Allegations of fraud in Bolivia debunked. Again.

[Seanchaidh]

A Bitter Election. Accusations of Fraud. And Now Second Thoughts. (Published 2020)

A close look at Bolivian election data suggests an initial analysis by the O.A.S. that raised questions of vote-rigging — and helped force out a president — was flawed.

www.nytimes.com

The New York Times has finally acknowledged what people who researched the matter could plainly see at the time, which was that the OAS condemnation of Bolivia's election was the real fraud. Now that it seems not much can be done about the christo-fascist coup there, rags for US imperialism are allowed to report on it without (as much) propaganda aimed at overthrowing leaders that are inconvenient to the various wealthy interests that dominate US media and government.

 

[Revnak]

Yeah, it was a coup. And they’re gonna continue to double down on it. Fuck em.

 

[Agema]

If anyone were confused about whether it were a coup, the clampdown and violent suppression of Morales's supporters afterwards should have set them right.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I have two rules of thumb about Latin-American politics:

1. If the US claims a Latin-American government is legitimate, it isn't, and vice versa.

2. There is no clearer evidence of electoral fraud in a Latin-American election, than the US honoring its results.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The New York Times Admits Key Falsehoods That Drove Last Year's Coup in Bolivia: Falsehoods Peddled by the U.S., Its Media, and the Times

The U.S. government and its media once again help destroy a thriving Latin American democracy.

theintercept.com

 

[meiam]

This is a situation where everybody was in the wrong. Morales was definetly pushing for strongman before the coup, after he tried to get an extra term (would have been his fourth) trough a referendum he just decided he would stand for re election anyway, ignoring constitution and popular will.

 

[Seanchaidh]

This is a situation where everybody was in the wrong. Morales was definetly pushing for strongman before the coup, after he tried to get an extra term (would have been his fourth) trough a referendum he just decided he would stand for re election anyway, ignoring constitution and popular will.

Since he won that election, and criticisms of the process have been thoroughly debunked, it's not at all apparent that he was ignoring popular will. And the constitutionally mandated authority for deciding matters of the constitution ruled in favor of his seeking reelection. The fascist coupmongers were in the wrong. The OAS was in the wrong. The United States was in the wrong. Morales was wronged.

 

[Agema]

Since he won that election, and criticisms of the process have been thoroughly debunked, it's not at all apparent that he was ignoring popular will. And the constitutionally mandated authority for deciding matters of the constitution ruled in favor of his seeking reelection. The fascist coupmongers were in the wrong. The OAS was in the wrong. The United States was in the wrong. Morales was wronged.

Bluntly, if part of Morales' conduct does trouble me, it's failing to pass a referendum and then appealing to the courts to strike out the restriction that he could not remove democratically. Given that legal interpretation is subjective and courts are open to political manipulation (as many might say of SCOTUS), especially elected ones like Bolivia's, the moral legitimacy of his right to re-election is substantially more grey than it should be.

 

[Revnak]

Bluntly, if part of Morales' conduct does trouble me, it's failing to pass a referendum and then appealing to the courts to strike out the restriction that he could not remove democratically. Given that legal interpretation is subjective and courts are open to political manipulation (as many might say of SCOTUS), especially elected ones like Bolivia's, the moral legitimacy of his right to re-election is substantially more grey than it should be.

While I disagree with the idea that elected courts are more politically manipulatable, I agree that going to the courts isn’t great. It’s part of a pattern I kinda see in many of the “pink wave” leaders where they don’t setup anyone to replace them, or promote fellow leaders to parallel roles. It’s always one hero of the people and many replaceable stooges. It’s not very smart to set yourself up to fail like that.

 

[Agema]

While I disagree with the idea that elected courts are more politically manipulatable, I agree that going to the courts isn’t great. It’s part of a pattern I kinda see in many of the “pink wave” leaders where they don’t setup anyone to replace them, or promote fellow leaders to parallel roles. It’s always one hero of the people and many replaceable stooges. It’s not very smart to set yourself up to fail like that.

Yep. Morales should really have planned a succession, and prepared a new face to take over.

 

[meiam]

The court ruling was a complete farce, they decided that terms limit somehow goes against human rights using a treaty that Bolivia signed. So in the court mind, a foreign treaty that was signed before the latest constitution can supersede the constitution even when the public was specifically asked about this exact modification (and it took them just a month to decided that). If that's not the most obvious sign that the court is just a rubber stamp court for the ruling party I don't know what is. iirc the court also as a hand in determining how the election are run, which does not cast a positive light on the authenticity of the election (which were flagged as fraudulent by a lot more than just the OAS).

Morales almost certainly won more vote than his opposition, but what's at stakes is the possibility of a run off between just Morales and the 2nd candidate, which he could have lost since he did not get 50% of the vote in the first round. He could have called for a runoff right away but didn't and instead called for an investigation.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The court ruling was a complete farce, they decided that terms limit somehow goes against human rights using a treaty that Bolivia signed. So in the court mind, a foreign treaty that was signed before the latest constitution can supersede the constitution even when the public was specifically asked about this exact modification (and it took them just a month to decided that). If that's not the most obvious sign that the court is just a rubber stamp court for the ruling party I don't know what is.

Oh, interesting.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[meiam]

A constitution will always supersede any treaties when the two of them disagree on something, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise.

Look at it this way, say Putin and Trump got together and said "you know how it suck that we can't have the army just kill our political opponent? How about US and Russia sign a treaty that says it's totally okay for the president to have the army assassinate their political opponent" and then proceeded to openly kill all their opponent and whenever they'd be challenged in court about that the supreme court would just say "well sure murder is illegal, but the treaty says it's cool, so it's cool". Obviously ridiculous right? Well that situation is more generous than what happened in Bolivia because at least there wasn't just a referendum about whether or not it's okay to kill your political opponent.

 

[Seanchaidh]

A constitution will always supersede any treaties when the two of them disagree on something, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise.

Look at it this way, say Putin and Trump got together and said "you know how it suck that we can't have the army just kill our political opponent? How about US and Russia sign a treaty that says it's totally okay for the president to have the army assassinate their political opponent" and then proceeded to openly kill all their opponent and whenever they'd be challenged in court about that the supreme court would just say "well sure murder is illegal, but the treaty says it's cool, so it's cool". Obviously ridiculous right? Well that situation is more generous than what happened in Bolivia because at least there wasn't just a referendum about whether or not it's okay to kill your political opponent.

No more ridiculous than passing a Constitutional Amendment instead of ratifying a treaty to do the same thing. So your point isn't made.

 

[Agema]

A constitution will always supersede any treaties when the two of them disagree on something, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise.

Not necessarily.

Imagine, for instance, a wartime surrender, where the victorious enemy demanded a country take measures contrary to its constitution. If that country were constitutionally unable to meet terms of surrender it would demand that it fought to its own utter ruin over a mere point of law.

No more ridiculous than passing a Constitutional Amendment instead of ratifying a treaty to do the same thing. So your point isn't made.

No, bluntly. It's incredibly obviously a "creative" interpretation of a vague treaty platitude that the framers of that treaty would never have imagined. Ultimately, the proper legal procedure has been followed and so what is is, but it's bullshit.

 

[meiam]

Not necessarily.

Imagine, for instance, a wartime surrender, where the victorious enemy demanded a country take measures contrary to its constitution. If that country were constitutionally unable to meet terms of surrender it would demand that it fought to its own utter ruin over a mere point of law.

True, but war kinda break down local law, at least for the losing party. The court would obviously have a problem with it, they just wouldn't be in a situation where they could enforce their judgment. At least this wasn't a case where if Bolivia went against the treaty they were going to be invaded.

 

[Seanchaidh]

True, but war kinda break down local law, at least for the losing party.

There are plenty of examples of wars that did not do that.