New Bill: Throw the Devils Out!
By Rod Hughes, Fijatevos.com

Analysis: The more this Legislative Assembly tries to change the 1949 Constitution, the wiser the framers of that Constitution appear.

A new bill, proposed by two citizens and backed by Libertarian deputy Carlos Gongora would give the lawmakers the ability to summarily dismiss a president or other high government official for ineptness or corruption.

This is the process used in June by the Paraguayan congress to dismiss their ex-President Fernando Lugo. The bill would apply this method to judgment of vice-presidents, cabinet ministers, autonomous board chairmen, the Comptroller General or his/her deputy.

Initial reaction to the bill registered on La Nacion's Facebook page is overwhelmingly negative. Costa Ricans, although they value as direct a democracy as possible, obviously don't have a great deal of faith in their Legislative Assembly to render an objective judgment.

It is hard to argue with that citizen response. Costa Ricans are not now, nor ever have been, naively starry-eyed when it comes to politicians. In the past few years they have become increasingly disenchanted with them.

The plan drafted by Edgar Avila and Sergio Solano certainly deserves to be taken seriously. Moreover, it is written into such democracies as the United States where impeachment has never been used but has been threatened several times, most notably in the case of Richard Nixon.

But Costa Rica is not the United States and, in fact, many North Americans expatriates who have chosen to live here would say, "Thank God for that!"

When La Nacion contacted Social Christian Unity spokesman Luis Fishman, Citizen Action Party deputy Carlos Mendoza and deputy Fabio Molina of National Liberation, all rejected the idea on grounds of destabilizing the nation.

We at this blog have the same reservations. The framers of the country's Constitution adopted a presidency with a fixed term when they could have used a variation of the parliamentary system popular in Europe.

The fixed term offers a stability not possible in a parliamentary system. Yes, it has worked well in Britain, where a non-confidence parliamentary vote can bring about new elections immediately. But Britain is exceptionally well balanced in social makeup and is the only nation successful without a written constitution.

Moreover, the Constitutional framers here chose a four-year term of office for its president, not the six-year term chosen later in Nicaragua. That may have been due to a feeling that, "We can stand a mistake for four years."

This reporter remembers the case of Italy after World War II, when the Italians changed governments--and prime ministers--with the frequency most of us change shirts, it seemed.

When this reporter lived there in 1960, Armintore Fanfani was prime minister and most of my friends seemed satisfied. After living there about 10 months, I returned to the United States only to learn within a month after returning home that Fanfani had been booted.

I had asked my long-suffering Italian friends while I was there, "Why do you change prime ministers so often?" They shrugged and humorously answered, "Maybe because some of us haven't been prime minister yet."

This Legislative Assembly has been very quick to usurp powers and rearrange the political spectrum for their own comfort. One bill would pull the teeth of the Supreme Elections Tribunal in keeping political parties from robbing the taxpayer blind for campaign expenses. A recently passed law endangers freedom of the press, as well.

Remember that these congresspersons were the same people who, as one of their first actions after taking office in 2010, was to attempt to vote themselves a fat raise immediately. Public opinion was faster and said, "No!"