The revocation of mandate was introduced in presidential systems as a mechanism of direct democracy, alongside the referendum, the plebiscite, the participatory budget and the citizen consultation. But, in practice, it operates more as a mechanism for measuring forces between the government and the opposition and as a thermometer of the popularity of incumbents.
Its incorporation, contemplated in a few Latin American countries, emerged under leftist governments with a strong populist component: in Venezuela in 1999, in Ecuador in 2008, in Bolivia in 2009 and in Mexico in 2021. and legislatures at the subnational level, the repeal of the presidential term is what gets the public’s attention.
The purpose of the repeal is to submit to a vote of citizens the permanence of an executive in power. It presents itself as a control mechanism to reverse a previously established majority decision. But what are the reasons that justify voting to decide to keep or remove a person from office?
Theoretically, it is based on an assessment of government actions from the moment it takes over until it is subjected to such control. A positive evaluation implies continuity, and a negative one implies leaving the position. Empirically, citizens can hardly count on all the elements to make an assessment, information about what governments do is asymmetric and is practically monopolized by political elites.
Therefore, citizens will be guided more by their political-ideological affinities and less by a performance evaluation. On the other hand, in parliamentary or semi-presidential systems, the continuity or not of a government depends on the confidence of the members of parliament, who can revoke or confirm the permanence of the government during their period.
The revocation processes in Latin America
As of February 2022, only two presidential mandate revocation processes had been carried out. The first in Venezuela, on August 15, 2004, was initiated by various sectors of the opposition in a coordinated manner, but also promoted by Hugo Chávez and his allies. Guided by little independent electoral bodies, it ended up being a process that called into question its viability and ended up generating a political crisis.
Chávez remained in power, winning with 59.1% of the vote, and from then until his death in 2013, the polarization increased. Today, Venezuela, under the command of Nicolás Maduro, is considered an authoritarian regime, plunged into a serious political and economic crisis, and the revocation mechanism, which precisely was supposed to help promote the ruler’s departure, did not work. In 2016 and 2002, the National Electoral Council rejected the application of this mechanism by imposing unreachable rules.
The second process was held in Bolivia on August 10, 2008, for the president, vice president and eight of the nine mayors. Evo Morales was ratified with 67.43% of the votes, as were six mayors, all from the same party. Two of the removed mayors, from La Paz and Cochabamba, were members of the opposition.
Bolivia also entered a political crisis, as the recall referendum deepened the existing conflicts between regional leaders and the central government.
Nine days after the celebration, work stoppages and road blocks began, the conflict escalated to the point that, in September, an oil pipeline that had been closed by the opposition exploded, and days later peasants sympathetic to the ruling party were murdered.
In this context, Morales expelled the US ambassador accusing him of supporting the opposition and imposed a state of siege in Pando, where the clashes were concentrated.
The conflict diminished when Unasur intervened and commissions were created to investigate the facts. Subsequently, and in less than a year, new processes to call Bolivian citizens to the polls were carried out.
In January 2009, the constitutional referendum was held for the new Constitution and, in December, general elections were held to re-elect the president and other positions. In both cases, as in the case of the repeal, Evo Morales’ movement largely won.
These experiences demonstrate that the revocation of the mandate is a citizen mechanism for controlling power, but that it is based on asymmetric information, therefore, it is a mechanism that elites can manipulate. Furthermore, these processes tend to favor the incumbent president and his party, and can ultimately lead to political crises.
What is the purpose of López Obrador’s repeal process?
In Mexico, the revocation of the presidential mandate was incorporated into the constitution on December 20, 2019, in September 2021 the regulatory law was issued and on the next April 10 it will be voted on.
The revocation proceeds if the result is by an absolute majority and if the participation exceeds 40% of those registered on the nominal list. Under this premise, the Executive Branch would assume the presidency of Congress and within the next 30 days a substitute president must be appointed to complete the constitutional period.
It is not surprising that López Obrador and his Morena party have promoted the application of the repeal, since, in practice, they present it as a “ratification”. At the same time, they have used its activation to attack electoral authorities, in particular the National Electoral Institute, denying it the resources to do so.
Contrary to what happened in Venezuela and Bolivia, in the case of Mexico, the opposition, partisan and non-partisan, did not mobilize to promote the repeal. This could be a “failure” for López Obrador, who has tried to generate broad mobilizations through other consultations, but without achieving them.
In the 2021 popular poll to “prosecute former presidents”, only 7.11% of the nominal list participated, predictably winning the ‘yes’ with 97.72%. In October 2018, three months after winning the elections, López Obrador held a consultation (outside the law) to cancel the construction of the Texcoco airport and build a new one in Saint Lucia, and on that occasion he won the president’s option, with the participation of only 1.22% of voters.
In this context, everything indicates that it is highly predictable that citizen participation in the repeal will be low and that the result will largely favor López Obrador. Perhaps after this third experience in the region, it will be useful to assess whether the revocation of the presidential mandate is really a mechanism of direct democracy or simply an instrument of manipulation of political elites.
