Bolivia’s Constitutional Court has disqualified former president Evo Morales from running for re-election in 2025, reversing a ruling that had let him seek a fourth term in 2019.
It said on its website that term limits provide “an ideal measure for ensuring that someone does not perpetuate themself in power.”
Bolivia’s first Indigenous president, Morales first took power in 2006 and was extremely popular until he tried to bypass the constitution and seek a fourth term in office in 2019.
He won that vote but was forced to resign amid deadly protests over alleged election fraud, and fled the country. He returned after his then ally Luis Arce won the presidency in October 2020.
Morales has since fallen out with Arce.
Fair enough, rules are rules. The smear campaign to paint him as a power hungry authoritarian is infuriating. This man is one of the greatest leaders our sorry species has come up with and is in general loved by the people, mostly the indigenous population of Bolivia, though.
Read his speech to the UN and it should be obvious why he is often being targeted by international powers.
https://climateandcapitalism.com/2007/10/03/evo-morales-capitalism-is-the-worst-enemy-of-humanity/
The most recent US-led coup in South America still going strong.
I was very supportive of Morales winning the presidency and I know he made some very positive changes (at least during his first term, I don’t know about the rest). I was really disappointed when he tried to keep control. He could have gone on to unite the left in the Americas, but instead he focused on keeping power in Bolivia.
I’m glad the court ruled the way they did. No country needs leaders that do whatever it takes to stay in power. Term limits are necessary for good democracy.
He could have gone on to unite the left in the Americas, but instead he focused on keeping power in Bolivia.
He was doing a good job and needed more time to do more. The people agreed and re-elected him in a completely above board election.
That’s not a power grab. That’s changing the rules with the consent of the nation.
No country needs leaders that do whatever it takes to stay in power.
True, but getting re-elected in a fair election by people who would rather make an exception to/change the rule than lose his leadership isn’t that.
Term limits are necessary for good democracy.
They’re a good safeguard when leaders would otherwise abuse their power to keep it, but not when they’re a hindrance to the will of the people being carried out.
And that’s not even mentioning all the US meddling both direct and indirect.
After he was first elected, I thought he had two choices, he could choose to hold on to power despite constitutional limits, or he could mentor new leadership that would carry on his plan after he left. In the end, he wanted to keep the power.
Trump was the same way - fuck the constitution, I’ll do what I want.
If he wanted to change the constitution, go for it, let him do it. He didn’t, so he needs to follow the rule of law.
I really did support him and again, he did great things. As I said before, he had the opportunity to become a global leader. That was my hope for him. Unfortunately, he wanted to keep his power in Bolivia and he lost my respect for that.
Yeah, you’re conflating staying in power to do good with the consent of the people with staying in power for your own selfish ends against the will of the people.
If you really can’t get past your automatic “long reign bad, term limits good” thinking enough to consider the will of the Bolivian people more important, I see no reason to take any of your arguments or indeed you seriously.
Yeah, it’s probably mutual.
Best wishes for the new year.
Removed by mod
How so?
Removed by mod
Coups are when term limits
No, coups are when, for example, country decides that leader can run for re-election, leader wins in a fair election, foreign country foments an insurrection and insurrection plus foreign influence pressures country into changing its mind on eligibility of leader.
Deja vu
Simon would be proud.
