Americas

When it comes to elections and democracy, and the many differences between countries, it is hard to say which system works better. Yet indicators abound to identify when something is not right.

Our election, with its limited time frame (36 intense campaign days), clear rules of what the public service can and cannot do during that time, and the transparency and reliability of Elections Canada, stands up very well when compared with others in our hemisphere.

In 2006, a dozen or so countries of the Americas had elections. Two years later, by browsing the media in some of them, it appears presidential elections were about to happen again, given the overt campaigning and coverage that potential aspirants receive. The reality is that—at the earliest—the next polls won't be until 2010 in those countries with four-year presidential tenures. The point is fixed elections do not prevent the pernicious effect of seemingly permanent campaigns.

Electoral cycles tend to repeat themselves: a short "honeymoon" period for new governments is quickly followed by a period of disenchantment and perceived unfulfilled expectations, and the electoral race begins again.

The cycle described is worse when combined with excessive centralization of the political system on the figure of the president, a personalization of politics over platforms or ideas, and weak institutions and party systems. Overall, most democracies in the Americas still show these traits.

Just as fixed elections don't prevent constant campaigning, there is no such thing as the "best" length for tenure. Periods vary from the longest, at four years with the possibility of one immediate re-election, to the shortest of four years without re-election. Defining the time in office a person—or a party—needs to carry out an agenda is at the centre of the political debate in many countries.

In Colombia, President Alvaro Uribe spearheaded the Constitutional changes that enabled immediate presidential re-election. The success of his "Democratic Security" agenda in his first tenure allowed him to be voted in again with overwhelming support. Given his continuing success—and remarkably high popularity—another constitutional change to allow a third term has been proposed. For the sake of Colombia's democracy, Mr. Uribe should discard that option.

In neighbouring Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has tried—and continues trying—to find a way to stay in power until at least 2021. He claims to be irreplaceable in leading the country's process of building the Socialism of the 21 ^st Century. So far, democratic forces within Venezuela have denied him such right, and his tenure should end in 2012. More wary analysts believe Chavez's regime could implode earlier as a result of inefficiency, corruption and widespread violence.

Bolivia and Ecuador would see presidents Evo Morales and Rafael Correa, respectively, given the possibility of re-election if their proposed new constitutions are approved. These two fragile democracies have very weak institutions and the current presidents are exacerbating the cleavages and divisions within their societies. In Bolivia, the results of the recent recall referendum for the president and prefects (governors of the provinces) entrenched the most antagonistic positions; instead of interpreting the vote as a mandate for negotiation and compromise, both sides—government and opposition—have radicalized the conflict, putting Bolivia's democracy in peril.

In Brazil, re-election was established during the tenure of former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who served his two terms. Current President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva was also re-elected and has clearly said he will step down at the end of this tenure. In Uruguay, arguably the South American country with the strongest democratic tradition and institutions, President Tabare Vazquez has emphatically stated he will only serve one term, despite widespread mobilization of his supporters urging him otherwise.

Letting go of power seems to be a tall order for many Latin American politicians. In countries where immediate re-election is not an option, the number of former presidents that come back for another tenure in office—in some cases after gaps longer than a decade—is surprisingly large.

In Peru, President Alan Garcia is currently having his second bite at the apple. After his disastrous first tenure in the mid-1980s, this time around he seems intent on doing things right. In order to deliver sustainable significant improvements to the lives of the most impoverished, Mr. Garcia has to stay the macro-economic course. Yet the pressure to recover his declining popularity figures could still revive the dormant populist in him.

Nicaragua is arguably the saddest example of how damaging a return to power of a former president can be. Daniel Ortega's way back into office was paved with shady political and judicial dealings. The corruption and mismanagement in his government are in full swing. The weakness of Nicaraguan institutions, compounded by the authoritarian vein of Ortega's ideological stances, prefigure increasing hardships for the people of the second poorest country in the hemisphere.

In Chile's well-functioning democracy, the upcoming municipal elections are being overshadowed by the race to replace President Michelle Bachelet, although presidential elections are not until 2010. The governing coalition's two leading contenders are both former presidents, Eduardo Frei and Ricardo Lagos—although both are reluctant to admitting publicly their desire to run.

In Colombia, former president Cesar Gaviria, who is also former OAS secretary-general, is thinking of running to replace President Uribe.

Many other issues dampen the democracies of the region. A recurrent trait in many electoral processes is the use and abuse of the power of the state by incumbents. Where institutions are weak, the lines that separate government spending from political party campaigning get blurred. The impartiality, objectivity and efficiency of the electoral bodies in many countries also leave a lot to be desired.

For Canada, democratic governance should continue to be a fundamental component of our policies of re-engagement with the hemisphere. It is not a matter of telling others what to do, but sharing expertise and good practices. It is very easy to criticize, pointing to the things we could improve in Canada. But when we look around, our democratic life and institutions are pretty good, and without becoming too complacent, we should feel proud of ourselves.