Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Mohamed1993

Bolivia - Morales coup or legitimate?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Is what we see in Bolivia a coup or a legitimate grievance against Morales? He was a pretty left-wing leader, but then he did extend his term in power by ignoring a referendum that rejected a president staying beyond two terms. However, I've been reading statistics about how much Bolivia has improved economically, so I'm wondering if the recent elections were actually fraudulent or they were legitimate? If they were legitimate, then the term limits don't matter because he was still voted in despite rejecting the referendum. What do you guys think? @hasanhh @Sumerian 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l have not seen any specific accusation much less any demonstration that the elections were rife with fraud. PBS News Hour just reported that Morales was forced out by the military while Mexico gave Morales an offer of asylum.

A Iittle coincidental don't you think?

The "vote fraud" accusation is straight out of the Petraeus Playbook --the biggest reason and most violent political 'trigger' is voting fraud. So, get people to believe there was fraud and you get street violence.

Morales landing in Mexico said he agreed to leave to avoid violence for the benefit of all Bolivians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, notme said:

I've seen no evidence of election fraud, but I've only very recently been paying attention. Looks like a  military coup. 

It's hard to tell the US history in Latin and Central America is rife with this kind of stuff, it's hard to think of a country the US hasn't meddled in, and this isn't a case like Venezuela, where the economy is in shambles, Bolivia is actually a pretty successful country with left-wing government. So I'm not exactly sure what happened here. I suppose people wanted change in leadership, but it doesn't make sense how the military taking over is going to help the cause of freedom and not just hand the country over to a rightwing military regime as we've seen in many countries like Guatemala?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

but then he did extend his term in power by ignoring a referendum that rejected a president staying beyond two terms.

The Supreme Court ruled that term limits were unconstitutional, so the referendum was void. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reza said:

The Supreme Court ruled that term limits were unconstitutional, so the referendum was void. 

True, but it was still ignoring popular will, which could potentially indicate that there could've been fraud here if you draw parallels between the intention to maintain power in both scenarios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

True, but it was still ignoring popular will, which could potentially indicate that there could've been fraud here if you draw parallels between the intention to maintain power in both scenarios. 

That’s quite a stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the situation but it is said:

1) He had politicised the courts 

2) There was election fraud, and the OAS was an official monitor of the elections, and they claim irregularities in the results

Overall it seems like a military coup that has support from a great number of people (mainly from the opposition), but probably not most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

It's hard to tell the US history in Latin and Central America is rife with this kind of stuff, it's hard to think of a country the US hasn't meddled in, and . . .

. . . and there does not appear to be an exception here. As above, Mexico offered Morales asylum early on . . .Morales says there is a coup . . .

and while most people were asleep, Hezshaytan in Washington, Demon City did:

"Reconize Anez as interim presidento: https://tass.com/world/1088381

and out of the School of the Americas, Bolivian armed forces recognize Anez:  https://tass.com/world/1088395 

Another country blown up on a temper-tantrum whim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hasanhh, yep US history leaves a lot to be desired in central and latin America. Brazil - 1964, Argentina - 1976, Chile - 1973, Dominican Republic - 1965, Grenada - 1983, Venezuela - 2002, Guatemala - 1954 and then continued support for a military regime, Nicaragua - 1979-1990, support for Contras, El Salvador - 1979-1992 - support for the military regime, Honduras - 2009, Cuba - continued intervention from way back in the Spanish American wars, Bay of Pigs, Missile Crisis etc., Columbia - support for rightwing paramilitary groups, Haiti - similar story as Cuba, continued intervention, Panama - Support for Noriega to arm the contras, then overthrowing him in 1989. I've probably missed a lot here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

@hasanhh, yep US history leaves a lot to be desired in central and latin America. Brazil - 1964, Argentina - 1976, Chile - 1973, Dominican Republic - 1965, Grenada - 1983, Venezuela - 2002, Guatemala - 1954 and then continued support for a military regime, Nicaragua - 1979-1990, support for Contras, El Salvador - 1979-1992 - support for the military regime, Honduras - 2009, Cuba - continued intervention from way back in the Spanish American wars, Bay of Pigs, Missile Crisis etc., Columbia - support for rightwing paramilitary groups, Haiti - similar story as Cuba, continued intervention, Panama - Support for Noriega to arm the contras, then overthrowing him in 1989. I've probably missed a lot here. 

Even in high school, as well as college, the US a century ago had this "send in the Marines" attitude when a President's Administration got frustrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Even in high school, as well as college, the US a century ago had this "send in the Marines" attitude when a President's Administration got frustrated.

I’m actually reading a book right now it’s called how to hide an empire, a history of the greater US, really recommend it. Did you know for example that the US annexed islands before if they possessed guano (bird poop) back before scientific discoveries were made, it was necessary as a fertiliser and there was a law passed that the US could annex whatever island they found Guano on? It was really bizarre. I think the tendency of annexation and occupation changed after resistance to US occupation in the Philippines then came the Wilsonian era, which moved away from this idea of occupying countries, but instead it did champion the idea of intervening to ensure “stability”, which was really code for to protect economic interests. The US didn’t occupy Cuba for example but they reserved the right to intervene if their jurisdiction over Guantanamo was threatened. In fact, Wilson’s earlier rhetoric over anti-empire building made Ho Chi Minh want to meet him when the Versailles treaty was signed at the Paris conference after WW1, but Wilson refused to meet him, instead the US approved the idea of turning parts of China, which were occupied by Germany to be taken over by Japan. Sayyid Qutb also wanted to meet him in the hope that he would support Egyptian struggle against British rule. Qutb became a big influencer of Bin Laden later on. It’s funny how history always comes back to bite you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

@hasanhh, yep US history leaves a lot to be desired in central and latin America. Brazil - 1964, Argentina - 1976, Chile - 1973, Dominican Republic - 1965, Grenada - 1983, Venezuela - 2002, Guatemala - 1954 and then continued support for a military regime, Nicaragua - 1979-1990, support for Contras, El Salvador - 1979-1992 - support for the military regime, Honduras - 2009, Cuba - continued intervention from way back in the Spanish American wars, Bay of Pigs, Missile Crisis etc., Columbia - support for rightwing paramilitary groups, Haiti - similar story as Cuba, continued intervention, Panama - Support for Noriega to arm the contras, then overthrowing him in 1989. I've probably missed a lot here. 

We often forget the destructive role of the USSR in Latin America as well, and the violence that came along with left-wing "liberation" movements, like FARC and the repression that came with left-wing dictatorships, like Cuba.

Just as how people heap praise on Mandela, while forgetting he was part of a terror group once upon a time.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

like FARC

FARC was Maoist, not Soviet, in its beginnings. Later on, they only extorted money from the drug cartels. (Which raises an interesting question: Why did the US pressure Colimbia to go after FARC during the drug wars?)

8 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

how to hide an empire, a history of the greater US, really recommend it. Did you know for example that the US annexed islands before if they possessed guano

There were many such islands that were mined. The same at Mammoth Cave. The Japanese took over one of those islands while there were no other ships around (and as we quipped in the 1980s, "There goes the Japanese stealing our s____ again." Of course now, it is China and intellectual property rights.)

Empires are hidden now in a maze of international corporations and working agreements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

We often forget the destructive role of the USSR in Latin America as well, and the violence that came along with left-wing "liberation" movements, like FARC and the repression that came with left-wing dictatorships, like Cuba.

Just as how people heap praise on Mandela, while forgetting he was part of a terror group once upon a time.

Yeah unfortunately for the people in these countries, majority of whom probably just want to lead peaceful lives their countries are torn apart by powerful countries that want to subvert them to their interests. With a lot of these cases, it’s difficult to know who to blame really for starting the problem. I mean in some cases, you have to remember that these countries were colonised and often the communist route does look appealing, and you would want to ally with a country that supports that objective especially when you’re facing the most powerful country. Often this was read as those regimes just being stooges of Russia, whereas often it was more complicated than that. Sometimes the CIA started stuff and then the USSR doubled down, causing more US involvement.

Also I’m not sure how much truth to attribute to this but the FARC I was reading was a product of the Colombian state and paramilitaries using brutal means to crackdown particularly against peasants who were forced to give up their lands for corporate interests. For them the only resort was to sell drugs and buy weapons from Russia to defend their lands.

My own country was socialist for 24 years but we never had involvement and sabotage by foreign powers, after that time the project was abandoned and the country just evolved in a different way. Often the involvement of the US prolongs the problem when maybe it would’ve gone away on its own when people saw it wasn’t delivering the benefits it promised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

majority of whom probably just want to lead peaceful lives their countries are torn apart by powerful countries that want to subvert them to their interests.

Opine: l do not know why most countries' leaderships are so anti-social. And they have a myriad of excuses to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Opine: l do not know why most countries' leaderships are so anti-social. And they have a myriad of excuses to be so.

Have you heard of Blase Bonpane? He did a lot of pretty good work in central America. Wrote a book called "imagine no religion"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Have you heard of Blase Bonpane? He did a lot of pretty good work in central America. Wrote a book called "imagine no religion"

Nope, so l Ioooked him up.

"A vanguard practioner of liberation theology" --the "Jesus is a Communist" cwap

https://redhen.org/authors/blase-bonpane/     see the summation  at "imagine no religion"  -- a pop lyric from a John Lennonist song

Pope Francis has a link here, somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Yeah unfortunately for the people in these countries, majority of whom probably just want to lead peaceful lives their countries are torn apart by powerful countries that want to subvert them to their interests. With a lot of these cases, it’s difficult to know who to blame really for starting the problem. I mean in some cases, you have to remember that these countries were colonised and often the communist route does look appealing, and you would want to ally with a country that supports that objective especially when you’re facing the most powerful country. Often this was read as those regimes just being stooges of Russia, whereas often it was more complicated than that. Sometimes the CIA started stuff and then the USSR doubled down, causing more US involvement.

Also I’m not sure how much truth to attribute to this but the FARC I was reading was a product of the Colombian state and paramilitaries using brutal means to crackdown particularly against peasants who were forced to give up their lands for corporate interests. For them the only resort was to sell drugs and buy weapons from Russia to defend their lands.

My own country was socialist for 24 years but we never had involvement and sabotage by foreign powers, after that time the project was abandoned and the country just evolved in a different way. Often the involvement of the US prolongs the problem when maybe it would’ve gone away on its own when people saw it wasn’t delivering the benefits it promised.

Unfortunately extremist policies by right-wing dictatorships led to extremist backlash from leftists, and extreme policies by left-wing dictatorships has led to extremist backlash from the right-wingers. It is fair to say that there has been extremists on both sides of the aisle in Latin and Central America, and I think the reason is quite simple, there is lack of true democracy. There is a lack of system of checks and balances in these countries. There is only battle for ideology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

If your house is attacked by a group of robbers you will also feel "swayed by (your) money".

Right, because Castro and Chavez didn't steal from their own people and implement repressive policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem is economic policies pushed by both sides of the aisle are either unsustainable like what you see in Venezuela, where oil revenues were used to prop up a welfare state and support social programs, but not much attention was paid to diversifying its economy or on the other hand, you've got right-wing policies and you also see massive backlash against that too, remember president Macri in Argentina, there were huge protests against his market economy reforms, and bringing in the IMF, because the structural adjustment programs that come with those loans often hurt the poorest segments of society. It seems there's a lack of balance, I do think there's an important role for the market to play, but the poor shouldn't be left out there to dry. The protests in Chile right now are also a product of increased inequality and privatization. 

Edited by Mohamed1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...