Editorial, El Diario:

As Bolivians increasingly call for a Political Constitution that reflects the country’s realities and avoids glaring inconsistencies, the prospect of a new Constituent Assembly becomes ever more important. Such a body should be capable of fulfilling a fundamental mission: guiding the nation toward progress rather than, as many critics argue is happening today, toward decline.

The current Constitution, enacted in 2009, has long been criticized for containing contradictions, questionable premises, procedural irregularities, and provisions that some consider misleading. The document was initially debated by an Assembly of nearly 300 delegates, and the approval process stretched over more than six months amid controversy and political conflict. The legitimacy of that initial approval was subsequently challenged. The Assembly later reconvened in other cities, and parliamentary commissions ultimately revised, expanded, and approved the text. Critics note that the final version was not approved by the Assembly itself. It was later submitted to a national referendum, where voters endorsed it, allowing the government of President Evo Morales to promulgate it.

Although the Constitution was widely published and disseminated, it has not, according to its critics, been subjected to the rigorous and sustained analysis one might expect in a country with thousands of legal professionals trained in public and private universities. As a result, many of its perceived inconsistencies remain unresolved and continue to fuel public debate.

One of the most frequently cited contradictions concerns the definition of Bolivia as a “Plurinational State.” Critics argue that Bolivia constitutes a single nation-state and that the concept of multiple nations existing within the state lacks practical political expression, as these groups do not possess independent statehood nor seek to establish it. From this perspective, describing Bolivia as plurinational is viewed as incompatible with the traditional concept of a unified Bolivian nation.

Another point of contention relates to property rights. The Constitution affirms private property rights for small landowners and peasant farmers. However, critics argue that other provisions restricting the sale or transfer of certain plots effectively limit those rights. In their view, ownership is incomplete if the owner lacks the freedom to dispose of the property.

Questions have also been raised regarding judicial independence. While the Constitution declares the judiciary to be autonomous, opponents argue that senior judicial authorities are first selected through political processes before being submitted to popular vote. They contend that voters often have little familiarity with the candidates and note that the election of high-ranking judges through universal suffrage is uncommon internationally.

Critics further challenge the constitutional principle of economic pluralism. They argue that by recognizing multiple economic models simultaneously, the Constitution creates ambiguity about the country’s long-term economic direction. In their view, the coexistence of diverse and sometimes competing approaches can lead to policy inconsistency and uncertainty.

Finally, while constitutional reform has become a recurring topic in public debate, broad calls for change are unlikely to produce meaningful results on their own. If reform is to occur, proponents argue that proposals must be specific, clearly defined, and focused on concrete constitutional provisions rather than general dissatisfaction.

Whether one agrees with these criticisms or not, the debate highlights a broader question facing Bolivia: how to reconcile constitutional principles with political realities while ensuring that the nation’s highest legal framework commands both legitimacy and public confidence.