Correra is among those honorable examples of not trying to mess with the constitution by allowing himself more terms. Instead he stepped down and supported his preferred successor (even though Lenin turned out to be a sore disappointment).
Correra did actually try to remove Term limits for himself before his Term expired back in 2017, but was forced to abandon it due to pressure from civil society. Instead he managed only to remove Term Limits from post-2017, hoping he would be able to run again in 2021 after one term by his would-be handpicked successor Moreno. Didnt Quite work out of course, because Moreno turned on him, and banned him from running again with the Constitutional Referendum in 2018 that re-instated term limits.
Correa also used the same questionable constitutional logic that Morales used to run for a third term (i.e. their Terms starting in 2013/2014 respectively), saying that because he introduced a new constitution, he was technically leading a different country then he was before 2008, and therefore the first Term did not count. (Arguably with Morales that was theoretically correct, as the "Republic of Bolivia" became the "Plurinational State of Bolivia", but with Correa that was a nonsensical argument).
That the Americans (and
posters like lfromnj) are defending or even celebrating the removal of Morales because he overstepped his Term Limits is blatant hypocrisy of course, because the Honduran right-wing President Juan Orlando Hernández did just that in 2017, in exactly the same way Morales did, and then very obviously rigged the election, cracked down on the protests and his "election" was recognised and supported by the US.
It all makes me even more in fabor of the Mexican system. You got one term and then you can never, ever serve again.
The fundamental problem of Latin American Governance is not Term Limits (or a lack thereof), it is Presidentialism.
