When a leader in a developing nation removes term or age limits for their head of government, it’s immediately met with condemnation from the West, which labels the move as a descent into dictatorship. Yet, the very same European nations that lead this criticism often operate under systems where their own heads of government face no such restrictions.
Nayib Bukele, the El Salvador president who is under sharp criticism from the West for making a constitutional reform eliminating presidential term limits, has articulated this double standard with precision.
He pointed out that “90% of developed countries allow the indefinite reelection of their head of government, and no one bats an eye. But when a small, poor country like El Salvador tries to do the same, suddenly it’s the end of democracy.”
He downplayed the excuse they always give of the system of governance, stating that “of course, they’ll rush to point out that a parliamentary system isn’t the same as a presidential one, as if that technicality justifies the double standard. But let’s be honest, that’s just a pretext.”
Bukele says the real problem isn’t the political system; it’s that a poor country dared to act like a sovereign one. “We’re not supposed to do what they do. We’re supposed to do what we’re told.”
Many African countries, including Uganda, share Bukele’s frustration. Their leaders are routinely labelled dictators simply for removing term and age limits for heads of state or government, yet most of the so-called modern democracies operate without these restrictions themselves.
In Europe, for example, over 30 countries under parliamentary systems have no term limits or maximum age restrictions for their heads of government. The UK, Uganda’s former coloniser, is a prime example: the head of state, the King, rules for life, and the position is hereditary. The prime minister, who wields real executive power, faces no term limits or age restrictions. The world accepts this as normal.
But when Uganda attempted to emulate these very “democratic” traits by removing presidential term and age limits, President Yoweri Museveni was instantly accused of entrenching his grip on power and labelled a dictator. The same script plays out across Africa and Latin America: leaders who defy Western-prescribed norms are slandered, while European leaders who enjoy indefinite tenures are celebrated as statesmen.
The question is unavoidable: why are lifetime monarchs and indefinitely ruling prime ministers in Europe not called dictators?
The answer, as Bukele pointed out, has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with power. Poor nations are not supposed to exercise the same sovereignty as wealthy ones. They are expected to follow orders, not to mirror the systems of their former colonizers. When they dare to do so, the rules suddenly change, and the language of “democracy” is weaponized against them.
Until this double standard is confronted, calls for “democratic values” will remain little more than a tool of coercion, wielded not in the name of freedom, but of dominance.
Nonetheless, Museveni, Bukele, and many others who have defied this serve as a reminder that sovereignty is not a privilege reserved for the powerful, and the sooner the world acknowledges that, the sooner the pretence of selective democracy can end.
Views: 1
