Caudillos and Constitutions: Who Holds the Ultimate Authority?(World IN REVIEW‪)‬

Who or what holds the ultimate authority: a decade-old constitution or a leader with resounding popular support? Colombia's Constitutional Court answered this question in February 2010 by upholding the integrity of the foundation of any modern democracy--its constitution--and denying President Alvaro Uribe the possibility of a third term in office. At first glance, this " defeat" may be seen as a crushing blow to Colombia's future. During his presidency, Uribe made much progress in institutionalizing the rule of law in a country that has long been plagued by violence due to the looming presence of paramilitary forces and guerrilla groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Supporters of the new constitutional amendment believe that without his guiding hand, the country would be plunged once more into crisis and his reform agenda left unfulfilled. Nevertheless, this is at best an incomplete assessment of the situation because it does not consider the negative effects that repeated changes to the constitution could have on the stability of Colombian democracy. In order to judge the defeat of this constitutional change as a victory for Colombia and the region, it is essential to consider the regional effects that the preservation of the constitution could have in undermining the historical legacy of Caudilloism--a type of strong man rule in which leaders govern by using plebiscites and regularly bypass systems of checks and balances--that has plagued Latin America. The constitution was amended to set a two-term limit during Uribe's first administration, yet he desired an additional term to continue his campaign of law and order. The Constitutional Court's decision to block Uribe's bid for reelection has in fact perpetuated his legacy of stability and rule of law by breaking a cycle of Caudilloism and plebiscitary rule that has recurrently plagued the region.