2019 Bolivian political crisis | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | 10 November 2019 – 20 November 2019 | ||
Location | La Paz, Bolivia | ||
Caused by |
| ||
Methods | Barricades, demonstrations, and hunger strikes | ||
Resulted in |
| ||
Parties | |||
Lead figures | |||
Casualties and losses | |||
Dead: 33 (26 November 2019)[2] Injured: 715 (17 November 2019) |
2019 Bolivian political crisis |
---|
Causes |
|
Effects |
|
Events |
|
Elections |
Bolivia portal |
A political crisis occurred in Bolivia on 10 November 2019, after 21 days of civil protests following the disputed 2019 Bolivian general election in which incumbent President Evo Morales was initially declared the winner. The elections took place after a referendum to amend the Bolivian constitution, which limits the number of terms to two, was rejected in 2016. In 2017,[3] the Constitutional Tribunal (TCP) ruled that all public offices would have no term limits despite what was established in the constitution and allowing Evo Morales to run for a fourth term.[4]
The TCP's basis for this anti Constitutional decision was the Pact of San Jose regarding human rights[5] and Article 411 giving international treaties preeminence over the Constitution text itself. Challenges to this 2017 decision made by Bolivian citizens and constitutional experts were subsequently denied by the TCP,[6] and at the time of the 2019 election a query to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (CIDH) was pending. In 2021, the CIDH set the matter to rest in a consultative opinion requested by Colombia, which states that re-election is not a human right.[7] Rather, the decision states that breaking a Constitutional mandate of term limits to allow indefinite re-election attacks the human rights of citizens. According to Articles 13 and 411 of the Bolivian Constitution,[8] this CIDH decision overrides any contrary ruling by the TCP or Legislative Assembly. The Constitution of Bolivia[8] grants the TCP authority to interpret, but not to modify the Constitution.
An audit by the Organization of American States (OAS),[9] which released a full report afterwards, concluded that significant irregularities happened during the electoral process.[10][11][12] Observers from the European Union released a report with similar findings and conclusions as the OAS.[13][14] The military and the police of Bolivia, along with the Bolivian Workers' Center (COB), recommended President Evo Morales to resign. He did, accompanied by other resignations by high-level politicians throughout the day, some citing fears for the safety of their families. The government of Mexico offered political asylum to Morales the following day, which Morales accepted a day afterwards.[15][16]
The second vice president of the Senate, opposition senator Jeanine Áñez, assumed the role of president on 12 November. This was not without controversy, as her initial appointment was made during a brief legislative session that lacked quorum, due to a boycott by Morales's party, Movement for Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo; MAS).[17] Bolivia's Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal then endorsed Áñez's assumption of the presidency, and the MAS ruling party returned most members to both chambers, with some assuming key positions such as Leader of the Senate.[18][19][20] They also committed to working with the interim government towards new elections.[21] In addition to the controversy around her appointment, Áñez's government began a campaign against Morales's supporters. Newly appointed Interior Minister Arturo Murillo vowed to pursue members of Morales's administration[22][23] and Áñez's government charged Morales with "terrorism and sedition".[23][22] Áñez introduced Christian religious symbols into state procedures, a move perceived by The New York Times as directly related to Morales's 14 years of support for Indigenous culture.[24]
Morales called for the Bolivian people to reject the leadership of Áñez. He and his supporters argued that the event was a coup d'état. International politicians, scholars and journalists were divided between describing the event as a coup or popular uprising.[1][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][excessive citations] The Bolivian Congress, with the majority being members of Morales's MAS party, unanimously approved a bill on 23 November 2019 that annulled the results of 20 October election, allowed for new elections and prevented Evo Morales from participating in the new elections.[32][33][34] The bill was signed into law the next day by president Áñez.[35] The unrest would ultimately lead to the Senkata and the Sacaba massacres.[36]
On 4 December 2019, the OAS released its final report related to 20 October election, detailing what they called "deliberate" and "malicious" tactics to rig that election in favor of President Morales.[37][38] Analysis by the progressive, left-leaning US thinktank Center for Economic and Policy Research rejected the OAS statistical analysis of election data, arguing that a basic coding error resulted in inexplicable changes in trend.[39][40][41] In August 2021, a report commissioned by the OAS and carried out by independent human rights experts concluded that the Añez government's path to power came with "irregularities" and serious human rights abuses by security forces.[42][43][44] In June 2022, the Bolivian courts convicted Áñez for charges committed during the political crisis. She was sentenced to ten years in prison.[24][45]
This week, the country's highest court overruled the constitution, scrapping term limits altogether for every office. Morales can now run for a fourth term in 2019 – and for every election thereafter. ... the referendum results – which the government claims were invalid due to an opposition smear campaign directed by Washington ...
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
El País
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).:2
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).:3
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).guardianhrw
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Whether the events Sunday in Bolivia constitute a coup d'état is now the subject of debate in and outside the nation. ... Bolivia's "coup" is largely a question of semantics
But the Cold War-era language of coups and revolutions demands that such cases fit into clear narratives. ... Experts on Bolivia and on coups joined forces on Monday to challenge the black-and-white characterizations, urging pundits and social media personalities to see the shades of gray.
And, as so often with the big names of Latin America – where the word "coup" is supercharged ... how you see what has happened to him is often dependent on your own political ideology. On the left, he's seen as the victim of a putsch; on the right, his downfall is taken as evidence of democracy trumping authoritarianism on the continent.
So…was it a coup? Experts are as divided as everyone else on the question.
It's not a coup in any sense of the word, and Bolivia and Latin America have experience with actual coups. The army did not take charge of Bolivia. Morales, despite his protestations that police had an arrest warrant for him, is not in custody or even being sought.
Countries are debating why Evo Morales left power. Did he leave power of his own volition or was it a coup? There are two different responses to that question based on which country is speaking.
The discussion over whether it was a coup falls largely along ideological lines. Left wing supporters of Morales point like to point to a long history of military coups in Latin America, while critics of the former president point to the 14 years he spent in power, in violation of constitutional term limits. ... But political experts say the events hardly resemble a classic coup scenario. ... In a typical coup, the military usually take a more proactive role, taking up arms against the sitting ruler and installing one of their own in the presidential palace, at least temporarily.
In El Alto late Tuesday night, witnesses said, a military unit guarding the Senkata gasoline plant opened fire on protesters who had surrounded the plant for over a week. By blocking tankers from leaving the plant, Mr. Morales's supporters were able to cut off La Paz's main source of gasoline and food, causing acute shortages. At least eight people were reported killed.