Weren’t presidential term limits first instituted in the USA in 1951? If for about 180 years the USA was able to avoid “long-term Bonapartist/presidentialist rule”, wouldn’t it seem likely that Colombia, Venezuela, and Honduras would be able to do the same? Or is there something in these countries that makes them more likely to fall into a “long-term Bonapartist/presidentialist rule”? Maybe the water?
Obviously I am making a joke, the history of the countries mentioned above and just about every other country in the Americas (USA and Canada excepted), does mean that limits are probably a good idea.
In the U.S. we had a two-term tradition, established by George Washington, whose name carried such power that it took the strongest and most popular POTUS in history, FDR, to defy that tradition; and the 22nd Amendment was enacted in reaction to that.
Term limits might be a good idea, but one term? I think Zelaya had a good point in at least wanting to open up debate on that. (And, more importantly, on a great deal else in Honduras’ junta-drafted constitution.)
I think that term limits are good idea (though they sometimes have problems), and if I were a Colombian voter I would be opposed to this. I had the same opinion about Honduras, and I pity the voters of Venezuela under Chavez.