Bolivian activists skeptical of their government’s intentions have taken to the streets to ensure that their presidential elections go ahead. Nearly 10 months after a military coup forced Bolivian President Evo Morales to resign, the country is still without a democratically elected leader. Jeanine Áñez, who has maintained provisional control over the country since Morales’s demise, has blamed COVID-19 for delays to the general election. Her government’s critics, however, claim she is postponing the vote in order to boost her electoral chances – in the most recent polls, Áñez placed far behind her political rivals. This crisis is a tale of corruption and deception from across the political spectrum, but the Bolivian people have proven time and time again that they will not accept such behaviour as the new normal.
Things Fall Apart
First elected in 2006, Morales was a popular, if divisive, figure throughout his presidency. Many saw him as a champion of social, economic and racial justice. As Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Morales fought for a section of society that had been systematically excluded from national politics. He also took a firm stance against poverty and foreign monopolies. He nationalized Bolivia’s oil and gas industries, tripled the country’s GDP per capita, and used heavy government investment to reduce poverty from 38% in 2006 to 17% in 2018. The president’s success in transforming the lives of millions of Bolivians translated into the political arena. He was a comfortable winner in the 2009 and 2014 elections, receiving almost 40% more of the vote than his rivals in both elections. Nevertheless, his radical agenda brought him into conflict with Bolivia’s more conservative elements, especially those in the wealthy and predominantly white province of Santa Cruz. These tensions came to a head in the elections of 2019.
An Electoral Power Grab?
The 2019 elections were controversial for a number of reasons. For one, many felt Morales shouldn’t have even been allowed to stand. Ten years earlier, his government had introduced a new constitution that barred presidents from standing for a third term. Given that Morales had been in power since 2006, the rule change meant that 2019 would be the end of his time in office. However, as this deadline drew closer, the president appeared to have a change of heart. In 2016, Morales called a referendum to extend his term. The proposal was narrowly defeated, but in another twist, the Constitutional Court later ruled that Morales could stand for re-election after all. The Court argued that denying him the right to do so would violate his human rights.
A candidate’s shaky legal standings would be the main talking point of most elections – not so in 2019. Morales held a continuous but slim lead in opinion polls until Election Day on October 20th. When 83% of the votes had been counted, a runoff election between Morales and his opponent, Carlos Mesa, seemed likely. Therefore, when Morales was announced the outright winner the following day, there were widespread allegations of electoral fraud. The Organization of American States (OAS) then got involved, reporting a gross manipulation of election computer systems (although many dismissed the OAS’s claims as spurious and unfounded). Despite these accusations and the dubious legality of Morales’s candidacy, the electoral board confirmed Morales’s victory.
Morales’s re-election was met with public fury. Weeks of protest ensued, and the president resigned under pressure from the military. What followed this unrest, however, was more chaos.
Áñez: Restoring or Dismantling Democracy?
As second vice president of the Bolivian Senate, Áñez became president after Morales and vice president Álvaro García Linera were forced to step down. On taking office, the interim leader pledged to “reconstruct democracy.” However, her government did little to suggest it intended to uphold this promise. First, Morales was forced to flee to Mexico after armed intruders broke into his home. Minister Arturo Murillo then vowed to “hunt” down remaining left-wing public figures. Finally, the state responded with an iron fist when Bolivia’s political turmoil spilled onto the streets. Thousands of protesters, enraged that their elected leader had been ousted, were shot at by police. In Cochabamba, nine demonstrators were left dead and dozens were injured.
As reported by the OWP, Áñez’s government has subsequently doubled down on its repressive tendencies by eroding the rights of its political opponents and Bolivia’s indigenous peoples. Intent on undoing Morales’s promotion of indigenous culture, Áñez’s ally Luis Fernando Camacho outlined the government’s desire to rid the country of “the demons of the witchery.” Ministers were sworn in on a large Bible and cross. Áñez’s supporters ripped off Wiphala flags – the symbol of indigenous people, also synonymous with Morales – from police uniforms and burned them. Most significantly, the government’s cabinet only contained one indigenous politician – Martha Yujra – before she was removed in June.
Popular Resistance
Morales’s supporters did not take these changes lightly. Protests continued after the massacre at Cochabamba. Nine more demonstrators were killed by police in Sacaba, and an even bloodier incident took place in Senkata on November 18th. According to Elias Kouhry, 36 citizens had died by June 3rd. Despite eye-witness accounts to the contrary, the government blamed these deaths on other protesters and claimed that the military never fired a shot. Carwil Bjork- James’ analysis of the killings demonstrated that this was patently untrue. To shield government forces from any repercussions from these travesties, the Áñez administration issued Presidential Decree 4078, which protected those involved in “maintenance of public order” from prosecution. Amnesty International’s Erika Guevara-Rosas condemned this policy as a “carte blanche” for human rights violations.
The Áñez administration has failed to restore democracy. In the words of Valeria Silva Guzmán, it has instead become “a regime of terror.” Nowhere has the government’s hypocrisy been more apparent than its failure to fulfill its primary purpose: to set a new election and hand over power.
COVID-19 and Delayed Elections
On January 27th, Áñez set Bolivia on course for electoral chaos. The interim president announced that she intended to run in the forthcoming elections, despite promising not to just weeks before. This decision caused outrage amongst both Áñez’s enemies and some of her allies. Many, including former president and 2019 election candidate Carlos Mesa, believed she was abusing her power. Communications minister Roxana Lizárraga even resigned, arguing the government had ignored its “objectives” and “betray[ed] democracy.” Áñez, it appeared, was no better than the predecessor she criticized so harshly. Like Morales, she breached the public’s trust to stand in an election. Rather than righting the wrongs of the previous administration, Áñez seemed to be repeating them.
The State Loses Control
The Áñez administration stirred yet more controversy when, on March 21st, it delayed the elections initially scheduled for May 3rd. The government blamed the decision on the COVID-19 pandemic, having imposed a national quarantine four days before the announcement. The subsequent weeks would expose yet more of the government’s failings as it proved incapable of managing the virus, the elections, and its own ministers.
By the time lockdown measures were eased in early June, the infection count had reached over 10,000. These numbers may have been a conservative estimate, however, since Bolivia had the fewest tests per million population in all of South America. Witness testimony of hospitals being overrun also have also cast doubts on official figures, which have now risen to around 100,000 infections. The government’s lack of transparency also translated into the political sphere – it refused to reveal its plans for the upcoming election, forcing parliament to set a 90-day time limit on May 1st. Just days later, Minister of Health Marcelo Navajas and two more health officials were arrested in May for corruption after Navajas oversaw the purchase of ventilators at inflated prices. Far from delivering a return to democracy, Áñez’s administration has been plagued by a lack of transparency, ineptitude, and corruption.
Radicalism vs Indifference
A wave of political protests has swept across the globe in recent months. From Hong Kong to the United States, Belarus to Chile, popular movements have defied COVID-19 to speak truth to power. Bolivia has been no exception. The announcement on July 24th that the election would be postponed yet again, along with the country’s escalating health crisis, sparked a new wave of demonstrations. First, thousands took the streets of El Alto and El Paz. United by their rallying cry – “What do we want? Elections now!” – they demanded that the elections be brought ahead. The protests then escalated in early August, when dozens of roadblocks were erected in major cities, bringing the nation to a standstill. Unionists subsequently threatened to completely blockade La Paz.
A Global “Shrug”
The Bolivian protests have not received the same level of international sympathy as pro-democracy movements in Hong Kong, Belarus, and elsewhere. In fact, the international community has largely turned a blind eye to Bolivia’s political crisis as a whole. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which found no evidence of fraud in the 2019 election, contradicting the OAS, fell on deaf ears. A joint report from Harvard Law School and the University Network for Human Rights accusing Áñez’s government of widespread human rights abuses also failed to spark foreign outrage. The only official reaction from the U.S. came from seven senators who raised fears over the health of Bolivian democracy on July 7th. This blasé attitude towards the crisis was encapsulated by billionaire Elon Musk. The naturalized U.S. citizen responded to criticism of his adopted country’s role in the 2019 coup by declaring that “[the U.S.] will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”
Foreign powers have vested economic interests in ensuring the current regime stays in power. Musk, for instance, has eyes for Bolivia’s lithium deposits. International companies and governments also want to reverse the nationalization of Bolivia’s key industries. Clearly, Bolivian activists cannot rely on foreign powers to protect their rights. Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept found that most external observers have actually downplayed the government’s disregard for civil liberties. Trapped between an oppressive regime clinging to power and an indifferent international community, Bolivian activists’ radical strategies are unsurprising.
Hope for the Future
On September 8th, MAS began its campaign for the coming election. The party’s slogan – “we shall overcome” – epitomizes the challenges facing Bolivia. Whether on the streets or in the polls, the country must overcome its obstinate interim government and restore democracy. This does not mean Bolivia should return to old habits. Specifically, this does not mean Bolivia should turn Morales once again. Over the last few days, the former president has been barred from standing in the days few days. Hopefully, this decision, and the rampant unpopularity of the Áñez administration, will allow Bolivia to enter into a new chapter. Rumblings from the U.S. also offer a glimmer of hope for a new chapter of foreign intervention in Bolivia. U.S. Congressmen Jan Schakowsky and Jesús Gracía have called for a review of Congress’ financial support of the OAS, which provides 60% of the body’s funding. The pair are looking to shine a light on the OAS’ dodgy dealings in Bolivia. Only time will tell whether the elections and a shift in international perceptions will finally be able to restore the democracy that Bolivia so deserves.
