The party of El Salvador President Nayib Bukele approved constitutional changes in the country’s National Assembly on Thursday that will allow indefinite presidential reelection and extend presidential terms to six years.

Lawmaker Ana Figueroa from the New Ideas party had proposed the changes to five articles of the constitution. The proposal also included eliminating the second round of the election where the two top vote-getters from the first round face off.

New Ideas and its allies in the National Assembly quickly approved the proposals with the supermajority they hold. The vote passed with 57 in favor and three opposed.

Bukele overwhelmingly won reelection last year despite a constitutional ban, after Supreme Court justices selected by his party ruled in 2021 that it allowed reelection to a second five-year term.

  • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    15 days ago

    Focusing just on the constitutional changes: it’s a bad sign when your constitution can be changed by a single political party.

    In El Salvador’s case they have a unicameral legislature and Bukele’s party has 54 of the 60 seats. So, there’s no way to prevent this by requiring a bigger supermajority.

    But, it seems like since a constitution is meant to last as long as the country exists, amendments to it should have to be reaffirmed or they get automatically repealed. So, there’s an automatic re-vote after 5, 10 and 20 years or something.

    If they had done that with prohibition in the US they wouldn’t have needed the 21st amendment to repeal prohibition, they could just have decided not to continue the 18th which established prohibition.

    With a dictator as president, and absolute control over the legislature, I would bet that those guys are also going to make it impossible for any other person to win a presidential election, or any other party to win the legislature. And then, the only way to restore democracy will be a coup or an uprising.

    • pezhore@infosec.pubEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      As a counter point, the US would have to re-vote for the 14th Amendment.

      As a counter counter point also the 2nd.

      You know, I think I like the established way of doing amendments - passes by Congress and a plurality of the states.

    • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      15 days ago

      But, it seems like since a constitution is meant to last as long as the country exists, amendments to it should have to be reaffirmed or they get automatically repealed. So, there’s an automatic re-vote after 5, 10 and 20 years or something.

      That would pretty much go against the point of a constitution. It’s meant to be both extremely hard to change it and extremely hard to revert changes put in as a matter of how it’s done(though never impossible -that would be bad).

      You can only put as many safeguards in as possible to prevent dictatorships, but if they control more than 2/3 of the government your screwed no matter what laws you have on the book

      • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        15 days ago

        if they control more than 2/3 of the government [you’rre] screwed

        That’s why I think confirming after 5, 10 years might be a good idea. A supermajority is rare. Unless the supermajority screws with the laws to guarantee they stay in power, the next congress might have enough votes to undo any meddling they did. If they do cement their power, then you’re screwed either way.

        • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          0·
          14 days ago

          Thanks for the grammar correction 🙏

          Ah, so do you mean it as a one time confirmation rather than repeating? In which case I’m a lot more inclined to agree with you