange phenomenon that's destroying Latin America.

Last year, Hugo Chavez amended Venezuela's constitution and abolished term limits. The entire business was a bit odd, but not because the constitution was changed, which is quite common in Latin America. Nor was it because the changes involved extended his rule (which is equally common). No, what was unusual about the constitutional reform of 2009 was that abolishing term-limits was all it did.

You see, constitutions are uniquely plastic in Latin America. Not only are presidents exceptionally powerful here—I live in Caracas, and it is not at all uncommon to turn on the television to find El Comandante on every TV channel, explaining currency valuations or riot control measures or energy crises or international weather phenomena as if he himself was the entirety of the government and all of its ministries—but, in addition, Latin American leaders have a nasty habit of rewriting their countries' constitutions more than anywhere else in the world.

This is a phenomenon I call "Wiki-constitutionalism." In Latin America, constitutions are changed with great frequency and unusual ease (though not through any open-source collaborative process), as if they were Wikipedia pages. The evidence is staggering: The Dominican Republic has had 32 separate constitutions since its independence in 1821. Venezuela follows close behind with 26, Haiti has had 24, Ecuador 20, and Bolivia recently passed its seventeenth. In fact, over half of the 21 Latin American nations have had at least ten constitutions while, in the rest of the world, only Thailand (17), France (16), Greece (13), and Poland (10) have reached double digits. And the process occurs under governments of every political stripe—not just socialist ones like those of Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales. Gruff conservatives like Colombia's Alvaro Uribe and friendly, doting moderates like the Dominican Republic's Leonel Fernandez have joined the party too, attempting to tear up and revise their constitutionally-mandated term limits. (It's important to distinguish between amending and rewriting. Constitutional amendments are common all over the world, but Latin America's rewrite-mania is truly eccentric: Venezuela, for instance, has adopted 26 new constitutions, but amended an existing one only thrice.)

Many of these rewrites go beyond term limits, however. Chavez’s constitution of 1999 disbanded the upper house of the legislature, rearranged the lower house, separated authority among five "powers" (including citizens and electoral councils, as well as the usual legislature, executive, and judiciary), and redesigned and renamed nearly all government ministries. The result was the same thing that nearly always emerges from such restructurings: a significantly strengthened executive in direct control of oil revenues, judicial appointments, and an increasingly rubber-stamp National Assembly. It was the institution of the presidency that emerged intact, recognizable, and all the stronger from the restructuring process—meanwhile the other institutions had to start at square one, lacking the institutional legitimacy, memory, relationships, and mandate necessary to govern independently. This type of dictatorial redesign is a grand tradition among the region's caudillos, the iconic strongmen, dating all the way back to the liberator of South America, Simon Bolivar.

And yet, despite their authoritarian intentions, modern-day caudillos approach the process of constitutional revision with a certain delicacy. Constitutions rarely include provisions for their own destruction, so replacing them in the absence of a massive social upheaval can be tricky. There was a time when the Trujillos, Gómezes, and Somozas of this world could create constitutions through sheer force of personality, but, nowadays, leaders generally attempt to legitimize them through plebiscites. Using state funds, they launch massive media campaigns extolling how their new documents are “the best in the world” (Ecuador’s Rafael Correa) or that they will solve “all the [country's] problems” (Bolivia’s Evo Morales).

Page 1 of 2
COMMENTS (6)
05/25/2010 - 2:25am EDT |

The big problem is the enumeration of rights in too much localized detail. The great advantage of the U.S. Constitution is the fact that nobody apart from the Supreme Court can really say what the heck "to promote the general Welfare" means, and even they would duck into a doorway to avoid it.

The Constitution is an Enlightenment intellectual exercise written as a British Romantic poem. As if John Keats had thought long and hard about representation and the separation of powers. The Latin American problem is that their constitutions are magical realist novels written as legal documents.

05/25/2010 - 12:12pm EDT |

Thank you for this superb article, Mr. Lansberg- Rodriguez. Irony: Why John Keats? As you correctly write, our constitution is an Enlightenment document but Keats was anti-Enlightenment. He famously accused Isaac Newton of destroying the beauty of a rainbow by attempting to explain it: Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made/The tender-person'd Lamia melt into a shade.

05/25/2010 - 12:21pm EDT |

To call Simón Bolívar "the liberator of South América" omits mentioning the one who really initiated the campaign against the Spanish Crown forces in that continent. Argentina, as well as Chile, Bolivia and Peru were liberated by José de San Martín.

05/25/2010 - 12:52pm EDT |

Why John Keats? At 2.30 a.m. the temptation to be glib and toss literary-historical references around like confetti cannot be resisted.

05/25/2010 - 2:16pm EDT |

While the Constitution of the United States is fairly rigid the state constitution I am most familiar with appears to be extremely malleable. Indeed it is sufficiently malleable that calling it a constutution is an insult to the word not just the idea.

05/25/2010 - 5:09pm EDT |

Irony, Keats might have been shorter yet: "'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' and 'No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.' - that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Premium Content
= PREMIUM CONTENT  
TNR Classic
= ARCHIVED CONTENT
Jonathan Chait
September 3, 2010 | 5:11 pm - Jonathan Chait
September 3, 2010 | 4:50 pm - Jonathan Chait
September 3, 2010 | 2:06 pm - James Downie
Critics
September 2, 2010 | 12:00 am - Jim Manzi
The Famous Door
Subscribe Today

First Name

Last Name

Address 1

City

State

Zip

E-Mail