Right-wing coup in Bolivia

[Seanchaidh]

Nationalizing it means they can't explioted for cheap prices. That is the whole reason the US is backing this coup. Its all about the cheap lithium.

Mmm. Not sure about that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-metals-lmeweek-lithium/stung-by-sliding-prices-lithium-industry-pares-back-expansions-idUSKBN1X71DG

It had yet to be nationalized, the coup happend withing a week after the plans where announced.

 

[Seanchaidh]

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/RodericDay/status/1195728173385814019"]

In contrast to the English-speaking twitter accounts that popped up several days ago to say "there was NO COUP", there are videos from people in Bolivia like that one. Now with subtitles.

edit:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/JMColony/status/1196241867261857799"]

What are they charged with? What did they do wrong? Anyway, this is all proceeding very democratically.

And a quick google search has confirmed that Western media has been shamefully (or perhaps more accurately shamelessly) delinquent when it comes to covering this shit.

edit2:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1196228816626077696"]

Apparently the charge is sedition. These people literally just overthrew the president and are now charging legislators and journalists with sedition for saying maybe that's bullshit.

 

[generals3]

To bring the discussion back to the right topic:

Yes, they consider it a human right. And being elected means they gave to judges the power to make such decisiona.
But hey, anything to defend your beloved christofascists, right?

Is christofascist the latest commie buzzword because using does all but add credibility to the point you're trying to convey. Off course the fact that you're also strawmanning me doesn't help either as I'm not trying to defend the ad-interim government and their current actions, i'm merely pointing towards Evo's failures and that the current mess was caused by his own anti-democratic hubris.

 

[generals3]

Good thing Morales never did such a thing, his 4th term was legal. Those judges where also elected by the people, so is it 'using them' whenever you disgaree or what?

Because being elected somehow makes everything you do right? Come now, trying to defend this is just showing your total lack of objectivity and your desperation to defend him. The people voted against the increase in term limit and he used his allies in the supreme court to somehow deem the constitutional term limit a violation against his human rights?! Since when is running for president an unconditional "human right"?

If you want to disagree with the decision, maybe read it and engage with it instead of grousing about the top-line while christofascists murder people in the streets.

What's to engage with? I mean, come on, the argument they brought up to justify their decision was :"All people that were limited by the law and the constitution are hereby able to run for office, because it is up to the Bolivian people to decide,". The people who decided, by referendum, to keep the term limit. And let's not forget how idiotic this is, a term limit is only useful against people who would win an election. The whole point is that it prevents one person to stay in power forever by winning elections (elections which can get dodgier as the ruler uses his power to steadily erode democracy, like Putin did in Russia).

 

[Seanchaidh]

To bring the discussion back to the right topic:

Yes, they consider it a human right. And being elected means they gave to judges the power to make such decisiona.
But hey, anything to defend your beloved christofascists, right?

Is christofascist the latest commie buzzword because using does all but add credibility to the point you're trying to convey. Off course the fact that you're also strawmanning me doesn't help either as I'm not trying to defend the ad-interim government and their current actions, i'm merely pointing towards Evo's failures and that the current mess was caused by his own anti-democratic hubris.

Yeah, lets just ignore that they are killing the protestors(natives) and how the current president sees the natives as lesser people. Who, by the way, is from a party that only has like 10% of the seats in parliament. But hey, that is somehow more democratic than the elected president and the elected judges, right? Or how they are blocking the party that has the majority (2/3th this term) in parliament.


But hey, if you want to side with the fascists, go ahead, just be honest for once.

 

[generals3]

Yeah, lets just ignore that they are killing the protestors(natives) and how the current president sees the natives as lesser people. Who, by the way, is from a party that only has like 10% of the seats in parliament. But hey, that is somehow more democratic than the elected president and the elected judges, right? Or how they are blocking the party that has the majority (2/3th this term) in parliament.


But hey, if you want to side with the fascists, go ahead, just be honest for once.

None of this make Evo's action any less wrong. Ideally he would have let someone else of his party run, that person would have likely won and none of the current shit would be going on. There wouldn't have been an opportunity for the increasingly authoritarian opposition to use a popular protest movement to take over.

And please, it's just that i don't see every situation as black & white. If you're incapable of seeing what Evo Morales did wrong without magically being convinced the opposition is doing nothing wrong than that's on you.

 

[Silvanus]

None of this make Evo's action any less wrong. Ideally he would have let someone else of his party run, that person would have likely won and none of the current shit would be going on. There wouldn't have been an opportunity for the increasingly authoritarian opposition to use a popular protest movement to take over.

Out of interest, do you believe a democratic society must feature term limits? Or is it the manner by which Morales sought to remove the limit that you have an issue with?

If the latter, what method would be more acceptable? He sought to do so through elected officials, and using only the democratically-established mechanisms of the system.

 

[generals3]

None of this make Evo's action any less wrong. Ideally he would have let someone else of his party run, that person would have likely won and none of the current shit would be going on. There wouldn't have been an opportunity for the increasingly authoritarian opposition to use a popular protest movement to take over.

Out of interest, do you believe a democratic society must feature term limits? Or is it the manner by which Morales sought to remove the limit that you have an issue with?

If the latter, what method would be more acceptable? He sought to do so through elected officials, and using only the democratically-established mechanisms of the system.

I believe that presidential democracies require a term limit. This is because presidential democracies tend to be more about specific individuals rather than parties and they tend to give more power to the elected individual. As such presidents can more easily use their power and charisma to slowly but steadily erode democratic foundations for their personal thirst for power. (Best example being Russia where Putin found a way around the term limit)

But even if for a moment I weren't pro term limit per se, I would consider the failed referendum meant he had to stop his efforts to remove term limits and accept the will of the people.

 

[Silvanus]

I believe that presidential democracies require a term limit. This is because presidential democracies tend to be more about specific individuals rather than parties and they tend to give more power to the elected individual. As such presidents can more easily use their power and charisma to slowly but steadily erode democratic foundations for their personal thirst for power. (Best example being Russia where Putin found a way around the term limit)

Russia is surely an example demonstrating that term limits don't prevent dictatorial moves, is it not? Russia has term limits, and is ruled by a despot nonetheless.

On the other hands, plenty of perfectly functional democracies don't have term limits.

But even if for a moment I weren't pro term limit per se, I would consider the failed referendum meant he had to stop his efforts to remove term limits and accept the will of the people.

Alrighty. But then, why does the referendum result override the 2019 election result? The latter was won by a far more convincing majority. Does that not demonstrate the "will of the people" to be a Morales government?

 

[Seanchaidh]

None of this make Evo's action any less wrong. Ideally he would have let someone else of his party run, that person would have likely won and none of the current shit would be going on. There wouldn't have been an opportunity for the increasingly authoritarian opposition to use a popular protest movement to take over.

And please, it's just that i don't see every situation as black & white. If you're incapable of seeing what Evo Morales did wrong without magically being convinced the opposition is doing nothing wrong than that's on you.

I'm not the one who is siding with a fascist regime over Morales. A party with 10% of the seats overthrowing one that has the majority of the people behind them.

And sorry, but you don't get to decide how a countries term limits work. The judges, who again, where elected by the people decided against it using the power given to them by the people.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I believe that presidential democracies require a term limit. This is because presidential democracies tend to be more about specific individuals rather than parties and they tend to give more power to the elected individual. As such presidents can more easily use their power and charisma to slowly but steadily erode democratic foundations for their personal thirst for power. (Best example being Russia where Putin found a way around the term limit)

Russia is surely an example demonstrating that term limits don't prevent dictatorial moves, is it not? Russia has term limits, and is ruled by a despot nonetheless.

On the other hands, plenty of perfectly functional democracies don't have term limits.

But even if for a moment I weren't pro term limit per se, I would consider the failed referendum meant he had to stop his efforts to remove term limits and accept the will of the people.

Alrighty. But then, why does the referendum result override the 2019 election result? The latter was won by a far more convincing majority. Does that not demonstrate the "will of the people" to be a Morales government?

Term limits are that common at all even, Merkel has been the German PM for longer than Morales has been president, you don't hear anything about that.

 

[Ravinoff]

Term limits are that common at all even, Merkel has been the German PM for longer than Morales has been president, you don't hear anything about that.

You're failing to recognize the difference between a parliamentary system and a presidential system. In a parliamentary system like Germany (or Canada, or a significant portion of the world in general), you vote for your local representative and by extension party, and the party or parliamentary coalition elects its leader internally. Nobody in the general election votes directly for a prime minister.

In a presidential system without term limits, it's far easier to develop a cult of personality around one person who can remain in power indefinitely.

And forgetting all of that, can we touch on how completely idiotic the argument Morales makes against term limits is? A "violation of human rights?" What a heap of absolute self-serving nonsense.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Term limits are that common at all even, Merkel has been the German PM for longer than Morales has been president, you don't hear anything about that.

You're failing to recognize the difference between a parliamentary system and a presidential system. In a parliamentary system like Germany (or Canada, or a significant portion of the world in general), you vote for your local representative and by extension party, and the party or parliamentary coalition elects its leader internally. Nobody in the general election votes directly for a prime minister.

In a presidential system without term limits, it's far easier to develop a cult of personality around one person who can remain in power indefinitely.

If they people keep voting for them, then that is what they want. Why are you to decide who a country gets to pick as its leader?

And forgetting all of that, can we touch on how completely idiotic the argument Morales makes against term limits is? A "violation of human rights?" What a heap of absolute self-serving nonsense.

Who gives a shit? How the fuck is disagreeing with the reason the court gave an excuse to let christofascists take controll?

 

[generals3]

I believe that presidential democracies require a term limit. This is because presidential democracies tend to be more about specific individuals rather than parties and they tend to give more power to the elected individual. As such presidents can more easily use their power and charisma to slowly but steadily erode democratic foundations for their personal thirst for power. (Best example being Russia where Putin found a way around the term limit)

Russia is surely an example demonstrating that term limits don't prevent dictatorial moves, is it not? Russia has term limits, and is ruled by a despot nonetheless.

On the other hands, plenty of perfectly functional democracies don't have term limits.

Because he circumvented the weak term limit. The term limit should have barred him from being prime Minister under Medvedev, this would have given at least one term without Putin being deeply involved. The fact he found it necessary to ridiculously bypass the term limit the way he did shows he felt it was necessary to stay in power to keep his grip onto Russia.

Alrighty. But then, why does the referendum result override the 2019 election result? The latter was won by a far more convincing majority. Does that not demonstrate the "will of the people" to be a Morales government?

The referendum happened before so it wouldn't really override the election. And again, the whole point of a term limit is to prevent someone to be elected, winning an election is what it is supposed to prevent. Now why the election shouldn't override the referendum, well quite simply because Morales winning the election doesn't necessarily mean that the nation wanted him to rule yet again.
It just means that he was the most desirable of the candidates presented than. I mean 47% voted for him to become a president rather than the other candidates and during the referendum ~51% - 52% voted for him not to be a president at all. There may also be a lot of people who supported MAS who would rather have had a fresh face being the party's candidate. But him clinging to power forced those who supported MAS to vote for him regardless of their feelings towards term limits.

So in essence, no his election does not necessarily demonstrate the will of the people.

 

[generals3]

Then why do you keep defending the opposition from taking controll? Who gives a fuck that what Morales did was not super nice? That is not even close to fucking fascists.


Jesus christ, you fucking libs. You get 2 clear sides in this shitshow, you gotta defend the genodical fuckheads, never change, eh?

Ok let's be clear: I supported the movement to remove Morales from office and organize new fair and free elections, which was initially what was presented to us.

What I do not support is the current authoritarian turn the opposition is taking:

- violent police/military repression and a promise not to prosecute the culprits
- The crackdown on MAS politicians and the fact this will likely result in unfair elections

So in hindsight things would have been better under Morales. But ideally Morales wouldn't have been part of the 2019 elections.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Good thing Morales never did such a thing, his 4th term was legal. Those judges where also elected by the people, so is it 'using them' whenever you disgaree or what?

Because being elected somehow makes everything you do right? Come now, trying to defend this is just showing your total lack of objectivity and your desperation to defend him. The people voted against the increase in term limit and he used his allies in the supreme court to somehow deem the constitutional term limit a violation against his human rights?! Since when is running for president an unconditional "human right"?

If you want to disagree with the decision, maybe read it and engage with it instead of grousing about the top-line while christofascists murder people in the streets.

What's to engage with? I mean, come on, the argument they brought up to justify their decision was :"All people that were limited by the law and the constitution are hereby able to run for office, because it is up to the Bolivian people to decide,". The people who decided, by referendum, to keep the term limit. And let's not forget how idiotic this is, a term limit is only useful against people who would win an election. The whole point is that it prevents one person to stay in power forever by winning elections (elections which can get dodgier as the ruler uses his power to steadily erode democracy, like Putin did in Russia).

The referendum was very evenly split; 51% or so of those who voted in it desire a term limit. The right of the other 49%, as well as those who didn't vote in the referendum, to elect the leader they want is not that easily ignored. What on earth is so democratic about a rule that manifestly has as its result the pre-emptive exclusion of the winner of the election?

Term limits should be expected to benefit a wealthy establishment; a ruling class can churn out candidates to do its bidding without much effort (just look at the Democratic Presidential primary in the United States!) To then exclude the exceptional candidates who can both succeed in politics and not be toadies of the various wealthy interests from holding office more than twice is a way to further tilt the playing field against the people.

 

[Satinavian]

A healthy democracy does not need term limits. But they are really important in an unstable democracy where a real risk exists of turning into a monarchy or dictatorship. It is a big hurdle where elected rulers have to make utterly clear that they want to change how the gouvernment works to give themself more power.

And such a problem usually arises with populist candidates. And the traditional elites are usually against it, because they evolved in the current system.

This thing is at least as old as Caesar.

 

[Seanchaidh]

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1198046832527597568

More MAS(the majority party) members getting arrested.

 

[Agema]

A healthy democracy does not need term limits. But they are really important in an unstable democracy where a real risk exists of turning into a monarchy or dictatorship.

I'm not sure they are important. I think if an unstable country is at risk of autocracy, term limits approximate to meaningless because the person in power has enough leverage to overturn or circumvent those rules anyway.

Term limits are mostly disadvantageous to political movements that don't have a strong pool of potential leaders. Once the obvious leader is forced to step down, the movement is then rendered vulnerable. After that, I think Seanchaidh's point about the current elites overwhelmingly tending to derive from the last generations' elites starts looking ominous.

https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1198046832527597568

More MAS(the majority party) members getting arrested.

I'm willing to bet you there's not going to be much reporting or commenting about the unfairness and undemocratic nature of the upcoming election, with MAS having been heavily suppressed.

 

[Silvanus]

Because he circumvented the weak term limit. The term limit should have barred him from being prime Minister under Medvedev, this would have given at least one term without Putin being deeply involved. The fact he found it necessary to ridiculously bypass the term limit the way he did shows he felt it was necessary to stay in power to keep his grip onto Russia.

There's not a chance that had legally-solid term limits been in place in Russia, Putin would have stepped down and left the Presidency. Not a solitary chance.

The referendum happened before so it wouldn't really override the election. And again, the whole point of a term limit is to prevent someone to be elected, winning an election is what it is supposed to prevent. Now why the election shouldn't override the referendum, well quite simply because Morales winning the election doesn't necessarily mean that the nation wanted him to rule yet again.
It just means that he was the most desirable of the candidates presented than. I mean 47% voted for him to become a president rather than the other candidates and during the referendum ~51% - 52% voted for him not to be a president at all. There may also be a lot of people who supported MAS who would rather have had a fresh face being the party's candidate. But him clinging to power forced those who supported MAS to vote for him regardless of their feelings towards term limits.

So in essence, no his election does not necessarily demonstrate the will of the people.

His winning the election definitely means that more people wanted him in power than any presented alternative. And that's how the system works: it is imperfect as a gauge of public opinion, but it's a damn sight better than relying on assumptions about the peoples' priorities.