Ciao!

how long are Bolivian presidential terms?

Presidential terms are five years long, w/ no immediate reelection possible. It was four years long (also w/o reelection) until the Constitution was changed in 1994. Banzer served four years of his term, then resigned due to cancer. Goni's only served 14 months of his term. He was also president from 1993-1997 and was the only presidential candidate (or party, the MNR) to consistently come in first (or second) in the elections, and always w/ an average of 30% (in a five-party system), though last year they won only 22% (w/ the vote further spread out w/ the introduction of two new major parties).

Miguel,
I think I disagree with the statement about how an institutional democracy must always adhere to the rule of law, no matter how legitimate the grievances of the mob. I've always understood a democracy to represent the will of the people and the rule of law of that democracy being the constitution as ratified by the people.(I'm talking about the people, not violent mobs like what you're experiencing)
If a president or any other institution of the democracy abuses the people, or other institutions, then it is the duty of every citizen to re-exert their control over their democracy. The Dec. of Indep. lays out some of the grievances a people can and must use to overthrow their current system.
As far as Bush, I would argue(surprise, surprise) that he has already abused the institution of the president by stealing the office through the '00 election, and by continuing to undermine the constitution through his policies. The American people should take to the streets to non-violently work for his removal. If Americans continue to support Bush simply because he is there, the time will come when the laws will be changed so much that it will impossible to undo his policies. The legitimacy of any democracy is not based on the "rule of law" but the "rule of the people."
Based on what I've read of Bolivia it doesn't look like the people have a legitimate grievance against their government. Rather, it looks like a faction has decided to use the people and other grievances that have nothing to do with the president in order to attempt a power-grab themselves.

Patrick, I agree w/ you more than you might think. Yes, I do think that, ultimately, there's a right to revolt against oppressive and unjust regimes. However, I'd argue that the right to revolt doesn't guarantee the right to win; the state has a right to defend itself against the revolt.

I also agree that some factional interests in Bolivia are using popular sentiment among the poorest sections of the population to try to create an opportunity to overthrow the elected president. And this is dangerous.

I do believe that democracy rests, among other things, on the rule of law. The rule of law is essential to modern democratic norms, as Robert Dahl explains. And while I can see what you mean about Bush (though I might disagree), there's no reason to march to call for his removal.

The very rule of law that I speak of, means that there are mechanisms (such as the courts) to prevent any serious breaches of the constitution. In modern democracies, we have to wait for the next election to hold our leaders accountable for their governing. Otherwise, governments sink to the level of pandering to the mob; this was the downfall of the Roman Republic.

Here's a question (and, by the way Miguel, read above...I am sure I will write an extensive apology for not offering you in depth support later. I am writing this response while catching up on your capades): why has democracy not followed the technological quantum leap of electricity?

In earlier years, when new resources were exposed to man, we responded with grandiose schemes of new government. For example, the New World and the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Constution (of the United States); or a governmentally established road system which led to the Magna Carta and a new efficiency in government. Why has the cyber-age not allowed us to come up with a new and radically different form of democracy or government?

It seems to me that over the last thirty some years, we should have developed some sort of faction of radical thinkers that are grasping onto something new and awesome.

Miguel, I nominate you as the George Washington of this new issue. You will be our wooden-toothed, cherry tree not-choppin voice of need. I don't know where this will lead, but I know you will make something important. All you need to find is a Jefferson and a Franklin (of course, in this quantum, hi-tek age you may need to find 2 to the Nth powers of them) to make a whole new world order.

Do it. I expect results soon.

Love,
Micah

P- Glad you are well.

Miguel,
What worries me about the two institutions you cited, elections and the courts, is that I feel they are becoming partisan beyond the point where compromise among clear-headed people can take place. Take the last three big elections in America, 2000 Presidential, 2002 Congressional, and the CA recall. All of these elections, to varying degrees, seemed to come down to which side had the best legal manuerving--and not which side was the most representative of the will of the people. The 2000 election was solved, albeit poorly, by a court. The 2002 election had several court challenges and the CA recall was one big litigation.

And what would normally be the decisive indicator, the vote, has been uncovered to either not be counted properly or at all--or the voting districts are schewed to the will of the political party in power, creating bulletprooof districts for re-election. Already in America, one of the most stable democracies, very few of the elections at the congressional level are even contested--in the House there's something like 400 safe seats, while only 30-40 are even contested. Is it the will of the people to be manipulated through redistricting?

What appears to be happening to me is that instead of replying on actual voting, both sides seem to be gaming the system to make it work for their interests and not for the interests of the people. Obviously, this has been going on for the life of the country, but these days it seems as if the constitutional guardians, the courts and the vote, are in danger of becoming sidelined to these partisan interests.

I say throw all the bums out, and let's have another Constitutional Convention. Didn't Bolivar write a constitution somewhere that had a provision in it about the consitution expiring after a certain period of time, so that the country could have another constitutional convention?

Patrick:

On the Bolivar note, no. I don't recall any constitution Boliviar wrote having any such provision. Also, the Bolivian constitution doesn't allow for a new constitution, only for ammendments.

Your points on American litigation are solid, but keep in mind that the legal system still depends on common law and the rules of prescedence. It's not quite as political as it seems. Yes, the 2000 election and the 2002 CA recall did, in many ways, come down to who had the best litigation. But that also proves my point! Litigation comes down to legal (and rational!) argumentation, NOT mob violence in the streets.

The solution w/ the idea of "throw them all out and write a new constitution" is simplistic. The US is the world's longest lasting democracy in part because it's never had a second constitutional convention. Re-read the history of the debates over the drafting of the constitution. And that was w/ a room of only white, propery-owning men, all of whom were religious (in some sense or other). Imagine a constitutional convention for a heterogeneous population! That's been tried in many countries, it usually leads to civil war. There's a reason why transition to democracy w/o a constituent assembly is the safest route to democracy, the opposite usually leads to a failed democratization. Read Dahl, Sartori, Linz & Stepan, and di Palma on this point.

Micah:

Well, social structures aren't the same as hard sciences, so that's why these things don't exactly correlate. The birth of liberal democracy's link to science is its link to the Enlightenment, which allowed people to think freely (not traditionally or dogmatically) and so allowed advances in science, but also in social freedom, which led to democracy.

Unfortunately, democracy itself isn't understood. I recommend a very good and accesible book by one of the premier democratic theorists to you: "On Democrac" by Robert Dahl. He points many of these problems out; the back includes a brief list of suggested readings on some of the issues he raises in the book (including his critics).

That said, there are people working on advancing democracy into new areas, one of the pioneers of this was Dahl himself. But democracy's not a set system of ruling, it's a combination of various social/logical principles. They're adaptive to new conditions. That explains why many countries in the world are "democratic" but have very different constitutional structures.