The debate over Evo Morales resignation has been raging all week roughly split along the lines of political ideology with the left criticizing the undemocratic ousting of a democratically elected president by the Bolivian military and the right lauding the resolve of the Bolivian people in ousting a tyrant that corrupted democracy to retain power.

I wrote a post on Facebook disagreeing with the statements of Sanders, AOC, and Omar regarding Bolivia. I still disagree with their statements because they characterize the military as violently seizing power. That narrative is not borne out by any evidence I can find. However, there does seem to be something amiss regarding the role that the OAS election monitors played and with the US' role in inflaming tensions within Bolivia.

I had assumed that the OAS (Organization of American States) was an impartial organization that served to validate election results. However, it seems that the US has major sway over the OAS. Additionally, the leader of the OAS team in Bolivia was an avid Morales' critic. The impact of the OAS' post-election press release cannot be understated as it immediately escalated the conflict and destroyed trust in President Morales.

It appears that US propaganda also played a major role in discrediting Morales and justifying the opposition protests. The US pushed a narrative, prior to any evidence, that Morales' was actively trying to commit election fraud. Because of the US influence on the narrative, the violence in Bolivia intensified, eventually leading to Morales' own supporters within the Government, Military, and Police to defect and suggest he resign in order to pacify the country.

My two cents

Evo Morales should not have run at all. It was a corruption of democracy and jeopardized the peaceful transfer of power that is necessary for a democracy to function. Bolivia has never successfully transferred power through a democratic process and I wish Morales' had chosen that for his legacy instead of trying to retain power.

Morales' government should have made every effort to maintain transparency through the election process and not shut down the broadcast of the quick count. Most of this political upheaval could have been avoided if they had continued broadcasting results. Morales' should also have waited until the official count was released before claiming victory.

It was irresponsible for the OAS to release claims of irregularities without evidence. This is especially true in the context of Bolivia where the election infrastructure is new and not fully vetted. The issues during this election were very similar to the issues in the 2014 election and the OAS should have framed their statements in this context. The way they framed their press release inflamed tensions in an already tense situation.

The US needs to stop starting shit in Latin America. The obvious bias from the US Ambassador to the OAS as well as Marco Rubio and Donald Trump helped push the narrative that eventually brought down Morales'. If the US had stayed impartial and acted as an arbiter we could have helped bring about a peaceful resolution. Instead, we stoked the fire until Morales' lost support. Now the country is on the verge of civil war.

The country of Bolivia needs to invest heavily in its election system. The OAS preliminary report shows major flaws in procedure and technology that allow for election fraud. I pulled the OAS report from 2014 and the flaws were even worse back then. As an example, in 2014 there was a lag in results such that only 2.79% of the votes had been tallied a full 24 hours after the election. However, Morales won by such a large margin (25%) that no one questioned the result.

Based on the OAS report, there was definitely fraud in the election. However, based on Morales’ eagerness to bring in the OAS to audit the election, I don’t believe he was aware of the fraud.

Was it a coup?

Despite the assertions by AOC, the actions by the military in this case do not constitute a coup. The military did not use any force, they simply withdrew support and remained neutral. The resignation of an elected president due to loss of support does not qualify as a coup, though it could be considered a “Pronunciamiento”.

That being said, the threat of violence by the opposing party caused the resignation of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th officials in the chain of succession. This secondary action could be considered a coup, however, the chain of succession has been followed according to the constitution and has been approved by the Bolivian Supreme Tribunal of Justice (the same court that approved Morales’ 4th term).

The real test will be whether Interim President Añez holds elections within 90 days. If she does, then institutions of democracy will remain intact and the rules laid out in the Bolivian constitution will have been followed. If she does not, then this is a coup.

Evidence and supporting documentation

Evidence that the OAS is biased

Oct 16: Prior to the election the head of OAS team overseeing the election published an opinion article critical of Morales. On Nov. 1 he resigns due to this conflict of interest.
https://mvsnoticias.com/columnas/evo-siempre-electo-nunca-inelecto/

Oct 21: OAS releases press statement that there are voting irregularities without providing evidence
https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-085/19

Evidence of US pushing a narrative

October 21 9:12 AM (before OAS release) - Marco Rubio tweets: “In #Bolivia all credible indications are Evo Morales failed to secure necessary margin to avoid second round in Presidential election. However some concern he will tamper with the results or process to avoid this. Both @OAS_official & @EU_Commission have observers in the country.”
https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1186284033178767361

October 21 9:57 AM (before OAS release) - Michael Kozak tweets: "The U.S. rejects the Electoral Tribunal's attempts to subvert #Bolivia's democracy by delaying the vote count & taking actions that undermine the credibility of Bolivia's elections. We call on the TSE to immediately act to restore credibility in the vote counting process."
https://twitter.com/WHAAsstSecty/status/1186476742409674758

Oct 23rd: The US Ambassador to the OAS, Carlos Trujillo: "The Government claims that they shut down the election reporting because of some computer issue. This is nonsense ... There is only one reason, the government needed time to fix the election."
https://usoas.usmission.gov/special-session-of-the-permanent-council-addresses-the-situation-in-bolivia/

Supporting documentation

2014 OAS Report on elections:
https://www.oas.org/es/sap/deco/MOE_informe/Informe_Verbal_Bolivia2014.pdf

Oct 22: CEPR response to OAS statement (Left Leaning)
http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/oas-should-retract-its-press-release-on-bolivian-election-cepr-co-director-says

Oct 23rd: OAS initial statement of irregularities
http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/press/Preliminary-Report-EOM-Bolivia-23-10-19.pdf

Nov 6: CEPR statistical analysis refuting vote discrepancy (Left Leaning)
http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/no-evidence-that-bolivian-election-results-were-affected-by-irregularities-or-fraud-statistical-analysis-shows

Nov 8: The Nation: article on why OAS is not trustworthy (Left Leaning)
https://www.thenation.com/article/bolivia-election-oas/

Nov. 10 - OAS preliminary report ready stating multiple irregularities
https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-099/19

Oh hey, fancy seeing you here. If you want more information about the history of the situation in Bolivia send me an email or comment on this blog. I’ve got pages of notes.