Bolivia wins, USA loses

Despite the US backed coup, democracy prevails in Bolivia.

Coup and Democracy are strange names for soccer clubs. What was the score?

Horologists rejoice.

I agree that Evo being forced to step down was good for democracy. Whatever good he did, his attempt to make himself President-for-Life by stealing the last election was not good for Bolivia or for his own movement. If a revolution is to be successful in the long run, it has to be able to stand on its own, and not depend on a cult of personality. It’s always a problem if the leader of a movement refuses to hand over the reins.

For those unfamiliar with the details of Bolivian politics and wondering what the OP is on about, here’s the gist.

Evo Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous President, was first elected in 2005 under a constitution that did not allow consecutive re-election. During his first term, a new constitution was passed allowing a single re-election. So Evo argued that, even though he had been elected under the terms of the first constitution, he should be able to run again, and he won. Then when he wanted to run for a third term, he argued that his first term under the first constitution shouldn’t count towards the limit. Then during his third term, he held a referendum asking that term limits be eliminated, that narrowly failed. There succeeded a series of court cases and jiggery pokery that led to him running for a fourth term.

I’m not going to go into the details, but there were irregularities in the election that led to widespread protests that forced Morales to step down and take asylum in Mexico. His supporters called it a coup, but in my view the protests were a justified response to Morales attempting to take an unconstitutional fourth term.

Morales’ party has just won the new presidential elections. Really, this is the best result, showing that the protests were more against Morales’ chicanery than his movement.

^^Thank you for explaining. I admit I was unfamiliar with it. Appreciate it.

Was the US actually involved?

Morales movement is socialist, so the US was opposed to it on general principles. I am not aware of any specific steps the US took to undermine him. As far as I know, the protest movement against him was spontaneous and mainly an authentic response to him trying to remain in power indefinitely.

By the way, I was in Bolivia last year and there were signs all over the place about the constitutional referendum. Morales has strong support among the indigenous majority of the highlands of the country, but strong opposition from the more conservative cattle ranchers and others in the eastern lowlands.

Suspicious activity and past history point at that being likely, but clearly after the removal of Morales the US government gave support to the new right wing government.

Even if it was true that most of the accusations against Morales where false, it remained that he wanted to become a leader for life, not good. But OTOH the right in Bolivia did act the part of “you like us, you really like us”. I remember watching the news then of those leaders hiding behind religion (raising a bible in Trump’s style) to declare how Morales and the left were against their religion, and using racial differences to dismiss in very ugly ways whatever was done in the past that helped the indigenous and the poor people.

Glad to see that the people did see that the right did overreach there.

Oh, and I’m not the OP but BTW Colibri, can the OP title be corrected? It should be Bolivia not Boliva.

For a moment I thought this was about a Bollywood movie that beat an American one in a festival.

Unfortunately it is a pattern in Latin America for popular leaders to try to extend their terms indefinitely. After long stretches under dictators or strongmen, many Latin American countries pass new constitutions imposing term limits. But then as soon as someone comes in with a strong enough popular mandate, they immediately try to manipulate the rules to be re-elected.

In Panama, a President serves a five year term, but cannot be immediately re-elected. He has to sit out two terms before running again. So far, it hasn’t happened.

Panama’s government is deeply corrupt, but that mainly extends to financial matters. While I’m sure there is chicanery at lower levels, the opposition party has won every single election since Noriega’s ouster. (This is partly due to the fact that there are three major parties, and no one of them can prevail overwhelmingly over the others.)


Thank you governor!

However, the new government was also recognized by Canada and Russia.

Because everyone ahead of her in the succession fled the country or resigned, Jeannine Anez became president after Morales. But after her defeat in the last election she conceded.

You may address me as Generalissimo. :wink:

“I agree that Evo being forced to step down was good for democracy.”

Did you like the massacre of his supporters too? How about you get into details of his election chicanery.

You can do that, too, you know. Educate us.

Your turn. You said almost nothing in the OP. Make your case.

I’ve already described some of Evo’s chicanery in trying to manipulate a fourth term.

Read a bit about it, apparently their right wing is split.

You’ve got the total open slave wanting, facsist country rural cunt vs the more bougie city neo liberal. There hasn’t been a popular right leader at all lately. \

Let me do some more reading and get back to you all.

Did some more reading. There was no election chicanery! The chicanes were conconcocted by the OAS.

Nasty fellows, the OAS.

Also the bad new coup people fucked the economy and took out IMF loans.