What is and should be the role of the Bolivian Army?

El Deber’s editorial:

Democracy and armed forces

El Deber logoWhat Bolivia currently needs the least are the shocks affecting its institutional framework. Isn’t that precisely the nation is respecting rigorously its rules, much less. On the contrary, we know that there is a clear process of chaos and deterioration in the country’s institutions. What is serious is, in addition to the mistrust that shows the population in those institutions who were born with the motherland, is that the President of the plurinational State is the one who provokes concern and suspicion in the citizens, instead of providing security, which is that Bolivia needs urgently.

Statements that the President made in Cochabamba last week, on the role that the armed forces must play have not been successful. Moreover, his expressions have been very regrettable from the moment that has prompted the military to assume party on issues of a political nature, while deploring that some members of the institution remain as apolitical. He said that could not be apolitical military because one of its fundamental tasks is to confront capitalism and imperialism and that that requires a committed ideology.

If the President thinks that way, the first thing that should be done is a reform of the political Constitution of the State, since this says expressly in its article 245, that the armed forces do not deliberate, are subject to the laws and military regulations, but, clearly, indicates that “they do not perform political action”. Who should most observe the letter of the Magna Carta is the head of State, because if he does not respect it, and suggests that it be raped, how can he demand the rest of the officials, the so-called ‘social movements’ and the same people to be respectful of the laws?

The presence of the military in national politics has been something permanent in the history of Bolivia, by the instability and weakness of the civil administrations in some cases and by the greed of the armed power most of the time.

Before the current democratic stage, the military ruled for 18 years, preventing the opening of the civilism. Not is a remarkable and dangerous contradiction that the President now urge that military surrender to be apolitical? What is it with that? More weapons to support the ‘process of change’? Is it necessary? As insecure as the Government feels, it aims, moreover, to stay for life?

Editorial Board: Peter F. Rivero Jordán, Juan Carlos Rivero Jordán, Tuffi Aré Vázquez, Lupe Cajias, Agustín Saavedra Weise and Percy Añez Rivero


Ochlocracy at its best!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s