Here we have the case of a very, very, popular president who has enjoyed a range of 60% – 80% popularity during his two terms in office. In the Latin American region that´s outstanding! This isn´t due to oil money being thrown at the masses (our neighboor´s case), but the result of a genuine resurgence of safety, economic prosperity, as well as an improved international image of Colombia. Just look at the amount of foreign investment in the last couple years ranging above $10BN per year vs $2BN when Uribe took office. All these statistics are a testimony that things such as property rights and a proper legal system are attracting foreigners and bringing investment to the country. Look at the drop in murder rates and growth of the domestic and intl turism. And there are many more measures which measure development that have improved.

In any case, the amendment is by public referendum and luckily, even if Uribe doesn´t succeed, his former defense minister, who has a similar agenda has no obstacles and is similarly popular among Colombians due to tangible results in safety.

I hope poeple outside the country such as the OAS don´t try to impose their will on Colombians. Let them monitor any process to garanty democracy but, let´s choose our road to development. It not eveyday that such a successfull president is elected in Latin America.

Thanks…

Is that not a little bit arrogant? Is there any evidence at all that the State Department have any decent insight into what’s good for foreigners, least of all Latin Americans.

Maybe a third term for Uribe would be good for the Colombian people. History does indeed indicate that it might not. Roosevelt by all accounts had lost much of his impetus by his third term, but it didn’t turn out too badly. Either way, in a democracy, it’s a question for Colombian voters. Foreigners who wish Colombia well (or ill) are entitled to their opinions of Colombians’ democratic choices, but governments should butt out.