HOW MANY CONSTITUTIONS YOUR LATIN COUNTRY HAS?
The Latin Americas, The Constitution Crazies.



The Hispaniola Island Presidents, Rene Preval of Haiti and Leonel Fernandez of the Dominican Republic in Miami last week. Did they boast on how many constitutions their countries have? The Dominican Republic holds a world record in constitutions, while Panama has had the fewest in Latin America. Ecuador recently approved a new constitution, the 20th for the South American country. However, Ecuador is not the regional leader when it comes to the number of constitutions. That honor goes to the Dominican Republic, according to Venezuelan economist Jose Luis Cordeiro, who has followed the issue for many years. In fact, the Dominican Republic holds a world record, beating even countries like Thailand, which has had “only” 17 constitutions. This paper takes a closer look at the constitutional history of Latin America. Jose Luis Cordeiro is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Developing Economies, IDE-JETRO, Japan; Venezuela Chair of The Millennium Project and the author of several best-selling books on Latin America. (Photo: Dominican President's Office)

Around the world, on average, Latin America has had the most convoluted constitutional history. The Dominican Republic has had a total of 32 constitutions, the largest number of constitutions of any country, since its independence in 1844. Three other countries have also had 20 or more constitutions throughout their history, all of them in Latin America: Venezuela (26), Haiti (24) and Ecuador (20). On the other hand, there are economies and societies that do not even have codified constitutions, like the United Kingdom in Europe, Hong Kong in Asia and New Zealand in Oceania. The United States has had only one constitution, even if it has been amended several times. There is also the special case of Israel and Saudi Arabia, both in the Middle East, that do not have official written constitutions for historical and religious reasons. Comparative constitutional numbers and history help to explain several things about the stability of political systems, but not necessarily their quality. (...)

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

The Dominican Republic was a colony of Spain until 1795, then a colony of France and later a colony of Haiti until 1844, when it became independent, but was still invaded by Haiti in several occasions (1844, 1845-49, 1849-55, and 1855-56). The first constitution of the Dominican Republic was written in 1844: it had 211 articles that defined the country as a republic following the democratic ideals of the United States constitution. From 1861 to 1865, the Dominican Republic signed a pact with the Spanish Crown which reverted the Dominican nation to a colonial status, the only Latin American country ever to do so. From the 1865 Spanish withdrawal to 1879, there were twenty-one changes of government and at least fifty military uprisings until the Second Republic was founded. The history of the Dominican Republic was characterized by many caudillos, the United States intervention and occupation, and the Rafael Leonidas Trujillo era from 1930 to 1961, who wrote and rewrote many times his own constitutions, just like previous “caudillos” in the Dominican Republic.

Due to its convoluted history, the Dominican Republic has had a grand total of 32 constitutions since its first in 1884 to its most recent one in 1994 with 120 articles (plus 2 transition articles), which has already been modified in 2002. Obviously, many Dominican constitutions are modifications of previous constitutions, mostly based on the first one in 1844, but some authors count up to a total of 37 separate documents. This makes the Dominican Republic the country with the largest number of constitutions, followed by Venezuela with 26 and Haiti with 24.

HAITI

After the United States, Haiti was the second nation to become independent in the Americas. Its first constitution was drafted in 1801, while Haiti was still a French colony, a condition that only changed at the end of 1803. This constitution followed some revolutionary ideas and it finished with the French revolutionary calendar: “Given at Cap-Français, 14 Messidor, year 9 of the one and indivisible French Republic”. That first constitution of Haiti was drafted by three mulattoes and seven whites, had 77 articles and recommended that Toussaint Louverture became ruler for life. It is ironic that such undemocratic idea was suggested by one of the most conservative of American revolutionary figures, Alexander Hamilton. Toussaint Louverture died in 1803, and his follower, the then Governor-General of Haiti, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, created the Empire of Haiti when he proclaimed himself Emperor Jacques I in 1804. His constitution of 1805 set out the way for the Empire in 53 main articles plus 28 general dispositions.

In over two centuries of independence, tiny Haiti has been an empire, a kingdom and a republic, with alternating, reelected and lifetime presidents as well. It has had a total of 24 constitutions, the last one with 298 articles approved in 1987.

HOW MANY CONSTITUTIONS YOUR LATIN COUNTRY HAS?
The Latin Americas, The Constitution Crazies 2.

CENTRAL AMERICA

Three Central American countries, independent from Spain since 1821, follow
together with 14 constitutions each: El Salvador with 274 articles in its 1983 constitution,Honduras with 375 articles in 1982 and Nicaragua with 202 articles in 1987. (Notice also that some authors consider 16 instead of 14 constitutions for Honduras.) Two other Central American countries have had 9 constitutions since their independence in 1821: Costa Rica with 197 articles in 1949 and Guatemala with 280 articles in 1986. (Additionally, Guatemala had a national referendum for a new constitution in 1999, which was not approved.) Panama has had 4 constitutions since its more recent independence from Colombia in 1903: its fourth constitution had 311 articles in 1972 and was reformed to 322 articles in 1994.

MEXICO

Mexico has had a total of 7 constitutions since its declaration of independence in 1810. Its current constitution was the result of the Mexican revolution in 1917 and has 136 articles, plus 16 transitory articles. Argentina has had 6 constitutions between 1816 and 1853. The last has 107 original articles and it was based on the work of Juan Bautista Alberdi, a classical liberal thinker that wrote Bases y puntos de partida para la organización política de la República Argentina (1852). Since 1853, the constitution has had 6 major reforms, and the 1994 version included 129 articles.

COLOMBIA

According to different authors, Colombia has had from 6 to 10 constitutions. It partially depends on which constitutions to count, particularly from 1810 to 1830, when there were several constitutions for different parts of the country. The constitution of 1886 (following the national constitutions of 1832, 1858 and 1863, and three major reforms in 1843, 1853 and 1876) was a landmark document that, despite 8 major reforms, was valid for slightly over a century. The current constitution of 1991 is the longest in Latin America, with 380 articles, plus 61 additional transitory articles.

PERU

Peru has also had a confusing constitutional history, with a total of between 9 and 18 constitutions, depending on the views of different authors. Juan Vicente Ugarte del Pino, a very famous legal historian, considers 18 constitutions including several constitutional texts that were not officially called constitutions, like special statutes during military governments. Other historians, like Enrique Chirinos Soto, consider only 9 constitutions since they exclude short-lived constitutions like those of 1823 and 1867, and that of 1834 that was created for the Peruvian-Bolivian Confederation. On average, 12 constitutions are considered by most legal historians (like Domingo García Belaunde, the most prolific constitutionalist in Peru during the 20th century). The current constitution of 1993 had 206 original articles, plus 8 amendments until 2005.

CHILE

Chile has had between 7 and 11 constitutions, but most of them were before 1833, when Chile became remarkably stable compared to other Latin American countries. Most scholars consider the constitutional texts of 1811 with 19 articles, 1812 with 27 articles, 1814 with 13 articles, 1818 with 143 articles, 1822 with 248 articles, 1823 with 277 articles and 1828 with 134 articles. The constitution of 1833, with 168 articles and considered the eighth by many authors, lasted until a new one was written in 1925 with 110 articles (which was later substituted by the constitution of 1980, with 120 original articles and 29 transitory provisions). The current constitution of Chile is formally that of 1980, which after several amendments in 11 years, now has 129 articles and 21 transitory provisions.

BRAZIL AND URUGUAY

Brazil and Uruguay have had a simpler constitutional history, and each country counts 7 constitutions. In both countries, each constitution is now clearly defined as the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh constitutions, which eliminates any ambiguities about the previous historical constitutions. The seventh constitution of Brazil was written in 1988 and contains 250 articles, while the seventh constitution of Uruguay was enacted in 1997 with 332 articles (as a comparison, the first constitution of Uruguay had only 159 articles). Nearby neighbor Paraguay has had 6 constitutions since its independence in 1811, and the current 1992 constitution has 291 articles (the previous 1967 constitution had 239 articles).

CUBA

Cuba has had a total of 5 constitutions since it declared its independence from Spain in 1868. The current constitution of Cuba in 1976 has 141 articles. Puerto Rico has had only two constitutions since it became independent, the smallest number of constitutions in Latin America. Its current basic law of 1952 is also the shortest in the region with only 9 articles.

FASCINATING DIVERSITY

A quick overview of the number of constitutions, and the number of articles of those constitutions around the world, shows a fascinating diversity throughout the continents. Some countries have had no written constitutions and do not seem to need one now (like the United Kingdom). A few do not have them now but might need one later. Still other countries seem to have had too many constitutions and might do better with less constitutional documents, or even going back to using their first (like Indonesia did) or some previous version (like the Philippines had done too) in their constitutional history.

The particular constitutional experience of Latin American shows that the answer to the economic and political crises is not more laws, especially if they are bad and are not even applied or applicable. It is better to have fewer laws that in turn are good and respected. Laws that are neither institutionalized nor respected are useless laws. As a result, the legal systems in Latin America have become a very expensive rhetorical game where often times the legal does not coincide with the just, and when it does coincide, is not enforced. The real constitutional problem is not based on the quantity, but rather on the quality, of the laws. Puerto Rico is the wealthiest economy in Latin America and it has had only 2 constitutions, the current one with just 9 articles. The other extreme is represented by nearby poor Dominican Republic with its 32 constitutions and current 120 articles.

INSTABILITY INDICATOR

Concerning the total number of constitutions, it seems that a large number of
constitutions is almost always a good indicator of political instability in the country. Some countries of Latin America (e.g., the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Haiti, Ecuador and Bolivia) are examples of political instability since their independence, just like Chad in Africa or Thailand in Asia, and even France had a complex constitutional history during its revolutionary days. On the other hand, it is also important to emphasize that a small number of constitutions is not necessarily a good indicator of political development, and it could also indicate a lasting autocracy or theocracy (like in some African and Middle Eastern countries). It can thus be argued that a few good laws are better than a few bad laws and much better than many bad laws.

Concerning the number of articles per constitution, there has been a worldwide trend to increase the size of each new national constitution. Almost all new constitutions, approved recently in any country, tend to be larger than the previous ones that were replaced. Every time that there is a new constitution, more articles are added including such diverse topics as the environment, same-sex unions, animal rights, and special considerations about indigenous groups, for example. Thus, substituting constitutions seem to be increasing in size and complexity, proving that Confucius was right about his old dictum: Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.

Hate it or love it all must admit the incredible feat of the US in maintaining its current Constitution for so long, even through a bloody, destructive civil war.

It's been observed here before, what makes a constitution work would seem to include this: that the people with the guns agree to submit to the leadership of the people with the money, and both agree to submit to some sense of rights, liberty and a common welfare aka to principles. One of these legs seems to elude DR. I'd say it's that last one as rule of law is not a term anyone would use to describe governance in DR.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Dominican Republic hasn't been the only nation to ever revert back to colonialhood on Latin America, cuz', haven't you heard about the Second Mexican Empire (1864-1867) which was essentially an appendage (or colony, if you must), of Napoleon III's Second French Empire, and which was brought into being by an alliance between the French forces and the Mexican conservatives (almost the same way that the Dominican annexation to Spain was brought about). This Empire would meet its end when the Mexican revolutionary forces, lead by Benito Juarez, toppled the colonial-imperial government at the battle of Queretaro, after which Maximilian of Austria, the colonial viceroy, would be executed by a firing squad. It's not a surprise the fact that Juarez' revolutionary movement would receive the covert and implicit support of the big brother up north, which feared the consequences that would entail if a resurgence of European ambitions in America were to be brought out were the Mexican experiment have had the fortune of being successful.

Here's part of the history:

http://www.sanmiguelguide.com/benito-juarez-2.htm

So why can't the United States just buy or take ownership of the dominican republic, it would help get those people out of the misery the now live in, how sad that hardly anyone living in poverty has no way of moving up or getting any kind of benifits of assistance, no wonder their is so much crime and drug problems their, thats their only way to make some money and feed their families or die of starvation, what a president you all have, I'm amazed at the lack of interest he has upon his people, he is the biggest self centered person i have ever met of that magnitude, good bless the uncared people of the dominican republic.

I think that the reason the US doesn´t take complete overlordship of this country is because of the fact that they´d would also have to take control of Haiti, my dear gatita. And, unless they plan to make this island a penal colony, make a reconstruction as they did on Japan, or industrialize the island (as they did on Puerto Rico with "Operation Bootstrap" ), they´d have a sudden inflow upon their shores, cuz', as in the case of Puerto Rico before its industrialization, almost everybody would flee the island once they've been given the blue passport, and I don't think that the rednecks living on your southern states would be too glad of dealing with another big exodus of coloured people besides the one they face on a daily basis with the mexicans/central americans on your southern land borders. Nobody would tell you this, but the real reason that prevented president Ulysses Grant from annexing this country to the States on the 1870's would be the deep seated racism of the public opinion over there (and not the "heroism" of senator Charles Sumner, as it's the official point of view on history books). If that was the position then, when the country was less coloured than now, what would you think would be the reaction now?

True indeed you are, and yes i don't think it would be as bad as it was then, but it would still be bad, because we all know what happened to all them folks down there in the louisiana and mississippi parts that were affected by the hurricane a few years ago, our beloved and devoted president was told about the situation and kept playing his golf game, "being the golf head he is", and the world knew just how of a racist he really is, even up to this date, there are still alot of people displaced, and yes alot of our battles are down at the southern end but it has nothing to do with color at that end, because people from the united states just don't like seeing other people from other countries coming here with oo- so white skin and blonde hair and blue or green eyes, heck they blend in just to easy, it has to do alot with them just being from "MEXICO". However, when it comes to darker, way darker skins yes real "black" people, then issues start, here in america and being said that, yes... if haitians were to invade our land or come to live here, to the folks here it would be like starting the revoulution war all over again, and mind you that, people don't have a problem with them, they are just scarred of them, especially their dark skin and the kind of history they have behind them, people here feel like they're a contagous disease, thats it. But did you also know that from the southern end of the united states including california to florida all going up northerly, the hispanic population is gaining, practically pushing the minority out into "Canada", we just all need to push a little more, harder.

Lautaro,

You never cease to amaze me man! Great way to dissect this and well put. I agree with your response.

Lastly, I cannot believe you know of the great Charles Sumner. Indeed, you k now your stuff kiddo, you really do and as always you have shed great light of knowledge on retrospect of the question asked.

Keep it up, dawg!!! In on of my favorite OLD SCHOOL quote I say: "You're my boy blue!!!"

That´s what friends are for, Afro. Once one posess all the facts at hand, to make the analysis about the endless "what ifs" outcomes of history is really not that hard.

On other matters (related, if I may say so). What's your opinion about the debate between the VP candidates?

Well,

I was quite a bit disappointed on or in the format of the debate as far as how things were too constraint and restricted to time in terms of how they were not able to engage one another when clearly they both wanted to.

I feel MC.Cain is continuously being disrespectful to Obama in how he refers and addresses him. Last time it was him keep saying: "What Obama does not understand" which I thought was in a sense kind of like him saying what this "nigger" cannot get through his ignorant pea sized brain, and today he refers to the guy as "That one." As I said above when it comes to time, political debates are debates pertaining to actual issues of the people that candidates should not really have to be constraint to this short amount of time when they actually really want to exchange words unless it gets too ugly.

To me statements like those diminish greatly any respect I may have had left for Mc.Cain which were not much to begin with. He is a hypocritical slime.

P.S: Of course, this is only my opinion and I am not sure if you have read this one article I wrote about Mc.Cain being a double talk express rather than the maverick he claims to be. Here is what I wrote:


STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS HE IS NOT.
By Wilgeens "AfroLatino" Rosenberg.

Take a look at Mc.Cain's unwavering stance on Iraq today compare to his hypocritical stance then on Haiti & Somalia. Did Haiti & Somalia not deserve the very same unwavering commitment for success he is showing for Iraq?

Mc.Cain claims that our staying in Iraq is until success is achieved... No problem. So why the desire for success when US Troops were in poor Black nations like Haiti and Somalia was not as strong the desires Mc.Cain himself wishes to see in Iraq today? How about the wrongful foreign policies the US have towards other American nations in the Latin Americas in our very own hemisphere, needless to even mention the situation in Darfur, Africa...? Talking about flip flopping and double talk... but a Straight talk express he is not.

Take a look at these videos and you be the judge of what Mc. Cain real call of judgement is.
(Copy & Paste the links in your URL query if they are not clickable or hypertext ).

Mc.Cain on HAITI:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=palbo-ilalU

Mc.Cain on SOMALIA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TFKXHiefs

Hmm, now Mc.Cain on IRAQ:
Well, we all know what his stance is on "Profitable" Iraq today... along with his other flip flops on Affirmative Action, Immigration, Off Shore Drilling and so forth, you name it... In the words of Joe Biden, "A Maverick He Is Not."

Here, see more of "flip Mc.Cain flops" for yourself in those videos bellow .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbnhZldJQYs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZBn73KAlsM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ4eeQzDlgM

Some "straight talk" huh? Yeah right... Sounds more like "Double Talk" of usual politics to me. In other words, sounds like "More Of The Same" to me. Do you not think so?

As a US Soldier, a 2 times Iraq Veteran and a US Citizen, I would like to get some answers before I cast my Ballot comes November.