Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Nicaragua: High court OKs Ortega reelection

Latin American leaders across the political spectrum have considered whether to change their respective country’s constitution in order to run for presidential reelection. The Central American country of Nicaragua is no exception as president Daniel Ortega admitted in July that he would back having a constitutional referendum allowing him to run in 2011.

Yesterday the constitutional branch of the Nicaraguan Supreme Court overturned the ban on presidential reelection. The move was backed by pro-government judges and after Ortega and a group of more than 100 mayors petitioned the country’s high court. The verdict still needs to be approved by the entire 16-judge Supreme Court though justice Francisco Rosales said that he expected it to be ratified.

As BBC News notes, reelection backers throughout the region have argued that “continuity over more than four years is needed if effective policies for change are to be enacted.” Conversely, opponents of the reelection move in Nicaragua like the country’s vice president have decried it as a gateway to “dictatorships, tyrannies, confrontation, and civil war.”

In the end it will be up to the Nicaraguan electorate to decide if Ortega will get reelected in two years time. If an April poll is any indication of what could happen in 2011, then Ortega may be on his way out of office.

Image- BBC News (An Ortega poster says “To serve the people is to serve God!”)
Online Sources- Angus Reid Global Monitor, Colombia Reports, Reuters, AFP, AP, BBC News, The Latin Americanist

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

i strongly desagree with the Ortega reelection, cause this set a bad example of democracy in central america.

Yesterdy was SOMOZA..
NOW IS
ORTEGA

HOPE,- AS SALVADOREAN-
THE FMNL DONT TAKE THIS ROUTE
TO
CREATE A SOCIALIST OR COMUNIST
COUNTRY.

NINO DEL PIERO

ElJefe said...

How is it even legal for a supreme court to simply decide that an article of the constitution (a very important article by the way) simply does not apply to the president? Have they even published their reasoning?