The health of Bolivia’s democracy has fluctuated since the country’s transition to this structure of government in 1982. Ethnic inequality, economic strife, and conflicts surrounding natural resources have continuously plagued the country and paved the way for democratic backsliding. Much of this democratic backsliding is often attributed to the leadership of one incredibly influential former president, Evo Morales, who served between 2006 and 2019. Morales’ leadership, though certainly not entirely harmful to Bolivians, can be characterized by much executive aggrandizement and the many resulting effects of this trend. Assessing the health of Bolivia’s democracy during Morales’ presidency in comparison to the brief interim government that followed him and to the current administration in power offers insight into whether Morales is the true culprit of democratic erosion in Bolivia.
Morales, a member of the MAS party (Movement Towards Socialism), was elected in 2005. A former coca grower and member of the Aymara indigenous group, he vowed to make strides towards social and economic equality for the indigenous people, increase the rights of coca growers, protect the environment, and effectively capitalize on the country’s natural resources among other things. Morales fulfilled many of his promises and took steps to politically and economically empower the impoverished indigenous population. For example, the 2009 referendum ratified a new constitution, overturning the old constitution which had been designed to allow oppression of the indigenous population. The new constitution offered them opportunities for political representation and allowed for the redistribution of wealth in their favor. While the indigenous people celebrated this victory, the new constitution gained much opposition among the wealthier eastern regions. Some argued that this new constitution was divisive and authoritarian; and for good reason.
The new constitution also included an extension of term limits for Morales, allowing him to run for a second term. Those who voted on the referendum were aware that they were voting for this, so they arguably increased Morales’ power through their votes,a seemingly democratic process. However, any provision that shifts this much more power into the hands of a single executive may be considered executive aggrandizement. Furthermore, the new constitution also altered rules related to another branch of government, the judiciary. The new constitution established a three-seat Magistrate Council with the power to appoint and dismiss judges without independence. Additionally, a 2010 law deemed judges appointed before 2009 “temporary” although they were appointed with lifetime tenure at the time. These new laws put the courts at a massive risk for politicization because these three members undoubtedly maintained political agendas and used their power to advance those. One example of this can be observed in 2019 when the Magistrate Council dismissed dozens of judges arbitrarily. The membership of the council at the time consisted of a majority of Morales supporters who aimed to further his agenda by doing this. This incident resulted from Morales’ lack of respect for judicial independence as a function of democracy.
The consolidation of power into Morales’ hands did not stop there. In 2019, a ruling made by Bolivia’s Plurinational Constitutional Tribunal declared the end of term limits for presidents. This would allow Morales to run for a fourth presidential term later that year. In most democracies, court rulings are respected and viewed as not necessarily free of ideology but free of political influence. However, it is difficult to see this decision as such because of the historical lack of independence within Bolivia’s courts. Though many protested this ruling and its implications, the ruling stood and Morales ran for a fourth term, not knowing the election would sever his political career.
The 2019 election can be viewed as the final straw of democratic backsliding under Morales’ rule. On the evening of October 21, no clear victor had emerged and the vote count appeared to stop as a runoff election seemed inevitable. The next morning, however, more votes had been tallied leaving Morales leading by a large enough margin to avoid a runoff. This sparked outrage among much of the Bolivian population and the international community as allegations of election fraud surged. The Organization of American States (OAS) noted many other issues with the election besides this clear instance of fraud such as ballot stuffing. Following this incident, Morales fled to Mexico and left Bolivia in the hands of an interim government.
Morales’ exit sent the polarized Bolivia into civil unrest as pro and anti Morales groups clashed, but the interim president, Jeanine Anez, vowed to hold another set of elections as soon as possible. May 2020 became October 2020 due to the pandemic, according to Añez. In late January 2020, however, she announced her candidacy for the presidency. While there is no proof of her immediate benefit from this, the postponement of the elections certainly allowed Anez more time to campaign. Anez´s most serious violation of democracy, however, can be found in her response to the unrest following Morales’ exit. A 471-page report from an independent human rights organization detailed extensive torture and extrajudicial killings of those opposed to the conservative interim government. Although Morales accumulated many years of anti-democratic practices, this level of abuse of the opposition was indicative of an extremist authoritarian regime, and was far more threatening to the health of Bolivia’s democracy.
Finally in October 2020, Bolivia held the free and fair election promised by Anez and elected another member of the MAS party, Luis Arce. Arce served as the economic minister under Morales during his presidency and has been credited with much of the success the Bolivian economy has experienced as it relates to his efforts to nationalize the country’s natural resources. While his victory left many concerned that he would only further Morales’ regime, Arce has been committed to a more moderate version of socialism. Though loyal to socialist ideology, Arce recognizes the polarization caused by Morales’ extreme policies and has promised to govern the country for all Bolivians. Specifically, unlike Morales, he views the courts and justice as independent from politics and has expressed his desires to rebuild judicial independence. The fate of Bolivia’s democracy is still uncertain, but Arce’s rise to power appears to be the beginning of a new era for Bolivian democracy.
Assessing the health of democracy in Bolivia under these three leaders, it is difficult to determine whether Morales was truly the cause of democratic backsliding in Bolivia. Taking into account the events that occurred under his leadership in comparison to those that occurred under Anez’s leadership, Morales seems less of a threat to democracy than Anez. One theme that both of these leaders shared, however, was their promotion of policies and practices that further polarized the country. Given the progress of Bolivia’s democracy thus far under Arce, one may speculate that his moderate ideology and desire to unite the country could be a driving factor in the improvement of democracy in Bolivia.
I drew a lot of similarities between your post and what was happing in Bolivia to my country case paper about what is happening in Turkey. It seems as though both countries were set up for a leader to take more power than they were given initially. Both the president of Turkey, Erdogan, and Morales were in the position to give themselves more power and erode the democracy in place. I found your post very interesting in the way that it compared three different leaders and the way in which the democracy was affected because of them. Especially because it seems as though Anez’s administration set up Morales for what he wanted to achieve in office and then Morales for what Arce wants to achieve in office. The only difference being that Morales took it upon himself to turn toward authoritarian tendencies and executive aggrandizement and Arce is looking toward democratic reform. You mention that the way Arce has acted in office so far that it seems as though this is the beginning for some improvement of the democracy in Bolivia – while I do agree with this opinion, I can’t help but wonder what if it isn’t? The condition in which Bolivia is in right now is still very damaged and unstable and because of this I think it wouldn’t take much to set Bolivia down the wrong path again. I am hopeful to see what Arce can do for Bolivia, but only time will tell.
Hi Humayra, I found your blog interesting. It focuses on Evo Morales and also the aftermath of his leaving also. Morales is an interesting character to democratic erosion because he was doing good things and bad things for the country at the same time. While it seemed like overall, he cared about the indigenous population, what he cared about most was staying in power. His extending term limits and delegitimizing the court show democratic backsliding. I am glad he is no longer in power. However, I do not believe a coup was the best way to remove Morales from power. The interim government was corrupt in different, more violent ways. Now Añez has been arrested for the violence in torture carried out by her government. Free and fair elections were eventually held. It seems like a good sign of democracy. It is good to see the current president Arce call out some of the issues of democratic erosion Morales had, we cannot forget that Arce was originally a part of Morales’s admiration. Are these critiques genuine, or are they a result of saving face until he can begin to erode democracy similarly? Or will Bolivia’s democracy grow stronger under new leadership?
Humayra, I absolutely loved your post. I love how you started off by giving us much needed background information on the current state of the bolivian democracy. I think you took a cool approach to this topic; analyze the bolivian government with abs without a specific position to see if said politician was a cause of democratic erosion. I like your initial body paragraph talking about the timeline of the morales administration. I found it interesting that this new constitution was immediately seen as both divisive and authoritarian. It is also very interesting that he changed their term limit policy, allowing him to run for a second term. Morales seemed to have all sorts of supporters in the government, leading to a disregard of their judicial processes. I had no clue that morales ran for a 4th term! That is crazy to me and seems like a gross abuse of his power. This also seems like an extreme power play in an attempt to consolidate power to the head of the government, which in this case was him. It’s also a strange coincidence that when their was no clear winner in the 2019 elections, a massive amount of morales votes were found the following morning. But it seems like morales underestimated the intelligence of the general public, as they noticed this oddity, causing him to flee the country. This story looks like it has a promising ending, however, with Anez attempting to repair the bolivian democracy. Thank you for making this article so clear and easy to understand!!!
Hi Humayra! You’ve hit a fundamental point that most people continue to focus on, which is that Evo Morales had as much a negative impact as a positive one on Bolivia. I do wish there had been more of a focus about Morales’ presidency that didn’t feel like a bullet pointed list of his accomplishments- or lack thereof- before going into how Bolivia is faring without him. He was such a large political figure for fourteen years, a populist who had widespread support. You said it yourself that the people approved extending his term limits in order to get better rights for indigenous people, so I would love to have even a little blurb about how they’re entwined. I also think it’s important to understand why Morales losing power had such an impact on how Bolivia currently exists, as well as why the Bolivian people have rallied around the new president, Arce. I do worry about Arce’s relationship to Morales when it comes to running a country full of executive aggrandizement despite his promises of keeping Bolivia fair. It’s comforting to know that thus far Arce has not followed in Morales’ footsteps and does not seem to agree with Anez, and the fact that the Bolivian people disagree with Anez largely is reassuring for the future. Hopefully, Bolivia will succeed under new governance, seeing how the last two presidents have been completely wrong for the country. The people seem to know what they want now though, especially since their last two presidents- though the second was not their choice specifically- caused more problems than gave them answers. I am hopeful for the Arce presidency; he seems to truly have the people in mind and at heart, and it seems like the people have Bolivia on their minds, too. Great post!
Hi Humayra, I really appreciated your analysis of Bolivian democracy. Bolivia and Evo Morales specifically, is such an interesting case. With the trend in global democratic backsliding, it is not often that you see these autocratic figures expand human rights. Erdogan in Turkey for instance has been responsible for many human rights abuses against the Kurds. Adrzej Duda in Poland and Viktor Orban in Hungary have both used their tenure in office to attack and demonize immigrants and the LGBT community. Morales is an anomaly, in that he expanded rights for Bolivia’s indigenous community. This makes it harder to unequivocally cast him as an autocrat, though his behaviors are certainly in line with global authoritarian tendencies. Especially his attacks on the courts, autocrats the world over made it their mission to weaken judicial integrity, from Donald Trump in the United States to Erdogan in Turkey, this is often their first and most effective line of attack. I also liked how you brought up covid’s role in all of this. Many autocrats used the pandemic to consolidate power, Viktor Orban in Hungary for instance used the crisis to pass a host of new laws which essentially allowed him to govern by decree and jail critics. It’s interesting that the pandemic didn’t decisively benefit the interim president, could that spell hope for Bolivia’s fledgling democratic project? I like your assessment that Luis Arce’s leadership might be the remedy for a post-Morales Bolivia. I especially liked how you focused on his attempts to de-polarize Bolivian society. I would be really interested to look into a more thorough analysis of his depolarization efforts. I wonder if they can be replicated or if it’s exclusive to the Bolivian situation. This was a great post I learned a lot!
Humayra, I really enjoyed reading your post and I agree with your argument in regard to Bolivia’s democratic backsliding being attributed to Evo Morales’s leadership. I think that Evo Morales did great things during his leadership in terms of helping the indigenous people of Bolivia gain more rights. I think that his history and upbringing as an Indigenous person of Bolivia greatly contributed to his passion for helping those who were struggling. I personally think that the actions he took while in office were his way of helping the Indigenous people of Bolivia and he probably thought that it was the only way to help them. However, extending his term limit was completely wrong and an abuse of power, which hurts more people in the long-term. I think that Morales must have thought that nobody else would understand or even do anything about the Indigenous people’s rights and that is what led him to abuse his power.
Hi Humayra!
First, I found your blog post incredibly informative. For someone who has done a moderate amount of research on Bolivia, I certainly learned a lot, most notably so about the democratic integrity (or lack thereof) of the interim government. To your unsureness whether Morales caused the democratic backsliding of Bolivia, I would answer no. Bolivia’s history is fraught with authoritarian leaders, coups, and questionable motives of leadership. In fact, before Bolivia became a democracy in 1982, it actually had a period of democratic rule before being interrupted by the coup and implementation of a military dictatorship. Thus, I feel Morales is not a cause of backsliding so much as a symptom or exaggerator.
The idea to compare Morales government versus the interim government was definitely a good move, though I would have preferred to hear more about the interim government’s actual policy in addition to their human’s rights issues and abuses of power. These two things are certainly enough to convince me that their “democracy” was severely flawed and unsuitable for leadership, but I am interested to know whether their policies reflected the claim that they intended to fight corruption and democratic backsliding.
It will be very interesting to track Bolivia’s progress with their new leader Arce. I am intrigued to see whether indigenous people will support his policies, or instead express loyalty to a leader who was largely the first to protect their rights on a national scale. This also raises the question of what would occur if Arce proves to be less efficient and economically beneficial than Morales. There could be a swift return to support for Morales and by extension the backsliding that accompanies him following Arce’s term. However, as things are, Bolivia does seem to be taking a step in the right direction.
…
Great job on the post!
Hi Humayra! I find it very interesting that Morales was elected mainly on the promise that he would better the lives of impoverished people. I also found it interesting that changing the country’s constitution was a sign of great progress, usually changing a country’s constitution is a major red flag warning of democratic erosion. In Bolivia’s case, Morales actually fulfilled his promises to the indigenous population and made their average day much better. However, this new constitution did allow for an extension of term limits for Morales, allowing him to run for a second term. This fits the narrative of the usual ‘new adoption of a constitution raises red flags’. This part really drew my attention because I realized ‘Oh wow, he is trying to add this as some small task, when it in fact gives him substantial power and contributes to executive aggrandizement’. I think Morales utilized this new constitution as a way to convince the average Bolivian into thinking that they are helping the poor, when in reality they are contributing to expanding the executive branch’s powers. Personally, I think Morales was trying to hide behind the ‘good’ that he was doing in order for people to overlook the ‘bad’. In this case, the good was expanding the rights for indigenous people and the bad was giving the executive more power while also showing signs of democratic erosion. They were also accused of ballot stuffing and/or rigging the election which led to Morales ultimately fleeing the country. I do find it easy to blame former President Morales for all of Bolivia’s symptoms of democratic erosion due to his seemingly gross abuse of power in running for a 4th term, but I think under Anez, Bolivia was much more violent and in danger. I think Morales paved the way for someone like Anez to come in and take advantage of the situation and further her authoritarian agenda. Since then, there has been a free and fair election in Bolivia which appears to be a good sign in terms of restoring democratic principles in Bolivia! I am curious to see if democracy will be restored or further eroded under Luis Arce’s leadership. Great post, very well written!!