The crisis following the resignation of Bolivian President Carlos Mesa last June was supposed to lead to new presidential elections on December 4 to fill out his term, as called for in the country’s constitution in cases in which the presidents of the two chambers of congress are unable or unwilling to fill out the term. (They declined in the face of a social explosion that was sure to result if either of them became president.) There were also to be congressional elections, notwithstanding that there is nothing in the Bolivian constitution that allows for early congressional elections.
Well, now there may be no elections at all. The main reason is a ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal agreeing to a petition filed by interests in Santa Cruz province claiming that the use of an older census as the basis for congressional apportionment would be unconstitutional. The old census would deprive Santa Cruz and other faster growing provinces of representation compared to the newer one.
Jim Shultz offers some background and many more details, as well as a subsequent update.
Evo Morales is the frontrunner for the scheduled December elections, though in Bolivia the president must be elected by a majority of votes (which has not happened since democracy was restored in the 1980s). Failing that, congress selects from the top two. So it is not a sure thing that he would be president even if the elections went ahead and he won the most votes. In fact, as Jim noted previously, it is hard to see Morales getting the congressional support needed to win the presidency, even if he has a strong lead over the second-place candidate.
Still, Morales’s leading the polls surely is why some actors—notably the Santa Cruz business elite—would love to find a way to prevent the elections from taking place at all. They must fear the social consequences of seeing an indigenous leader like Morales get 30% or more of the vote, well ahead of any other candidate, yet be deined the presidency by wheeling and dealing in congress. They might rather take their chances on finding a more popular stop-Morales candidate between now and the regular elections of 2007.
Bolivia is so deeply fragmented that I am rather relieved that, up to now, no one from there has called me in to advise them on how to craft a constitution to help govern the place. I honestly do not know how one could solve these problems, even if one could be the hypothetical Lawgiver handing down the “ideal” institutions. For Bolivia, it is simply not clear what those might be.
Finally, suppose Morales were to become president, perhaps because the combination of a strong plurality and pressure from the social movements proves too much for the stop-Morales forces to overcome. It is worth noting that the very fragmentation of the country that I mentioned above makes some folks’ nightmare scenario of a third member of an Axis of Marxism pretty outlandish. The allusion is to Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, of course, and it is worth noting that Chávez won a huge majority of the vote in Venezuela’s 1998 election and was himself a former army officer who had created revolutionary cells inside the army. That is, he had advantages in turning his election into a “revolution” that Morales simply would not have. In his favor, Morales has a more demonstrated ability to bring out mass protesters than Chávez had before coming to power. But I can’t see how he would assemble the degree of institutional power necessary to generate a revolution like Chávez might be said to have pulled off. Morales would be a weak president (like all Bolivian presidents) and would be ousted in a right-wing military coup if he tried to assert himself and rule on the shoulders of the mass movement. In fact, a potential coup—and the mass repression that would result—and not any chimerical Axis of Marxisim, is what is really scary about the Bolivian crisis.
Hi Matthew: I don’t think it’s outlandish. Less than a year ago, people were denying there was any Marxism at all between Chavez and Castro, who supposedly had a friendship as innocent and innocuous as that of Lula and Castro. Today in Venezuela, land is being confiscated at Zimbabwe speed, brutality and arbitrariness, just as Castro did in 1959 to consolidate power. The net result: totalitarianism and dictatorship. Cuba today is an unliveable place whose residents brave shark-infested seas on chunks of styrofoam to just get out of. Soon something similar will happen in Venezuela. It doesn’t happen overnight, but with a determined despot, it eventually happens. In fact, it always happens. I think there less to worry about from Bolivia’s wimpy military that lives in fear of the Hague war crimes tribunal than there is about a determined Marxist anxious to seize power because he thinks he’s been cheated of it. There is all kinds of trouble brewing on the horizon in Bolivia given the apprenticeship of Evo Morales to this growing Axis of Marxism.
Seed planted by A.M. Mora y Leon — 01 October 2005 @ 18:25
[...] UPDATE: Matthew Shugart does not agree with me at all. [...]
Scion grafted by Publius Pundit - Blogging the democratic revolution — 01 October 2005 @ 18:28
I think Prof. Shugart is right that if Morales were to win he would not come to power with the instititutional strength to create a revolution.
Two other factors play into this. First, in nearly every poll that has done approval/disapproval rating, Morales’ disapproval ratings generally hover above 60%. That’s not a good place for any politician to be. Second, during the parliamentary negotiations to win the presidency, Morales would likely have to give up some of his platform or agree to a further reduction of the powers of the presidency (if you can call it that in Bolivia).
Once in power, Morales would face a hostile parliament/congress as well as a hostile military. Also, it’s hard to keep up the street protests when you can no longer use the argument that those in power are hurting those out of power.
One interesting possibility to watch is whether some politicians in Bolivia vote against their preferences in the short term in order to take advantage of a Morales presidency. Some of the Santa Cruz region might want to see a Morales presidency to greater justify their autonomy movement. Others on the right may want a Morales presidency so they can watch him fail and then retake power in a few years having discredited the left (I’m not saying they’re correct, but they might be thinking about it).
Seed planted by boz — 02 October 2005 @ 07:34
Boz: Hugo Chavez faced all of those factors and overcame all of them. He did have the advice of a real pro in political affairs, a man with 40 years’ experience and an unrivalled expertise at political survival, none other than Fidel Castro. Guess who Morales is consorting with these days? I just think that he is determined enough to overcome any institutional obstacle. Like Chavez, he won’t do it overnight, but blow by blow he will disarm his enemies as he consolidates power. Everyone laughed at Chavez at first, too. They’re not laughing anymore. Elections will soon be a thing of the past there.
Seed planted by A.M. Mora y Leon — 03 October 2005 @ 19:30
[...] I posted previously on the Bolivian elections on October 1 (on their possible cancellation, which turned out to be only a short postponement) and October 2 (on the comparisons of Morales to Venezuela’s Chávez). Block where planted: PMP course, South America [...]
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes » Blog Archive » Bolivia pre-election update — 10 December 2005 @ 16:24