It's ridiculous that amending a constitution by a democratic process is presented as unconstitutional by the right in Latin America and by people and governments in Europe and the US when commenting on Latin America.
They've done this with President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who held elections for a Constituent Assembly which then drafted a new constitution and voted to approve it.
They did it with President Zelaya in Honduras, who was overthrown in a military coup after he tried to hold a referendum on whether to elect a constituent assembly to amend the constitution to let Presidents serve a second term if re-elected. Zelaya’s plan did not even allow for him to stand in the upcoming elections, as the referendum results would only be known after them. This was to revise a constitution which was written when military death squads were still massacring people in the 80s - and to allow Presidents to have a second term in office – the existing constitution limiting it to one term. Polls showed 55% of Hondurans supported it.
In a supposed move to “defend the constitution” members of the Honduran congress and military violated it a dozen times over by a military coup against the elected President that also involved jailing people without trial, torturing them and murdering them.
If it wasn't for the First Amendment to the US constitution there would be no right to freedom of speech in the US. No-one said it or any other amendment to the constitution was “unconstitutional” or a move towards dictatorship.
British and Australian Prime Ministers can be elected for any number of terms - yet no-one called Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair would-be dictators when they stood for their third terms as heads of government.
In the US the constitution was only amended in 1951 to restrict Presidents to two terms after Franklin D Roosevelt won four elections in a row , because he'd angered the wealthiest and the big banks and firms with the New Deal policies that actually benefited the majority of the population and so reduced bank and big company profits. There’s an obvious parallel with Chavez there.
(1) = guardian.co.uk 06 Nov 2012 ‘Fernández de Kirchner reforms spark Argentina protests’,