Bolivia's Jenine Áñez finally allows election effectively at gunpoint, loses and is going to jail
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Looking at the CIAs replacements of these socialists over the century, the US is very PRO despotism.
But you know, America is all about Freedom
if you think the leader be changed, literally don’t put a bigger despot into place. *cough* Iraq *cough*. How many failures that bite you in the ass decades down the line do you need to make before understanding that what you’re doing is the opposite of effective
It was effective - they've kept a grip on the continent and a half for nearly two centuries. It's that the intended effect was not democracy.
As far as the USA is concerned, Monroe Doctrine meant that Latin America was their little playground to economically and politically dominate - Europeans were at that point expected to stick to Africa and Asia. Colonial empires were about asset stripping raw materials and shipping them to the factories back in Europe to turn out goods to sell. The USA's business in Latin America was the same, except it skipped the direct rule part in favour of installing US-friendly leaders. Latin American leaders of any kind got to keep their jobs/lives as long as they let capital flow in from the USA and raw materials flow out to the USA as freely and reliably as possible. Obviously, socialism in particular was not conducive to this, partly for the general economic principles, but also because they tended to be specifically US-hostile due to representing those most fed up with all the years of US exploitation.
Why are you even talking about the US? I know why the avowed communists here are content to market this as a CIA operation to turn a nation capitalist and exploit it. Demonizing capitalism is all they know how to do with their lives. Why are you?
In a rare twist, I think Agema's actually got the facts wrong (and not just opinions). If I understand correctly, running for third and fourth terms is absolutely against the Bolivian constitution. The controversy was 100% called for. It seems to be ending ultimately as a win for the Movement for Socialism. There is no reason to view this as a CIA operation. There is no reason to view this as a "Christo-fascist coup". There is no reason to care about the US in this series of events.
Like, imagine being Jenine Anez. She's not a fascist who planned a coup. She was 5th in line. 5th, when everyone else resigned, and had to deal with the situation that fell to her. Who had to deal with violent protests from day one. Who happened to be in charge when a global pandemic hit. Who eventually managed to mostly gain the support of MAS (not in the sense of voting for her or her party, but in the actual normal usage of support, they had her back on hard decisions). She eventually manages to hold a fair election in between the pandemic and rouge communist groups literally blockading the cities, and tries to peacefully transfer power to the winning party, and people come here to call her a fascist and a CIA plant. Because she's less socialist than the guy who tried to have the Bolivian courts rubber stamp his life tenure against the written law. That's enough to be declared fascist.
That's a sickness.
Nah man, Capitalism is terrible. It’s just slightly better than Communism. Theyre being nice, IMO.
I thought the running for multiple terms thing was Venezuela
Im going to have to look it back up because it’s so many years ago, but claiming it ‘fell to her’ is a long string to bow. As far as I remember, the army put her in power. And then killed thousands of protesters. There were tens of thousands of refugees running away because they lost their home.
The running for multiple terms thing is the root of this story. It's been almost precisely 1 year since this current event started, she's been interim president for less. The death toll from months of violence is in the dozens, not the thousands,. The tens of thousands of refugees you're thinking of is Venezuela, where the dictator wasn't removed from power, and everything went to hell.
economy was dependent on a higher oil price, and despite efforts to diversify the economy under Chavez, real harm was delivered to the people of Venezuela by both the low oil price and sanctions and a local capitalist class that deliberately would stop producing goods in order to embarrass the government because they didn't like its labor regulations.
Maduro and Morales aren’t particularly comparable. For one thing, Bolivia’s economy is more diverse and better managed than Venezuela’s. The economic circumstances are much different. For another, Evo’s primary personal crime was running for election too many times, not the election manipulation, violent crackdowns, and anti-democratic actions of Maduro. Evo’s last run for president was absolutely legal given the elected courts ruled he could run. The OAS fraud accusations have been discovered to be largely unfounded. While his running again was stupid and not particularly popular (as the failed referendum showed), he did still clearly win the election. Evo’s an idiot and MAS is better off without him, but his ousting was undemocratic, resulted in many unnecessary deaths, and led to significant financial problems thanks to Anez taking out IMF loans and trying to privatize various industries during her interim term. This was a year long tragedy that, yes, could’ve been avoided by Evo not running again, but moreso by the Bolivian white supremacist right not overthrowing the elected leader of the country undemocratically.
The elected judiciary whose job it is to consider, and decide, whether or not something is unconstitutional ruled that it was not. Following said decision, which the public was well aware off, the public still went to the polls and elected Morales.
So, even if the voters disagreed with the supreme court and believed that it was unconstitutional they could have voted against Morales, thus rendering their own verdict. They did not, they gave him another term. A term he was then pressured out of.
No, I'm right. The Bolivian Supreme Court scrapped term limits.
Bolivia court allows Morales to run for fourth term
Bolivia has enjoyed relative prosperity and calm under Evo Morales, country’s first indigenous president.
Bolivia has subsequently re-introduced term limits under Anez.
I'd broadly agree that there's no clear and direct reason to implicate the USA this time. It just has such a long and varied history of interference that many people find it hard to believe it didn't - and of course not knowing that it didn't interfere isn't the same as it not interfering. Suspicions will be particularly high for many because the OAS election monitors made a big mistake in 2019 which enabled the Bolivian opposition to claim the 2019 election was fraudulent: this looked extremely suspicious. We can also note that the USA was clearly happy to see Morales gone, both at governmental level and in the media given the tone and content of much of it.
She's literally a woman of European ancestry who thinks the indigenous population is "savage", "devilish" and their holidays "Satanic", that anyone who wears shoes couldn't possibly be indigenous, and that the country must be returned to Christ.
Western Media Whitewash Bolivia’s Far-Right Coup
Bolivia has a new US-backed puppet leader, and the Western media can hardly conceal their adulation.
fair.org
Interim Bolivian president Añez calls Indigenous citizens “savages”
The outlaw Bolivian president Jeanine Añez has announced that new elections in the country will be held on May 3, 2020. And just prior to that, it was disclosed that Añez called on Bolivians to prevent the return of “savages” to power, referring to Evo Morales, the country’s first Indigenou...
www.peoplesworld.org
Bolivia’s Coup Government Is a Far-Right Horror Show
The coup-makers that violently deposed Evo Morales last month haven’t even tried to hide their far-right politics. Racist revanchism, backed by Christian fundamentalism, is now the order of the day in Bolivia.
jacobinmag.com
She's irredeemably awful. Given your politics, I can see why you'd like her.
Actually, she's mixed-race and from a lower middle-class background. Although lower middle class puts a person above a lot a great deal more people on the social scale in Bolivia than it does in the West, because it is far less developed and a far higher proportion of its population are working class poor.
Of course, this may also explain how vociferously anti-indigenous she is. Someone who feels vulnerable about something may overreact with a great deal of aggression against that vulnerability in order to distance themselves from it as much as possible. This may be particularly true of an ambitious, insecure social climber keen to fit in with their new social circle: adopt and express the values of that social circle especially strongly. In cases where there is an internal conflict (e.g. being homosexual in a highly homophobic society), it may also be an attempt to repress one's own feelings through zealotry.
You weren't supposed to notice the oligarch part before I edited.
Anyway, Camacho is definitely from the oligarch class and even more of a fascist.
Forgive me for not even clicking "jacobinmag". I'm well aware you subscibe to communist cesspools that will tell you exactly what you want to believe.She's literally a woman of European ancestry who thinks the indigenous population is "savage", "devilish" and their holidays "Satanic", that anyone who wears shoes couldn't possibly be indigenous, and that the country must be returned to Christ.
Western Media Whitewash Bolivia’s Far-Right Coup
Bolivia has a new US-backed puppet leader, and the Western media can hardly conceal their adulation.Interim Bolivian president Añez calls Indigenous citizens “savages”
The outlaw Bolivian president Jeanine Añez has announced that new elections in the country will be held on May 3, 2020. And just prior to that, it was disclosed that Añez called on Bolivians to prevent the return of “savages” to power, referring to Evo Morales, the country’s first Indigenou...Bolivia’s Coup Government Is a Far-Right Horror Show
The coup-makers that violently deposed Evo Morales last month haven’t even tried to hide their far-right politics. Racist revanchism, backed by Christian fundamentalism, is now the order of the day in Bolivia.
She's irredeemably awful. Given your politics, I can see why you'd like her.
That's not how constitutional governments work. The courts judge laws as proper or improper within the constitutional framework. This court tried to remove part of the constitution based on an international treaty. That doesn't count.
The court ruled that said part of the constitution wasn't actually legal because it was created in defiance of an international treaty the country had already signed on to.
If the idea is that the constitution is supposed to be the legal framework of a nation then it cannot exist in defiance of an already established law or legal agreement entereted into by the nation.
Then the law or treaty that contradicts the constitution is unconstitutional. The constitution wins, that's the deal.
Please do point me to any source that specifies such a thing? Of course it is the norm to take the constitution to be the foremost legal document, but I don't think it is unreasonable to demand that the constitution not violate already established law. By all means, create a constitution to lay down new laws, but if you decide to create sections that defy already established law or agreements you need to reverse those as well.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law. (Let's bear in mind SCOTUS has made rulings that many - including sometimes the government itself - feels are contrary to the US Constitution, and they have all been accepted by the institution of the state: that's the way it works.) The government has remedies available to it if it really doesn't like what the court rules.
Situations can arise where two constitutional arguments come into conflict; in such a circumstance the courts would be required to decide which one was pre-eminent under the circumstances. So could the Bolivian supreme court make such a decision, and did.
Well, no.
Imagine the USA lost a war, and its surrender demanded it sign a treaty where its people were forcibly disarmed and refused the right to own guns. The penalty for noncompliance would be for its enemy to smash it back to the stone age.
Would we really propose that the US government would say it could not sign such a treaty because it was unconstitutional? Or that it signed the treaty, and the Supreme Court promptly struck it down as unconstitutional? I would say surely not. The circumstances would clearly demand that the treaty supercede the second amendment, and I'll bet you the Constitution, somewhere, makes allowances for that to be done.