End to presidential re-election in Colombia likely to strengthen institutional stability, curtail excessive presidential powers

The Colombian Congress passed a constitutional reform bill on 3 June that, among other measures, eliminated presidential re-election. The rationale for the proposal – led by President Juan Manuel Santos and his ruling La U coalition – was that presidential re-election in Colombia had ended up strengthening the power of individual politicians at the expense of democratic institutions. Other measures in the bill included the creation of a new tribunal in charge of prosecuting government officials accused of wrongdoing. It also instituted changes in the administration of the judiciary, again responding to widespread opinion that the current system had left it more open to corruption and undue political influence. The main impact of the reform, however, is likely to be the elimination of presidential re-election.

Colombia has been a regional outlier in that its traditional political culture has sought to place firm restraints on presidents wishing to extend their hold on power. Throughout most of the 20th century, immediate presidential re-election was prohibited and only two presidents managed to return to office, but not in successive terms. The 1991 constitution, one of the explicit goals of which was the curtailment of excessive presidential powers, eliminated re-election altogether under any circumstance.

Uribe's authoritarian tendencies

The ban on re-election lasted until 2005, when then-president Álvaro Uribe successfully promoted a constitutional reform allowing presidents to be re-elected once. Nonetheless, the measure faced strong resistance and the Uribe administration was forced to resort to illegal means to have Congress pass the amendment; several officials who served under Uribe were later indicted for bribing congressmen during the re-election vote. Uribe was comfortably re-elected in 2006, and soon tried to reform the constitution again to allow him to run for a third term in 2010, in an election he would probably have won. However, the Constitutional Court invalidated his proposed reform on procedural grounds.

Uribe's successor, Juan Manuel Santos, was himself returned to office in August 2014 and soon proposed an end to presidential re-election. The bill followed the normal route for constitutional reforms in Colombia, with eight readings in Congress, and after approval, came into effect immediately. It will apply to the next presidential election in 2018. Presidents are now unable to be re-elected under any circumstance beyond their initial four-year term. Santos himself was not directly affected by the change, since the previous constitutional text already prevented him from aspiring to re-election in 2018. The same statute also prevented Uribe from trying to return to office. The abolition of presidential re-election was approved without major public opposition and did not generate major congressional controversy.

Strong institutions

The fact that presidents will serve single terms, on paper, increases the risks of contract alterations as government rotations become more frequent. However, this is offset by the fact that Colombian judicial institutions are comparatively independent and generally provide protection for private investors from arbitrary changes. 

However, the end to re-election will entail a greater risk of policy instability, as governments know their terms will be limited to four years. Again though, the existence of checks and balances and autonomous policy-making institutions, in particular Colombia's powerful and independent central bank and its autonomous judiciary, will diminish the risk of extreme changes in policy direction. In fact, the protection of independence at the central bank and other autonomous bodies was part of the justification for ending presidential re-election. Critics have noted that during the Uribe and Santos administrations, the re-elected presidents were able to fill these institutions with their own appointees, against the intent of the 1991 constitution, which had originally set staggered terms for central bank governors, high court judges, and other officials to prevent undue influence from the executive branch.

Outlook and implications

The abolition of presidential re-election is risk-positive for Colombia's political stability and democratic strength. The country has generally avoided the personalised politics that have characterised several of its neighbours and that have often given rise to political figures whose easy dominance over weak institutions sharply increased policy instability and contract enforcement risks, for example in Argentina under President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner or in Venezuela under late president Hugo Chávez. Colombia had begun to drift in that direction, particularly under Uribe. Despite the frequent rotation of governments, the country has historically stood out in Latin America for policy continuity, strong political parties, and policy-making consensus. This has resulted in policy predictability, which has been helped by a relatively strong, autonomous judiciary and independent central bank.

This significant degree of legal stability has contributed to Colombia's healthy foreign direct investment inflows, which jumped from USD3.1 billion in 2004 to USD16.2 billion in 2013. This has underpinned strong rates of economic growth, which averaged 4.5% of GDP over the last decade. The checks and balances they embody have also contributed to the relative strength of Colombian democratic institutions, in spite of the large-scale violence the country has experienced over the last five decades.

The ban on re-election is not expected to have a direct effect on the peace process currently under way with Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) rebels. The existing constitutional arrangements already prohibited Santos or Uribe from seeking re-election. Santos was always under pressure to finish the peace negotiations before the end of his term in 2018 and it seems unlikely that the peace talks will last that long anyway. By then they will most likely either have resulted in a definitive peace deal, or will have collapsed completely.