Carlos Toranzo writes in Pagina Siete:
The re-re-re-election does not strengthen democracy
The Constitution of the Plurinational State was clearly established in one of its transitory provisions, that Evo Morales could not run in the previous election; it did thanks to a lecture given by the Constitutional Court, an institution that was and is fully controlled and dominated by the MAS and the government.
That interpretation was unconstitutional and it marked with the same label to the election of Morales. That legal part, or illegal, but there is another, perhaps deeper, which is the moral: Evo Morales gave his promise not to appear in the previous elections if the current Constitution was approved, that was his promise so there would’ve pact for the adoption of the Constitution.
His word as a gentleman, his promise was unfulfilled, that’s a fact of violation of morals and ethics. But it seems that in modern times, for power, for the perpetuation in power, does not have the values, morals and ethics.
In a liberal sense, governments have legitimacy if they arise from the vote, and of course, the government of Evo Morales has legitimacy of origin based on the popular vote. But for any government, is it legitimate just to come from a vote? Here the problem has its nuances, for what can be said of Cuba, Russia, Korea and other countries with similar vote and elect their representatives. Is voting be the only thing that gives them their legitimacy?
Here, without going to another type of analysis, it is necessary to know whether the vote was free, if there was no pressure to vote for one or the other. You need to know if the elections were free, if the electoral authority was independent, whether access to the media was fair, if the public budget was used in favor of the ruling party, if respected what happened at the polls. Touching these issues, many of them find flats that problematize the analysis.
But, beyond those issues related to the vote, while one side is the legitimacy of the origin -the ballot box-, on the other the legitimacy of exercise must be analyzed. That is, you should analyze how it is governed, how is the adherence to the Constitution?, respecting human rights, individual rights? Are rules with accountability and corruption? Are rules with transparency? Is it governed without torture, without political assassinations, without forced exile of opponents? Are rules with freedom of the press and expression?
All this is more than liberal, are patterns that should respect not only liberals but emanated governments of the left, not liberals. And if we look at all these issues we realize that there are many holes in the legitimacy of exercise.
Re-re-re-election is not only refused with respect to the liberal principle of alternation of power, but because the discretionary power became marked by the absence of transparency, because he failed to fulfill its promises, offered no transparency and he offered respect for Mother Earth, but in reality nature is destroyed and a model of extractive development policy is followed. He offered respect for the indigenous but repressed them.
If liberal standards call for check and balances,weights and counter weights, in reality it is noted that the legislative, judicial and electoral power is controlled by the executive.
This dominance of a single power, the executive, not only violates the liberal paradigm, but also violates the democratic life of the citizens, who by that concentration of power does not have full access to freedom of expression.
It can be understood as liberal democracy holds that freedom of the press, but it is not democratic, not only in the sense that the State liberal media focus. It is liberal access to public administration is the meritocratic way, it is broader than that.
It is not democratic that access to public administration is open only for militancy and partisan clientele of the MAS. It is not democratic that the public be managed as private and as you know, we live in a deep patrimonialism.
It is not democratic that the prebendal logic prevails as logic of government, it is not democratic to see warlordism and clientelism rule in the country. It is not democratic that many Bolivians live in exile, it is not democratic that there have been summarial executions, extrajudicial.
It is not democratic to think of a country only for some and not for all Bolivians. There is opposition to the re-re-re-election not only for defending the ideal of a liberal model; there is opposition because it is felt that the democracy where we live is poor and because there is a tendency to authoritarianism.
Carlos Toranzo Roca is an economist.
Crystal clear! unfortunately current president has said before he does not like to read… it is just the ochlocracy ruling and wanting to hold on to power…