A modern political democracy is a system where rules are held accountable by citizens through their elected representatives, either through competition or cooperation. Democracies can be categorized as either liberal or illiberal. An illiberal democracy holds elections but lacks other democratic elements. Because no two democracies are exactly alike, it’s important to measure a nation’s democracy substantively, considering more than just whether elections are held or not. In assessing democratic backsliding in Bolivia, we must consider both its type and scale. Democratic backsliding refers to the gradual deterioration of democratic quality, marked by the weakening of political institutions, civil society, and the rule of law. Nancy Bermeo argues that contemporary democratic backsliding occurs subtly, contrasting with the overt coups and electoral fraud of the Cold War era. In Bolivia, the erosion has quietly diminished accountability, facilitating constitutional revisions that can ultimately lead to full democratic breakdown and the emergence of authoritarian regimes. Bermeo highlights, “[executive aggrandizement], a common form of backsliding, occurs when elected executives weaken checks on executive power one by one, undertaking a series of institutional changes that hamper the power of opposition forces to challenge executive preferences (p.10)”. This pattern of executive aggrandizement is notably evident in Bolivia’s political developments.

The answer to the initial question of to what extent Bolivia’s leftist government is undermining democracy lies in another question: How did Bolivia get to this point? Bolivia’s ongoing struggle to hold on to liberal democracy can be directly traced back to President Evo Morales’s 2006 Constituent Assembly. This event was marred by controversy due to manipulation. Movimiento al Socialismo or Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) which was Morales’s, lacked the two-thirds majority necessary to draft a new constitution independently. Despite this, they proceeded with substantial constitutional changes, using strategies such as manipulating procedural rules to override the opposition, and met in military barracks to further evade opposition. A particularly contentious change that favored the MAS’s base and Indigenous people was land reforms. These actions resulted in public distrust of democracy and allegations of authoritarianism. The new constitution, seen as disproportionately benefiting Morales and his supporters, underscored the dangers of using legal mechanisms to achieve political goals, ultimately undermining the legitimacy of Bolivia’s democracy. MAS still holds the majority today, backing current President Luis Arce.

Even though elections are free and ‘fair’, the government doesn’t operate with transparency. Furthermore, current human rights challenges originate from the decline of democratic norms and institutions, manifested in the erosion of freedom of speech, assembly, and press, as well as ongoing deterioration in the judiciary system and rule of law. The U.S. State Department says in their Integrated Country Strategy report, “Although the most recent Bolivian elections were determined to be inclusive and competitive, the increasing politicization of the judiciary and other state institutions and sustained threats to media freedom have weakened rule of law and the ability of Bolivians to make their voices heard (p. 4)”. The freedoms of civilians are not fully free. In June of 2023, the main opposition newspaper was forced to close down. The independent newspaper’s closure was a mix of reasons but heavily rooted in persecution and pressure from MAS. Freedom House reports that free and independent media ranks 2 out of 4 in 2023.

Bolivia’s justice system has been under the chokehold of political interference for years. The nation does not have full judicial independence. Azul A. Aguria-Aguilar says in a V-Dem article, Courts and the Constitutional Erosion of Democracy in Latin America, “In constitutional democracies, courts are becoming a beloved device of incumbents to make their dream come true: remain unchecked in power. Playing by the rules set in the democratic game, elected anti-democrats use their power to erode democracy by capturing electoral management bodies, extending term limits, harassing journalism, or shifting power from the legislative to the executive”. A fundamental principle of democratic governance is the separation of powers, dividing government functions among distinct branches, each with its own powers and responsibilities. This separation prevents the concentration of power, ensuring that no single branch dominates another.

Bolivia requires a stronger, independent judiciary branch. Its judicial review process ensures that the Supreme Court can assess and confirm the constitutionality before any new or amended document takes effect. An independent judiciary is vital for upholding the rule of law, which mandates that everyone, including government officials, is under to the law regardless of their power or status. This principle is fundamental to liberal democracy. The rule of law is anchored in a nation’s constitution, and it is the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold its framework.  Bolivia scores the lowest in Freedom Houses’ 2023 report, scoring 1 out of 4 for having an independent judiciary.

Bolivia’s trajectory as a democracy is deeply concerning, as highlighted by its recent assessment in the Freedom House 2023 report. Despite periodic elections, Bolivia faces significant challenges to its democratic institutions and norms. The erosion of judicial independence stands out as a critical issue that undermines the rule of law. Without meaningful reforms to safeguard democratic institutions, Bolivia risks further regression toward authoritarianism.

Photo by David Mercado, Creative Commons Zero license