Editorial from El Diario, picture from the internet:
It is unknown to anyone that the international community has extensive knowledge of the results of the referendum on February 21, 2016 and that this process was viewed with great sympathy, because it was about consolidating the existing democracy in the country. The expressions of support for the results were almost unanimous and there were no criticisms against them, as vested interests could indicate. A few days ago, a high official of the diplomatic service of the United States “highlighted the 21F in defense of the vote and called on the international community to be vigilant so that the elections in Bolivia are fair”.
The Undersecretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs in the United States specifically said: “The 21F in Bolivia demonstrates the commitment of the Bolivian people to the defense of their constitution and popular vote. The international community must remain vigilant to guarantee free, fair and transparent elections in October.” Government officials have expressed that the statements made by the US official are “interference and ignorance of what is Bolivian reality and lack of understanding of what democracy is.”
The truth is that these statements have not implied the issuance of other concepts from the official party; on the other hand, representatives of the opposition have said that “there is no such interference” in the country’s issues. Public opinion qualifies the event as an expression of wishes about the country’s democracy and asks to be vigilant about the October elections process. There is no attitude of interference in policies and less in the fact that concepts are issued in favor of 21F.
On the contrary, that process has aroused sympathy and support because what happened on February 21, 2016 has meant, smoothly and conclusively, that the people expressed criteria, ideas, thoughts and feelings that favor our democracy, since the results imply that even freedom of expression is a substantive part of the life of the people and that their criteria have been expressly stated and this is demonstrated by the results of a referendum that, in addition, is binding in nature, meaning that compliance is obligatory for all.
Many times, when it is indeed an intromission and interference in what is appropriate and corresponds to the country, it is the people who did not agree; but this time the reactions have been favorable because it implies that one more country is in favor of the democratic validity in Bolivia. It is not appropriate, therefore, to be surprised by something that is in the conscience of all Bolivians, because what cast the majority of votes in the referendum is the will, thought, idea and criterion of the conscience of the people.
To ask, internally or externally, that the will expressed in the amphorae be fulfilled, can not be interference; it is, simply, support for a just cause and motivated by the will of a country that knows what it wants.