Last July in Venezuela, Hugo Chávez pushed through 26 new laws, covering changes in areas ranging from the military to small businesses, by decree. Among the decrees was one that created a new National Bolivarian Militia, a branch of the military consisting of civilian volunteers who will help neighborhood-based communal councils establish "defense committees," modeled on Cuba's Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, which encourage citizens to watch for "counterrevolutionary" activities. Another decree facilitated the expropriation of property linked to the production of "essential" food, goods and services. The executive branch can decree which goods are essential and begin expropriation proceedings, without a court order, of businesses that produce these goods. Another decree gave the Venezuelan government the power to annul standardized contracts between private parties. Chávez argues that this measure is to protect Venezuelan consumers from abusive practices by cell phone companies but the authority is so sweeping that any contract can be terminated without the parties' consent.

That is the Venezuela of Hugo Chávez as much as the one that has improved the health and education services provided to the poorest of poor. One can praise Chávez and still yet find his adherence to democratic norms and the rule of law wanting. Chávez is, of course, the poster child of continuismo. His desire to be President for life in Venezuela threatens democratic norms simply because in Latin America, the main check on executive power turning to despotism is term limits.

Every single country has them. In Mexico and Chile, it's one term and out - for good. Most countries, however, permit a return to power after sitting out a term. Brazil was the first to permit direct re-election and it currently allows a President a maximum of two four year terms. Though there has been much speculation since it was discovered that his hand picked successor Dilma Rousseff was undergoing chemotherapy for lymphoma, Brazilian President Lula da Silva has ruled out the possibility of standing for a third term in office. That's refreshing and a sign of political maturity. It augurs well for Brazil to have the rule of law triumph over the will of men.

In Colombia, democracy has been long described as a conversation among gentlemen. Under Uribe, Colombian democracy runs the danger of becoming a monologue. If Uribe is re-elected to third term, becoming the first Colombian President to serve three terms since Rafael Núñez Moledo who served three non-consecutive terms in the 1870s and 1880s, Uribe, with his wide power of appointment, can remake Colombia to his liking. He will get to appoint a new Procudador General, a position similar to the Attorney General but with greater independence and oversight capabilities. Uribe will continue to make judicial appointments packing the courts with those who share Uribe's vision on property rights and strong executive power.

If Uribe is re-elected, I suspect cases now pending against those who exceeded their power and committed gross violations of human rights will be dismissed and the perpetrators will go unpunished. There are now 90 cases in the false positives scandal in which members of the Armed Forces lured innocent young men to their deaths in order to pass them off as FARC members. Nor this is the only scandal to taint the Uribe Administration. There's the case of Jorge Noguera, Uribe's first head of the DAS (Colombia's all encompassing security agency think CIA + FBI and more), who sits awaiting trial for alledging using paramilitaries to commit extrajudicial assassinations of union leaders with ties to the FARC.

Colombia has long been a mixed economy with a strong state involvement but under Uribe there has been a rash of privatizations and a sell-off of Colombian companies to international consortia. While it would be hard to deny the tremendous gains in security, it is also clear that finishing off the FARC is likely to involve a change of tactics and a political settlement not to mention solving the drug trade. Unless social inequality is addressed and seriously tackled then Colombia will remain a nation at war even if that war is confined to outer reaches of the national territory.

But the crisis at hand is that of Honduras. According to the Honduran Constitution, Presidential term limits cannot be changed under any circumstance. Only Congress can modify the Constitution and then only during two successive sessions. These rules are in place for a reason - to prevent despotism. Honduras, like the rest of Latin America, allows for strong executive power. The check on that power is a single term.

Here's Octavio Sánchez, a former presidential adviser (2002-05) and Minister of Culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras, writing in the Christian Science Monitor:

To understand recent events, you have to know a bit about Honduras's constitutional history. In 1982, my country adopted a new Constitution that enabled our orderly return to democracy after years of military rule. After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.

It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions: Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.

It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions - one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.

During these 27 years, Honduras has dealt with its problems within the rule of law. Every successful democratic country has lived through similar periods of trial and error until they were able to forge legal frameworks that adapt to their reality. France crafted more than a dozen constitutions between 1789 and the adoption of the current one in 1958. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1789. And the British - pragmatic as they are - in 900 years have made so many changes that they have never bothered to compile their Constitution into a single body of law.

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" - as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

To restore Manuel Zelaya is to power to subvert the rule of law, not to uphold it. It is rare that I agree with Mario Vargas Llosa, the Peruvian writer, but in this case I do. Mr. Vargas Llosa writes in the Washington Post:

The crisis in Honduras should bring to people's attention this truth about Latin America today: The gravest threat to liberty comes from elected populists who are seeking to subject the institutions of the law to their megalomaniac whims.

Uribe is not a populist but if he seeks a third term, he deserves to be included as one who seeks to subject the institutions of the law to their megalomaniac whims. The rule of law must triumph over the will of men who would be despots.