Bolivia's Political Crisis: What Really Happened?

In his article 'What Really Happened in Bolivia?' published in Project Syndicate in 2019, Jorge G. Castañeda discusses the aftermath of the ouster of President Evo Morales, who was granted political asylum in Mexico. The situation in Bolivia is highly uncertain, but Castañeda draws three preliminary conclusions. Firstly, the regional implications of Morales' downfall are significant, regardless of the specific circumstances. Secondly, Morales' fall from power was not a military coup d'état, despite attempts to portray it as such. Finally, if the new Bolivian government adheres to the constitutional timetable and holds elections within 90 days, it will dispel any doubts about the legitimacy of the process.

Evo Morales' ouster and asylum in Mexico

The ousting of Evo Morales and his subsequent asylum in Mexico is a complex issue with ongoing implications for Bolivia and the Latin American left. Following his ouster, the situation in Bolivia remains uncertain, with the possibility of free and fair elections within 90 days being tentative. Morales, who has been granted political asylum in Mexico, may attempt to regain the presidency or pursue other avenues to reclaim power.

Morales's ouster marks a significant setback for the Latin American left, as he was considered an iconic figure. His downfall, however, does not signify a complete defeat for the left in the region. There is a possibility that Morales's policies will be overturned by a rightward shift in Bolivia, similar to the recent anti-incumbent sentiment observed in other Latin American countries. Alternatively, his policies may endure despite his absence from power.

Morales and his supporters have characterised his removal as a military coup d'état, drawing comparisons to the overthrow of Guatemalan President Juan Jacobo Árbenz in 1954 and Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. However, the circumstances in Bolivia differ from these historical events. While Morales did violate the constitution by running for a fourth term, he resigned at the military's request and agreed to protesters' demands for a new vote. The existing constitutional provisions were followed, and the military did not arrest anyone or take power.

The broader question arises regarding the legitimacy of removing a president who refuses to relinquish power through electoral means. This dilemma is particularly relevant in the context of other Latin American leaders who have clung to power through undemocratic means, such as Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and Raúl Castro in Cuba.

The situation in Bolivia is further complicated by Morales's potential political future. If Morales's party, the Movimiento al Socialismo, puts forward a candidate other than Morales, it would lend legitimacy to the electoral process. However, Morales himself will likely be barred from running due to his previous attempt to manipulate the vote and the prohibition on running for a fourth term.

The future of the Latin American left

Morales's downfall has regional implications, regardless of the specific circumstances of his removal from power. After the so-called "pink tide" in Latin America from roughly 2000 to 2015, many leftist leaders were voted out of office or resorted to authoritarian measures to maintain control. With the end of the commodity boom and the emergence of corruption scandals, leftist leaders and parties lost support across the region.

In countries like Brazil, Argentina, El Salvador, and Chile, the left was voted out of power. In contrast, in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, the left clung to power through increasingly repressive and anti-democratic means. The exception to this trend is Mexico, where Andrés Manuel López Obrador won the presidential election in 2018.

The recent defeat of President Mauricio Macri in Argentina by the Peronist candidate Alberto Fernández has revived hopes among left-wing supporters in the region. Additionally, the massive demonstrations in Chile, often seen as anti-neoliberal protests, have been interpreted as a shift back towards the left.

Morales's political demise is a significant blow to the Latin American left. His indigenous roots, charismatic anti-imperialism, and impressive economic growth made him a popular figure both domestically and internationally. However, his attempt to run for a fourth term violated the constitution, leading to his resignation at the military's request and following protests demanding a new vote.

In conclusion, the Latin American left faces an uncertain future following the fall of Evo Morales. The region has witnessed a shift away from leftist governments, but recent events in Argentina and Chile suggest a potential resurgence. The upcoming elections in Bolivia will be a crucial test for the left, and their outcome will shape the political landscape of the region.

Morales' potential return to power

Following the ouster of President Evo Morales of Bolivia, the country's future remains uncertain. Morales has been granted political asylum in Mexico and may seek to return to power in Bolivia, either by running for president again or through other means.

Morales's potential return to power is a distinct possibility, and it is one of the three preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from the fluid situation in Bolivia. The Latin American left may recover from the fall of one of its icons, or it may continue to lose ground. Morales's policies may be overturned by a rightward swing in Bolivia, similar to the recent anti-incumbency backlash in other Latin American countries.

Morales may attempt to run for president again, despite the existing prohibition against a fourth term. If Morales's party, the Movimiento al Socialismo, chooses to field a candidate other than Morales, it will lend legitimacy to the electoral process. However, if Morales is not allowed to run, it will likely be due to his attempt to steal the previous vote and the prohibition on running for a fourth term.

Morales will likely continue to leverage his Mexican asylum and the sympathy for his cause to fuel his ambitions of returning to power. While his success is not guaranteed, it would not address Bolivia's underlying dilemma of failing to transfer power peacefully and democratically over a sustained period. A peaceful and democratic transfer of power from one president to another would be a significant accomplishment for the country.

The Bolivian military's role in the ouster

Firstly, it is essential to understand the context leading up to the ouster. Morales, who had served as Bolivia's president for an extended period, violated the constitution by running for a fourth term. This sparked controversy and protests, with demonstrators demanding a new vote. Morales had invited two Organization of American States Electoral Observation Missions to oversee the election, and they refused to certify the outcome.

In this volatile environment, the Bolivian military stepped in and asked Morales to resign. It is important to note that the military did not arrest anyone during this process. Morales agreed to step down, and subsequently, the Constitutional Court deemed the presidential succession legal. The military then replaced the high command that had served under Morales.

The role of the military in Morales' ouster has sparked debates about the legitimacy of removing a president through means other than electoral mechanisms. Some have compared Morales' situation to historical military coups in Latin America, but the Bolivian case is more complex. The existing constitutional provisions were followed after Morales' resignation, with timely elections promised and no military takeover.

The conclusion of the events in Bolivia remains uncertain. There is a possibility of free and fair elections within 90 days, but it is unclear if Morales will be allowed to run again. His party, the Movimiento al Socialismo, may choose another candidate, which would lend legitimacy to the process. The outcome of the potential elections will shape the direction of Bolivia's policies and determine whether Morales' legacy will persist or be overturned.

In summary, while the Bolivian military's call for Morales to step aside was a significant factor in his ouster, it was not the sole reason. The complex interplay of constitutional violations, protests, and subsequent adherence to constitutional provisions shaped the events. The military's involvement did not result in arrests or a power grab, and the focus now shifts to the potential elections and the future direction of the country.

The legitimacy of removing dictators

The ouster of a president is a complex and often contentious issue, as seen in the case of Evo Morales in Bolivia. While the specific circumstances of each situation must be considered, some general principles can be applied to assess the legitimacy of removing dictators.

Firstly, it is essential to recognise that electoral mechanisms are the primary means of replacing a leader. When a president is determined to remain in power, the legitimacy of alternative methods to remove them comes into question. This is particularly relevant when dictators assume power through elections and then employ other strategies to maintain their position, such as repressive and anti-democratic procedures. In such cases, the removal of these leaders may be justified to restore democratic principles.

The role of the military in removing dictators is another critical factor. Historically, military coups have been associated with the removal of democratically elected leaders, often with American support or acquiescence. However, the situation in Bolivia differed from the classic coup model, as the military did not arrest anyone or take power themselves. Instead, Morales resigned after the military advised him to do so and agreed to the protesters' demands for new elections. Adhering to constitutional provisions and ensuring a peaceful transfer of power are essential steps to distinguish legitimate removal from a coup.

The broader context of regional implications and historical patterns cannot be ignored. The fall of Morales in Bolivia occurred amidst a broader decline of the left across Latin America, with Morales being the region's longest-serving leftist leader. His downfall, therefore, represented a significant defeat for the left. However, it is important to note that the left had previously resorted to authoritarian tactics to remain in control in some countries, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia itself.

The third conclusion pertains to the role of external influences. In the case of Bolivia, Morales and his supporters sought to portray his removal as a military coup, which may resonate with the radical left in Mexico, New York, and Bolivia. However, this narrative contradicts the facts on the ground, as the situation did not align with the classic characteristics of a military coup.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of removing dictators hinges on several factors, including the exhaustion of electoral mechanisms, the role of the military, adherence to constitutional processes, and the broader political and historical context. Each situation must be assessed individually, and the specific circumstances considered to determine the legitimacy of the removal of a dictator.

Frequently asked questions