Update: Bolivian right wing ex-president sentenced to ten years in prison for orchestrating a coup

[Massdriver]

The military shouldn’t be handling this, so it seems like a coup. Yet Morales shouldn’t have been on the ballot. The voters rejected abolishing term limits, and the controversial court decision that allowed it after the people rejected it is widely seen as using strained reasoning to get a result for Morales . It’s no wonder that some people are frustrated over suspicious voting patterns, but this should have been handled by another vote. I don’t like the military stepping in.  
 

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Well from what I've read, the president has ruffled some feathers by running for additional terms that is otherwise prohibited in Bolivia. Regardless if he's been good for that nation, he should have stepped down when he was term limited.

He should have stepped down after his second term in accordance with the country's constitution rather than badgering the constitutional court into abolishing term limits so he could run again--especially after he lost the referendum on abolishing term limits in 2016.  As positive as his reforms have been for the country, overreaching like that was a mistake and imperiled Bolivia's democratic institutions--and probably bolstered the position of whoever is now running the military takeover of the country.

 

However, clearly the military is seizing power here in an unconstitutional way.  The Bolivian constitution provides an order of succession just like the US which specifies who is in charge when heads of state step down, and the leaders of the armed forces are not on the list.

 

So I guess my position on this disaster is A.)Morales was right to step down, and probably should have stepped down earlier but B.)the military is wrong to be seizing power like this and should be handing the country over to the individual specified in the order of succession, like a sane democracy would.

 

And, of course, C.) It's really a damn shame that a country that has found, in recent years, relative stability and prosperity, is now disintegrating into just another Latin American basketcase.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Well from what I've read, the president has ruffled some feathers by running for additional terms that is otherwise prohibited in Bolivia. Regardless if he's been good for that nation, he should have stepped down when he was term limited.

This only holds it you believe that the independently, nonpartisan, elected supreme tribunal of Justice is not truly independent

[Massdriver]

It’s a damn shame indeed. Some of the stats look pretty good for Bolivia. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

And Morales committed to a second referendum, even though it was not necessary as he won by the ten point margin, and opinion polls before the election largely matched the official vote count (including the instant vote count that was halted then restarted, even though it is not a legally binding count)

 

Saying there were election irregularities is perpetuating the right wing/military talking point with little basis in fact

[CayceG]

The courts overturned term limits as unconstitutional.

 

 

[Massdriver]

11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

And Morales committed to a second referendum, even though it was not necessary as he won by the ten point margin, and opinion polls before the election largely matched the official vote count (including the instant vote count that was halted then restarted, even though it is not a legally binding count)

 

Saying there were election irregularities is perpetuating the right wing/military talking point with little basis in fact

I’m just going by the OAS. I trust them. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, CayceG said:

The courts overturned term limits as unconstitutional.

 

 

And if you look at the text of the document that their decision was based on, the American convention of human rights, seems pretty straightforward

https://www.cidh.oas.org/basicos/english/basic3.american convention.htm

 

Quote

Article 23. Right to Participate in Government

1.    Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities:

a.    to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

b.    to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and

c.    to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.

2.    The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, Massdriver said:

I’m just going by the OAS. I trust them. 

Why? 

[Jason]

56 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

I stopped thinking of him as credible from some of his over the top rhetoric against the US years ago

 

Man I can't possibly imagine why Greenwald might have been angry at the US.

[Joe]

17 minutes ago, CayceG said:

The courts overturned term limits as unconstitutional.

 

 

 

Yeah, after he held a referendum on term limits and lost.

[Massdriver]

32 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

This only holds it you believe that the independently, nonpartisan, elected supreme tribunal of Justice is not truly independent

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/bolivia

There is good reason to believe it isn’t. Look at their system.  The people vote for judges from a list created by the National Assembly which is controlled by Morales’s party.  If Human Rights Watch is to be believed, Morales is on record saying in an interview that judicial independence was a “US doctrine” in the “service of the empire.” 

[Massdriver]

16 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Why? 

Why wouldn’t I trust them, and who would I believe instead of them?  

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/bolivia

There is good reason to believe it isn’t. Look at their system.  The people vote for judges from a list created by the National Assembly which is controlled by Morales’s party.  If Human Rights Watch is to be believed, Morales is on record saying in an interview that judicial independence was a “US doctrine” in the “service of the empire.” 

Before 2012 the national assembly directly appointed members of the supreme Court. This system is not perfect but far superior to their previous system (and I'd argue better than ours) 

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

C'mon guys--if Trump wins a second term, then in early 2024 holds a referendum on running for a third term and loses the referendum, and then has the referendum's result AND the pre-existing clause in the constitution prohibiting more than two terms overturned by a friendly court, and then runs again, and then declares victory even though an independent investigatory body audits the election and determines there to be fraud, would you really be defending him as the 'rightful president of the country'?

 

Or would it be more reasonable for him to step down and call another election?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

10 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Why wouldn’t I trust them, and who would I believe instead of them?  

It's not just a matter of trusting them, but why give them uncritical deference given the history of American intervention in South America, and the closeness of the OAS secretary general with Washington. 

 

The report from the OAS was flawed, not the election official results, as outlined by the Report I linked to through tweets of the author from the center for economic and policy research

[Massdriver]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It's not just a matter of trusting them, but why give them uncritical deference given the history of American intervention in South America, and the closeness of the OAS secretary general with Washington. 

 

The report from the OAS was flawed, not the election official results, as outlined by the Report I linked to through tweets of the author from the center for economic and policy research

I trust them still, even after you provided a PDF saying the Secretary General is apparently close with Washington. They are still a credible organization. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

17 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

C'mon guys--if Trump wins a second term, then in early 2024 holds a referendum on running for a third term and loses the referendum, and then has the referendum's result AND the pre-existing clause in the constitution prohibiting more than two terms overturned by a friendly court, and then runs again, and then declares victory even though an independent investigatory body audits the election and determines there to be fraud, would you really be defending him as the 'rightful president of the country'?

 

Or would it be more reasonable for him to step down and call another election?

There are zero circumstances where having the military intervene would be acceptable. Once they do that, it's all over.

 

And you keep repeating fraud fraud fraud without any critical thought or reading contrary reports

[Massdriver]

12 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Before 2012 the national assembly directly appointed members of the supreme Court. This system is not perfect but far superior to their previous system (and I'd argue better than ours) 

 

If this was a right wing Latin American leader that got another term through an obviously biased court ruling, you would be screaming coup. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, Massdriver said:

If this was a right wing Latin American leader that got another term through an obviously biased court ruling, you would be screaming coup. 

If they didn't win the election outright you might be on to something

[Massdriver]

14 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If they didn't win the election outright you might be on to something

The CEPR is pro Chavez. It’s really hard for me to think that organization is more credible than the OAS. 
 

Everyone is stuck in their own bubbles of info. You got your pro socialist twitter subscriptions and think tanks that support your biases. Trump supporters have Fox News and radio. My bias is towards international organizations and mainstream press organizations such as WaPo, NYT, AP, and NPR. We won’t reach each other. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

4 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

The CEPR is pro Chavez. It’s really hard for me to think that organization as more credible than the OAS. 
 

Everyone is stuck in their own bubbles of info. You got your pro socialist twitter subscriptions and think tanks that support your biases. Trump supporters have Fox News and radio. My bias is towards international organizations and mainstream press organizations such as WaPo, NYT, AP, and NPR. We won’t reach each other. 

Ok so you've read both reports got it

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=S-019/19

OAS report for those who haven't read it

 

And the report from cepr

http://cepr.net/publications/reports/bolivia-elections-2019-11

[GeneticBlueprint]

My wife is from La Paz, Bolivia. She has several aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends that have come to the U.S. A lot of them live here in Utah. About once a month we get together for a family dinner. Last night just happened to be that night for us. We spent about 6 hours last night talking to friends and relatives from La Paz, Cochabamba, and Santa Cruz and their surrounding areas via WhatsApp. I'd say as a group we spoke with about 40 people in Bolivia. I don't know how representative my family and friends are of Bolivia as a whole, but I can tell you that they do run the gamut of political philosophy. So here are the broad strokes of what I heard from actual Bolivians about subjects in this thread.

 

Evo: A lot like him, but most don't. Even the ones that do like him think he probably shouldn't have ran again.

 

Election fraud: Most do not see the election results as legitimate. Not just last night, but over the past month my family has been concerned about this. An uncle who lives in Virginia had gone to the consulate in Washington D.C. to vote. He was turned away without explanation. A handful that I spoke with last night said they saw things that were suspicious. For example, when their ballot was given to them they could see that a sister's ballot that was next in the stack was already filled. That sister is studying in Spain. Lots of stuff like that. I personally don't put a lot of stock in those stories, but the volume of them combined with the uncle's experience at the consulate doesn't let me completely dismiss them either.

 

The military: My brother-in-law is a captain in the army in Bolivia. My father-in-law is a retired colonel. Unrest in Bolivia didn't just start last night. It has been ongoing for over a month. There have been tons of injuries and a handful of deaths. Most feel that the military waited too long to do anything about the unrest. Several were asking my wife "What is your brother doing? Can he help?"

 

A coup: I was a bit incredulous about a coup until arrests started taking place. I don't think most Bolivians are aware of that. I'd like to see some evidence to the claims that it is U.S. backed though. Bolivians of all stripes from the indigenous to the most stereotypical Quantum of Solace right-wing military villain have no love for the U.S. And in all the listening I did last night nobody said the word "coup". That will likely change today, though.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

There are zero circumstances where having the military intervene would be acceptable. Once they do that, it's all over.

 

And you keep repeating fraud fraud fraud without any critical thought or reading contrary reports

I never said there was; I stated pretty unequivocally that I don't support what the military is doing here.

 

Regardless, stepping down was still the right thing to do.  A military coup is not the only way to dismantle a democracy; countless unravelings of democracies all over the world start the same way: "Popular president uses political power to get around term limits".  Mugabe, Putin, Chavez, Lukashenko in Belarus, Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, al-Sissi, Ortega in Nicaragua, Hernandez in Honduras...not to mention de facto despots in Togo, Gabon, Uganda, Chad, Cameroon, Djibouti, Congo, Sudan, Eritrea...the list goes on, and each case starts out with the same script.

 

Things like term limits are put in place to prevent executive overreach and prevent democracy from collapsing into soft autocracy. (which has a tendency to harden into pure autocracy)  Doesn't tampering with those safeguards take the 'democracy' out of  'social democracy', or even out of putatively 'democratic socialism'?  Wouldn't a wise leader opt to keep them in place, give up the throne in the manner he originally agreed to, and let the people choose what kind of society they want without placing his thumb on the scales?

 

The current malfeasance of the Bolivian military doesn't change any of that.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

The rule of law is paramount.

 

[SuperSpreader]

My understanding is she was the rightful successor if the Pres is out. That's like saying wow Pelosi just stole it if Pence and Trump got the boot 

[Joe]

6 hours ago, 2user1cup said:

My understanding is she was the rightful successor if the Pres is out. That's like saying wow Pelosi just stole it if Pence and Trump got the boot 

 

Yeah, she was fourth in line, amd the three before her resigned. Also, everyone from Morales' party was not in attendance in protest of the whole situation. Autoproclamación my ass.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 hours ago, 2user1cup said:

My understanding is she was the rightful successor if the Pres is out. That's like saying wow Pelosi just stole it if Pence and Trump got the boot 

More like Kevin McCarthy but ok

 

Remember under the current term of office, Morales' party had a commanding majority in the chamber, and she literally assumed the office that would put her in the line of succession, assumed the presidency of the Senate, thus then assuming the presidency of Bolivia. So it looks like technically she has decided she the president of the Senate and president of the country 

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

More like Kevin McCarthy but ok

 

Remember under the current term of office, Morales' party had a commanding majority in the chamber, and she literally assumed the office that would put her in the line of succession, assumed the presidency of the Senate, thus then assuming the presidency of Bolivia. So it looks like technically she has decided she the president of the Senate and president of the country 

 

[SuperSpreader]

3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

More like Kevin McCarthy but ok

 

Remember under the current term of office, Morales' party had a commanding majority in the chamber, and she literally assumed the office that would put her in the line of succession, assumed the presidency of the Senate, thus then assuming the presidency of Bolivia. So it looks like technically she has decided she the president of the Senate and president of the country 

She's smarter than all of us.

[SilentWorld]

 

[Joe]

21 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

 

 

https://iir.gmu.edu/publications/immigrant-stories-dc-baltimore/bolivian-analysis

 

Virginia has over a third of the US's Bolivian population.  You guys suck so hard at this.

[GeneticBlueprint]

1 minute ago, Jose said:

 

https://iir.gmu.edu/publications/immigrant-stories-dc-baltimore/bolivian-analysis

 

Virginia has over a third of the US's Bolivian population.  You guys suck so hard at this.

 

To add to this: I literally just said on the previous page a Bolivian uncle who lives in VA went to the consulate in DC and experienced some shenanigans.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Also the CIA is probably not that dumb.