J. Lizandro Coca Olmos writes in Los Tiempos:
Bolivia was never re-founded
“.. .the Constituent Assembly in Bolivia, whose process was started on 2006, concluding in 2009, had unequivocally a native character, originating in the democratic will, popular from which, its autonomy is understood, that merit means, the new order is different from the pre-existing, the new order implies a new legal era based on the re-founding of the State”.
This is the central argument that the pluri-national constitutional court ruled in favor of the postulation for a re-reelection of Evo Morales. The idea that Bolivia would have refounded after the adoption of a Constitution.
This argument does not hold up to the basic learning, within the reach of any scholar of the history of Bolivia. The founding document of this country is not a Constitution, but a declaration of independence.
On August 6, 1825, date of the Foundation of Bolivia, 48 representatives from the provinces of the Alto Peru in the Constituent Assembly signed the Act that would give birth to Bolivia, among whose parts I want to highlight to the manifestation of the will of those Territories: “the provinces of the Alto Peru firm and unanimous in as fair and magnanimous resolutionthey are protesting before the face of the whole earth, being irrevocable, will govern themselves and be governed by the Constitution, laws and authorities that they themselves award and believe are most conducive to their future happiness”.
The first Constitution of the nascent Bolivian State would be drafted by the Liberator Bolivar and delivered in 1826, a year after Bolivia was founded.
Then, so that a re-Foundation would have carried forward, it is to say that it would have required a review of the founding document, which is none other than the Declaration of Independence, which would have demanded the renovation of the will of the territories that make up the Bolivian State, to remain as part of it.
In 1825, Bolivia was born as State without a Constitution, and it staffing, a year later, is nothing that the beginning of the construction of institutions which, incidentally, might have been monarchist or otherwise, without that meaning its State nonexistence.
It is absurd, then, to say that the adoption of a new Constitution involves the re-founding of the State because, in addition, is our seventeenth constitutional text, for which we would have to assume that Bolivia has already had 16 recastings, which would be nothing more than absurdity.
Pretend that the first transitional provision of the political Constitution of the State, which in its second paragraph determines that “mandates prior to the entry into force of this Constitution shall be taken into account for the purposes of the computation of the new periods of functions.” It would be invalid because a re-Foundation of the country would have practiced, it is false.
But here we are, with a President who, having been enabled for a second re-election on the basis of a trap, will have to face, nothing more and nothing less than the legal procedures of democracy.
The author is a political analyst
Need to say more? nope… it is crystal clear!