• Chump [he/him]
    ·
    10 months ago

    Think on that one again if you would. He served two terms under the old constitution, the constitutional court ruled that the terms served under the old constitution didn't apply to the new one, then he (attempted to) served two more terms under the new constitution. Like, disagree with that if you want, but saying it was definitely illegitimate is definitely wrong, because the courts definitely ruled that it was legitimate.

    • Lemvi@lemmy.sdf.org
      ·
      10 months ago

      The court ruled that the first term didn't count since the constitution was changed during that term, meaning it would only apply to terms started after the new constitution was adopted. Questionable but fair enough.

      After serving another term and during the third, the MAS initiated a referendum to increase the amount of terms a president could serve. Very good, if the population wanted to keep this president, this was their way to do it.

      However, the proposal was voted down, meaning the majority of the population was against an increase in the term limit. The democratic thing to do then would have been to start looking for another candidate.