Consequences of Political Corruption in Bolivia

My blog post is based on how the Bolivia Crisis demonstrated aspects of democratic backsliding. After reading the article by Anria and Roberts (2019), the crisis in Bolivia stems from the resignation of Evo Morales. His departure from office created two distinct perspectives on the situation in Bolivia. It was whether Evo Morales was a victim of a sudden coup or whether his ousting was a democratic revolution in response to the growth of authoritarianism.
            Over time, he became more autocratic by disregarding checks and balances on his authority. For me, the resignation of Evo Morales reflected an emerging promissory coup because his tenure as President of Bolivia was prolonged, which led to individuals losing faith in his regime and authority. However, the new regime retracted from their promises of establishing a democracy. Based on the article by Bermeo (2016), promissory coups express how “the promised improvement of democracy [remains] elusive” (Bermeo. 10). As a form of democratic backsliding, promissory coups demonstrate how leaders deviate from their promises in restoring democratic ideals. Promissory coups are initially predicated on improving democratic institutions, but gradually shift towards promoting their own political agenda.
            In spite of his overwhelming popular support and his economic success experienced in Bolivia, democratic principles began to erode during Morales’s tenure. Evo Morales’s path to Presidency garnered national support through his development of the political party called the “Movement for Socialism”, but this only fortified his abuse of authority. As another form of democratic backsliding, Evo Morales used executive aggrandizement to ensure his authority remained absolute. He issued institutional changes to weaken checks on his executive authority. Executive aggrandizement can be described as changing existing institutions “that might challenge executive [power] through legal channels” (Bermeo, 10).
             He used the political party to undermine democracy from within. The economic approach by Morales helped reduce income inequality in the country and invest in infrastructure. However, economic success only served to preserve his image among supporters. Evo Morales sought to ensure his authority over Bolivia through autocratic principles. There were various ways that Morales’s prior actions reflected democratic backsliding.
            For instance, he ensured the manipulation of the court system by appointing members of his MAS party. Essentially, centralizing the party was a way to prohibit the emergence of new political leaders and limit checks on presidential authority. The appointment of party members to high government positions was to consolidate his power. Moreover, the situation involving the government referendum to eliminate term limits on a President’s tenure further demonstrated Morales’s autocratic approach. He attempted to run for office indefinitely, which undermines the democratic legitimacy of elections. As stated in the article by Bermeo (2016), strategically manipulating elections is another form of democratic backsliding that was designed to preserve executive power.
            Through these actions, Evo Morales hoped to maintain his authoritative position and be devoid of accountability. Prior to his resignation from office, there was controversy surrounding his victory in the general election. Based on the results, Morales appeared to have secured tenure for another term in office; however, “widespread allegations of electoral fraud overshadowed his victory” (Anria and Roberts, 2019). In response to Morales’s manipulation of the election results, protests broke out amidst the allegations. The turmoil within Bolivia was a reaction to his autocratic practices. Along with manipulating elections to consolidate Presidential power, Evo Morales sought to preserve his position as the longest-serving incumbent through various means. He was defiant in relinquishing his authority amidst the controversy, but “resigned after pressure from the army chief, who publicly suggested his resignation” (Anria and Roberts, 2019).
            The actions by the army chief to enforce the resignation of President Evo Morales indicated that the ouster was a promissory coup because they succeeded in removing the sitting executive from office but failed to restore democratic principles when appointing a new leader. Furthermore, the new regime is attempting to disassociate themselves from the ideals of Morales and promote their own political agenda. In spite of his resignation, the MAS party remained a dominant faction in Bolivia. As further evidence that the ouster was not considered a democratic revolution, the new regime was acting to eradicate the legacy of Evo Morales’s presidency.
            For example, Senator Jeanine Anez was looking to further establish her interim government by developing new elections. Initially, Jeanine Anez claimed that she would not run, but then reneged on her promise and ran for President. Her actions demonstrated that she retracted from campaign promises for personal gain. Essentially, these new elections are implemented to “[discredit] not just Morales but the whole of his party as legitimate actors in Bolivian politics” (Anria and Roberts, 2019). Additionally, the actions by Arturo Murillo express the use of violence to deal with aspects of the former government. To control the dissent of pro-Morales protesters, the government decided to “preemptively exempt the military from criminal responsibility for any use of force against protesters” (Anria and Roberts, 2019). The situation in Bolivia is predicated on the lack of a stable government regime as a result of the Morales Presidency.
            In essence, the level of instability in Bolivia is a byproduct of the democratic backsliding initiated by Evo Morales. He sought to maintain authority by undermining the democratic elements of society from within. For example, Evo Morales relied on the mobilization of his political party to pursue his own personal agenda.  In addition, he weakened the democratic institutions by strategically manipulating the results of elections. As a consequence, his resignation led to political divisions within society. The lack of stability in the Bolivian government demonstrates the effects of democratic erosion. The dilemma in Bolivia is a consequence of Morales’s attempt to establish an authoritarian regime and an inability for the new government regime to enact the necessary proponents of democracy.