Coup attempt in Bolivia

[Agema]

Bolivia’s president sees off attempted coup after urging citizens to take to streets

Luis Arce said the country’s democracy was at stake after army troops seized control of La Paz’s political heart and military police storm palace

www.theguardian.com

God damn those pesky leftists for delivering economic growth, building schools and hospitals. Well, if the people won't vote them out...

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[tstorm823]

So, like, this is just fake, right?

If what I've read is correct, a segment of the military surrounded the palace, lining up troops and rolling in tanks in dramatic fashion, then the president personally confronted the coup leader on broadcast television and demanded they stand down in melodramatic fashion, and then they did and just sort of left and the people all celebrated with the president.

I guess all that could have actually happened, but every step of it feels performative.

 

[Seanchaidh]

So, like, this is just fake, right?

If what I've read is correct, a segment of the military surrounded the palace, lining up troops and rolling in tanks in dramatic fashion, then the president personally confronted the coup leader on broadcast television and demanded they stand down in melodramatic fashion, and then they did and just sort of left and the people all celebrated with the president.

I guess all that could have actually happened, but every step of it feels performative.

I actually had the same thought; it does feel a bit perfect and easy. At least one guy was arrested, though. We'll see what happens to him. Other explanations could be that there was a double-cross of some foreign entity that was trying to foment a coup and so it went ahead intentionally poorly, or a plot that was uncovered and allowed to go ahead in order to incriminate the participants. Of course, that's all speculative. Maybe it all just happened as reported. It is reported that the police took the side of the existing government, which the military may not have expected.

 

[Agema]

So, like, this is just fake, right?

If what I've read is correct, a segment of the military surrounded the palace, lining up troops and rolling in tanks in dramatic fashion, then the president personally confronted the coup leader on broadcast television and demanded they stand down in melodramatic fashion, and then they did and just sort of left and the people all celebrated with the president.

I guess all that could have actually happened, but every step of it feels performative.

It seems a disgruntled army commander didn't like being fired so decided to sic some of his loyal troops on the government. Upon finding he had no support, he quickly backed down and surrendered. Bear in mind this is hardly the first time we've seen a rebel make a half-arsed attack on government - consider Prigozhin's short-lived revolt against Putin.

He has claimed the Bolivian president set it up to raise his own popularity. At face value, this seems extraordinarily unlikely. Even a staged coup designed to fail would require the coup leader to take a severe penalty. If Zuniga agreed to sacrifice himself this way to bolster Arce against his political opponents, it's insane to believe the first thing he would do after arrest is reveal that it was a scam.

The question is really whether he was acting alone, or whether he had the nod from some major powerbrokers (domestic and potentially even international): it would be far from unusual for someone taking this action to have scouted out some opinions from major players.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So, like, this is just fake, right?

If what I've read is correct, a segment of the military surrounded the palace, lining up troops and rolling in tanks in dramatic fashion, then the president personally confronted the coup leader on broadcast television and demanded they stand down in melodramatic fashion, and then they did and just sort of left and the people all celebrated with the president.

I guess all that could have actually happened, but every step of it feels performative.

Yeah, that seems like a really rubbish attempt a a coup. OTOH, though, maybe the general that was removed recently should have been removed much earlier for incompetence amongst other things.

 

[Satinavian]

So, like, this is just fake, right?

If what I've read is correct, a segment of the military surrounded the palace, lining up troops and rolling in tanks in dramatic fashion, then the president personally confronted the coup leader on broadcast television and demanded they stand down in melodramatic fashion, and then they did and just sort of left and the people all celebrated with the president.

I guess all that could have actually happened, but every step of it feels performative.

Nah, that happens a lot.

People planning a coup need to keep secrecy so they can't really tell all their supposed supporters beforehand. So it is always a gamble how much support they actually will get. And when the dice fall and their supposed supporters don't feel like violently and illegally overthrowing the government, it is best to back down and take some prison time instead of getting shot in a fight.

That is made even more common by the tendency of all humans to think the majority thinks like themself. Every single faction in history overestimates their own appeal.



Most failed coups don't end up violently and instead produce little more than a whimper. Sometimes they don't even get attention in worldwide media.

 

[Agema]

OTOH, though, maybe the general that was removed recently should have been removed much earlier for incompetence amongst other things.

In unstable political situations, this can often be difficult.

People may be corrupt or incompetent, but for a leader to replace them has risks - firstly, it makes everyone else incompetent or corrupt fear for their own position and gives them a motivation to remove the leader, in which we can roll in the factor that it tends to create powerful enemies in the removed individual and their allies. Secondly, it can be generally destabilising. Thirdly, it can be misinterpreted or misrepresented as some form of malign intent (powergrabbing, for instance).

 

[Thaluikhain]

In unstable political situations, this can often be difficult.

People may be corrupt or incompetent, but for a leader to replace them has risks - firstly, it makes everyone else incompetent or corrupt fear for their own position and gives them a motivation to remove the leader, in which we can roll in the factor that it tends to create powerful enemies in the removed individual and their allies. Secondly, it can be generally destabilising. Thirdly, it can be misinterpreted or misrepresented as some form of malign intent (powergrabbing, for instance).

Sure, I meant "should have been in an ideal world".

 

[meiam]

It's been a really long time but I think in Africa something similar happen when a coup was successful when like an handful of people (and maybe one gunship iirc) were able to take over a country just cause nobody liked the incumbent and didn't really bother stopping it. I think there's been a lot of bad blood between current government and fromer president Morales, even though they're from the same party, so maybe the guy was just hopping nobody would stick with Arce?

 

[Agema]

It's been a really long time but I think in Africa something similar happen when a coup was successful when like an handful of people (and maybe one gunship iirc) were able to take over a country just cause nobody liked the incumbent and didn't really bother stopping it. I think there's been a lot of bad blood between current government and fromer president Morales, even though they're from the same party, so maybe the guy was just hopping nobody would stick with Arce?

Honestly, Morales seems to me to set off alarm bells.

He served his term as president and things went fine, okay. But then he pushed through a constitutional amendment in technically legal if slightly iffy circumstances to give himself more time as president. Despite this controversy and shotstorm kicking off severe political disruption and sort of coup, rather than take the hint, apparently he still intends to be president again and is undermining people in his own party to make it happen. There's the maxim here that when someone wants to be leader too much it is often good reason they shouldn't be leader.

 

[tstorm823]

Honestly, Morales seems to me to set off alarm bells.

He served his term as president and things went fine, okay. But then he pushed through a constitutional amendment in technically legal if slightly iffy circumstances to give himself more time as president. Despite this controversy and shotstorm kicking off severe political disruption and sort of coup, rather than take the hint, apparently he still intends to be president again and is undermining people in his own party to make it happen. There's the maxim here that when someone wants to be leader too much it is often good reason they shouldn't be leader.

Hmmm... feels like an opportunity for hindsight.

Reminder: the current political troubles in Bolivia started because a socialist wanted indefinite executive power. The person currently having death wished upon her was 4th in line when he resigned and was just the first person not to run from the office. The violence in the country came about because people like those who you're agreeing with here get violent at an idea as reasonable as term limits.

No, the political troubles in Bolivia are due to it being an unstable country with excessive reliance on violence to settle political disagreement. We can see this very clearly in the current, interim, tinpot tyrant of Bolivia.

It really kicked off because the Bolivian right thought they had a good chance of beating Morales in the 2019 election. When it turned out they still seemed short of enough votes, they used a claim of fraud by OAS monitors to do what democracy couldn't and force him out, with the heads of the army and police applying the coup de grace when political pressure failed. I find it hard to believe that the next people in official line to succession (all from Morales's party) weren't similarly threatened to step aside.

The stupid thing is, Morales was a reasonable leader who was willing to compromise. He delivered stable economic growth, reduced poverty, and considerably improved general human development such as literacy standards in Bolivia. But even a moderate leftist is too left for some, and even worse he was a successful one: that could not be tolerated.

Not saying there's an explicit contradiction, but perhaps a bit of an evolving opinion.

 

[Agema]

Not saying there's an explicit contradiction, but perhaps a bit of an evolving opinion.

Far less than you think, because from that same thread I already offered my reservations about Morales at the time:

I'll be honest when I say that having lost the referendum to remove term limits, I do not think Morales should have gone to the Supreme Court to do what a vote couldn't, and it did not put him in a good light. Nor do I think the Supreme Court's rationale for removing presidential terms limits particularly convincing - but in the end it was their decision, and legal under Bolivia's constitution. I think there is a valid point to be made that Bolivia's constitution is potentially weak in terms of the Supreme Court being open to political bias.

However, irrespective of that, the removal of power from Morales and handover to the caretaker President back in 2019 or so was both highly irregular and under pressure from the coercive powers of military and police. Much as I may have concerns that Morales's behaviour indicates he may be a potential danger to democracy, his removal back then was an actual attack on democracy.

 

[tstorm823]

Much as I may have concerns that Morales's behaviour indicates he may be a potential danger to democracy

A) It's hardly potential danger, it's been realized danger for a decade.
B) The danger to democracy is almost meaningless relative to the much more real dangers this man has presented. When he was chased out of power, he got his supporters to blockade a city to cause food and energy shortages for over a million people. That's a bit worse than undemocratic, that's war crimes committed against his own country. And now his party is back in power, but not him specifically, so he has his supporters in the government actively sabotaging the country until he can return to power himself.

 

[Agema]

When he was chased out of power, he got his supporters to blockade a city to cause food and energy shortages for over a million people. That's a bit worse than undemocratic, that's war crimes committed against his own country.

"War crimes"

WAR CRIME!
WAR CRIME!
WAR CRIME!

 

[tstorm823]

"War crimes"

WAR CRIME!
WAR CRIME!
WAR CRIME!

Because any of those are remotely similar to an exiled president calling for armed militias to starve a city.

Desde el exterior, Evo llamó a la guerra al menos 3 veces

Un llamado a organizar milicias armadas le costó una severa llamada de atención del gobierno de Alberto Fernández, que después que retractarse de lo que dijo.

web.archive.org

 

[Agema]

Because any of those are remotely similar to an exiled president calling for armed militias to starve a city.

It is within the boundaries of reasonable civil protest to deny/restrict supply of products and services, including fuel and food. Indeed, this is the fundamental action of an ordinary labour strike. There's a big difference between that and "starving" a population, with all that implies. I don't think media outlets with certain specific anti-Morales angles particularly need to be trusted when they assert the latter.

 

[tstorm823]

It is within the boundaries of reasonable civil protest to deny/restrict supply of products and services, including fuel and food.

With guns?

 

[Agema]

With guns?

Whatever few guns the protestors may have had or been alleged to have had, it didn't help them when the president granted immunity from prosecution for the armed forces, and the armed forces promptly rolled in and just shot a load of them. (Since you mention "war crimes".)

 

[Gergar12]

Fun fact this country is one of the few that allows visa-free travel from China. Chinese nationals can go there, passing through the Darien gap, go to Mexico, and get asylum near the US-Mexico border.

The problem is many of them go to New York City where yes there is a large diaspora, but there isn't enough housing.