Right-wing coup in Bolivia

[Trunkage]

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.

That is the problem with Brexit. A very similar split, so that is the platform remainders use to justify their ideology.

As to shorter term limits leading to more corruptions, a long term president is easier to make a larger profit off corruption. It makes investing in political manipulation cheaper

 

[Seanchaidh]

That is the problem with Brexit. A very similar split, so that is the platform remainders use to justify their ideology.

Ok.

As to shorter term limits leading to more corruptions, a long term president is easier to make a larger profit off corruption. It makes investing in political manipulation cheaper

Political manipulation being somewhat more expensive isn't so much a problem to the people with all the money. What actually is a problem is someone in office that they cannot buy at all. Term limits help the ruling class to get rid of such rare persons to make way for their army of soulless mediocrities.

Your cost of 'political manipulation' point goes the other way, though, too, and more severely: if term limits successfully multiply the number of candidates you need to successfully represent a constituency over a period of time, then it becomes more expensive for all constituencies to promote their candidates. This disproportionately hurts the people without so much money to spend (or the time to spend researching so many candidates to know who should get their limited money) and advantages, again, the ruling class over the mass of people. Big Poor only has so much money it can spare.

 

[generals3]

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.

Perhaps, but perhaps his blatant and clear breaking of the law would have bolstered his opposition, caused civil unrest, etc. Who knows what would have happened.

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.

I'm not relying on assumptions about peoples' priorities. I'm relying on a vote with a high turnout which said "NO" to Morales changing the term limit and allowing him to run again.

 

[Agema]

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.

Actually, I'm not totally sure that's so obvious as you might think. As a basic concept, we'd hold it a fundamental principle that citizens of good standing should be permitted to hold high office, which the concept of a term limit clearly breaches.

On the other hand, I totally think you're right that Morales decided he should serve another term and made it happen when the referendum didn't work.

And then, on viewing the response of the right-wing opposition to the election, I think we can very much see why Morales thought he should have another term: because those guys evidently intend to rule the country and reverse what Morales has done by brute force.

 

[Silvanus]

Perhaps, but perhaps his blatant and clear breaking of the law would have bolstered his opposition, caused civil unrest, etc. Who knows what would have happened.

After all the other lawbreaking, violence, totalitarianism from his government? That would've been the last straw? I doubt it.

If someone is any position to solidify dictatorial power around themselves, term limits won't make a lick of difference.

I'm not relying on assumptions about peoples' priorities. I'm relying on a vote with a high turnout which said "NO" to Morales changing the term limit and allowing him to run again.

You're assuming-- quite illogically, I'd say-- that the people are more invested in upholding the referendum result than the election result. In my experience, people care a great deal more about general elections. You're also assuming that they voted for him when they would prefer someone else.

 

[generals3]

After all the other lawbreaking, violence, totalitarianism from his government? That would've been the last straw? I doubt it.

If someone is any position to solidify dictatorial power around themselves, term limits won't make a lick of difference.

It took rising metro tickets in Chile.
It took rising diesel taxes for the Gilets jaunes in France.
It took an extradition bill in Hong Kong (despite China already being all over Hong Kong for years).

Why not a blatant and high profile constitutional violation in Russia?

And the point is usually to prevent anyone to be able to solidify dictatorial power around themselves. It doesn't just take a position. It usually takes time as well. Time to develop a cult of personality, time to corrupt the system, place the right people in the right places, etc. In some situations it's easier and quicker than others. But time is key. Term limits won't prevent dictatorial erosion of democratic institutions in every country where it applies, but it can make it less likely. And for what it's worth it can help detect presidents who are turning into dictators when they decide to throw away their constitutional limits. Whether that will make the National/international community react is a different question... But it should.

ou're assuming-- quite illogically, I'd say-- that the people are more invested in upholding the referendum result than the election result. In my experience, people care a great deal more about general elections. You're also assuming that they voted for him when they would prefer someone else.

Not really I just know that more people voted for him not to be able to run for office than people who actually voted him into it.
And I'm not assuming "they" voted for him when they would prefer someone else. I'm merely pointing out that by selecting himself as candidate for the MAS party he's pretty much forcing people who may have preferred to vote for "new blood" but with the MAS programme to vote for him. Surely we can't assume that 100% of the people who voted for him did so because it's him they wanted and not the programme/ideology his party is representing?

 

[Silvanus]

Not really I just know that more people voted for him not to be able to run for office than people who actually voted him into it.

Wait, this isn't true. 2.8 million voted for Morales in the 2019 presidential election; 2.6 million voted against the referendum proposal. And on top of this, the margin of victory was also significantly larger in the election than the referendum.

 

[Seanchaidh]

https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/27/right-wing-coup-bolivia-complete-junta-hunting-dissidents/

As Koba explained during our clandestine nighttime drive, "they are trying to repress not only protesters that march, but anyone that says different from what the government says is happening. So they are repressing any media outlet that tries to show the repression and the assassinations, the killings, and show the evidence, and show the protests, and show the marches. Everything that?s against the coup is being harassed and is being attacked."

He continued: "A lot of small and medium-sized media outlets have been shut down or have been forced to not show what's going on, and others have been paid to show what they tell them to. So it's a very serious situation in the freedom of speech department - not only the human rights department - because as I think the world has seen, these guys haven't held back in using all the force at their disposal."

It is utterly disgusting that the United States government is on board with this. And no, I don't think Democrats would have automatically been better on this; some would, others wouldn't.

Term limits won't prevent dictatorial erosion of democratic institutions in every country where it applies, but it can make it less likely. And for what it's worth it can help detect presidents who are turning into dictators when they decide to throw away their constitutional limits. Whether that will make the National/international community react is a different question... But it should.

So that this can happen?

 

[Agema]

And the point is usually to prevent anyone to be able to solidify dictatorial power around themselves. It doesn't just take a position. It usually takes time as well. Time to develop a cult of personality, time to corrupt the system, place the right people in the right places, etc. In some situations it's easier and quicker than others. But time is key. Term limits won't prevent dictatorial erosion of democratic institutions in every country where it applies, but it can make it less likely. And for what it's worth it can help detect presidents who are turning into dictators when they decide to throw away their constitutional limits. Whether that will make the National/international community react is a different question... But it should.

I think witnessing what's happening in Bolivia should be a reminder to us that lots of countries have circumstances very different from our own like ours, and we should be wary of such assumptions.

 

[generals3]

I think witnessing what's happening in Bolivia should be a reminder to us that lots of countries have circumstances very different from our own like ours, and we should be wary of such assumptions.

Well to be fair I think Term limits would be the least useful in circumstances "like ours". This said you can never guarantee a policy cannot backfire. Here the problem is that the opposition were camouflaged authoritarians, as they haven't held office for the three last terms it's hard to "guess" what would happen when such an opposition pushes away a leader who decided to throw away term limits in the garbage bin against the will of the people.

On the other hand I think there are plenty of nations on this world that would very likely be much better off if term limits were respected (and i'm mainly thinking of African countries with presidents "for life" which are crumbling under endemic corruption, repression, poverty,...)

 

[Satinavian]

So that this can happen?

For example Napoleon III couldn't get the numbers needed to change the constitution to allow him another term, even though he was pretty populat. So he had to use a coup and end the republic.

Of course the number of people who could not get a term limit extension and just accepted that quitely is huge. But it is impossible to guess how many of those would have become dictators without such a restraint.

 

[Silvanus]

Here the problem is that the opposition were camouflaged authoritarians, as they haven't held office for the three last terms it's hard to "guess" what would happen when such an opposition pushes away a leader who decided to throw away term limits in the garbage bin against the will of the people.

Again, a reminder that the will of the people was expressed in greater numbers, and by a greater margin, for a Morales government.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Here the problem is that the opposition were camouflaged authoritarians, as they haven't held office for the three last terms it's hard to "guess" what would happen when such an opposition pushes away a leader who decided to throw away term limits in the garbage bin against the will of the people.

Again, a reminder that the will of the people was expressed in greater numbers, and by a greater margin, for a Morales government.

Or how MAS is pretty much out of power, even though they have a super-majority in parliament.

 

[Sonmi]

Here the problem is that the opposition were camouflaged authoritarians, as they haven't held office for the three last terms it's hard to "guess" what would happen when such an opposition pushes away a leader who decided to throw away term limits in the garbage bin against the will of the people.

Again, a reminder that the will of the people was expressed in greater numbers, and by a greater margin, for a Morales government.

Or how MAS is pretty much out of power, even though they have a super-majority in parliament.

Democracy is only legitimate once the servile fascists say it is.

 

[Seanchaidh]

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/BadEmpanada/status/1205611787917414400"]

But term limits are really important.

 

[Seanchaidh]

May as well update:

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1209923574666088449"]

On November 10, as it became clear that the coup had overwhelmed Evo's elected government, the police preemptively fled the area, escaping to the nearby city of Cochabamba.

Coup officials knew that social organization was so solid in Chapare that they would never be able to contain the resistance. And they were right. After the coup took hold, almost every police station in the region came under attack from the local population.

Israel, a local journalist at a union-run station called Radio Kawsachun Coca, explained, "The people were so enraged, no one could stop them."

May the coup regime choke.