55 comments now and 53 of them are literally just dunking on one random Lemmy user lmao
A not unsignificant amount are also just PPB as should be the case
Democracy did kinda erode under him though (however, it has been eroding even quicker since he was ousted, so there's that)
Consider term limits. The US Constitution was amended to enforce term limits in direct response to FDR’s popular 12-year presidency (he died in office, going on for 16). As a policy, it is self-evidently quite anti-democratic (robbing the people of a choice), but nevertheless it has been conceptually naturalized to the extent that the 2019 coup against Evo Morales was premised explicitly on the idea that repeated popular electoral victories constituted a form of dictatorship. If rotation was important to avoid corruption or complacency, corporations and supreme courts would institute term limits too. Term limits ensure that in the miraculous scenario that a scrupulous, charismatic, and intelligent individual becomes a rebellious political executive, they won’t be in power long enough to meaningfully challenge the entrenched power of corporate vehicles manned by CEOs with decades of experience. Wolfgang Schäuble, a powerful advocate of austerity policy in Europe, succinctly summarized the extent to which electoral democracy is subordinate: “Elections cannot be allowed to change economic policy.” One Party States and Democratic Centralism are not the result of lack of sophistication or cronyism, they are a proven bulwark that acknowledges that political power will often need to be exerted against the will of Capital, and so the wielders of said power must necessarily undergo a much more serious vetting process than a popularity contest.
from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/
Here's an article from 2017 that I think sums it up quite well: https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/06/20/bolivia-s-democracy-at-risk-what-role-for-external-actors-pub-71301
But to make it short: a president going into a fourth term when the constitution only allows 2 should ring alarm bells, especially when said president is ignoring a referendum by doing so.
Term limits are bullshit anyway. If a president is good and well liked they should stay.
Our "best" (relatively) President won four terms because he implemented a basic social safety net. Capital responded by making sure that wasn't possible again.
It's funny how a prime minister in Europe holding power for more than a decade is fine but a President in Latin America is suddenly a dictator for wanting more than 2 terms.
Personally I'm not convinced of term limits either. It's more about the fact he readily ignored a constitution implemented under his rule, as soon as it started bothering him.
And I mean thats what the referendum in 2016 was about. If the people had wanted him to stay in power, they would've voted to increase the maximum amount of term limits. But they simply didn't, they did not want him to go into another term. He did anyway.
the bolivian constitutional court ruled his term under the old constitution didn't count for the new one.
A questionable decision for sure, but ultimately not the issue. His 4th term was definitely illegitimate though.
Think on that one again if you would. He served two terms under the old constitution, the constitutional court ruled that the terms served under the old constitution didn't apply to the new one, then he (attempted to) served two more terms under the new constitution. Like, disagree with that if you want, but saying it was definitely illegitimate is definitely wrong, because the courts definitely ruled that it was legitimate.
but have you considered
?It's lib political thought 101. 102 of course being everything filtered through blockbuster ip.
The court ruled that the first term didn't count since the constitution was changed during that term, meaning it would only apply to terms started after the new constitution was adopted. Questionable but fair enough.
After serving another term and during the third, the MAS initiated a referendum to increase the amount of terms a president could serve. Very good, if the population wanted to keep this president, this was their way to do it.
However, the proposal was voted down, meaning the majority of the population was against an increase in the term limit. The democratic thing to do then would have been to start looking for another candidate.
And yet he won the actual elections. As I said, extremely shortsight and stupid move, and yet he never lost.
I was talking about presidential elections. The opposition coalitions never produced a candidate that people preferred over Evo. Cuz their policies sucked.
Yeah, the party not having a succesor figure was an important problem, that instead of fixing they went for the stupid shorsighted route, which gave oxygen to every ultra-reactionary force, local and international.
Do I care about term limits in the face of seething ultra-reactionaries doing everything they could to revert back MAS policies, culminating in a literal coup and the subsecuent massacres? Of course not.
Evo never lost a presidential election, and his party did more to politically mobilize people who were up-to-that-moment "non-voters" or blocked from it in several ways, than any other party. Why? Because the other parties represent the interests of powerful minorities. The last thing they wanted is poor disenfranchised people voting.
Do I care about spineless, reactionary comprador journalists, judiciaries and other burocrats? LMAO. That whole scum did everything to maintain the pre-Evo status-quo conditions of Bolivia. Latin America is scourged with them, my country included. Dipshits that could have fitted perfectly in the US Confederacy, for example.
They are a minority that clinges to immense power that has never been democratized. You can't vote for who runs Fox News nor the CNN, nor the Supreme Court, and yet those people have more power over the destiny of a country than any Congressmember.
Evo never lost a presidential election
The thing Americans always seem to forget when they talk about "Not a real democracy".
We've had three elections (debateably closer to five or six) of the last eight decided by an electoral college appointing a popular loser to the Presidency, in a country that heavily restricts enfranchisement and barely breaks a 60% participation rate on a good year.
Bolivia had north of 80% turnout and Evo was winning in landslides consistently.
The President of the appointed regional minority party is pointing at the wildly popular leader and claiming the other isn't a liberal democracy.
Really
moment.Also one of those times the electoral college didn't even decide things and the Supreme Court came in to pick the winner of the election
Of course none of the justices appointed by George HW Bush recused themselves from the case and every one of them ruled in favor of his son, George W Bush and that's not even getting into how governor
rigged the Florida results for his brotherthe electoral college didn't even decide things and the Supreme Court came in to pick the winner of the election
SCOTUS deciding to stop the count only mattered because the state was Winner Take All.
that's not even getting into how governor
rigged the Florida results for his brotherFlorida was only the most glaring example. Ohio, Arizona, Georgia, Gore's own home state of Tennessee... There was ratfucking everywhere. But, just like with Nixon in '60, it wasn't just a Republican problem. Gore wasn't willing to open up the can of worms that encompasses how the vote gets counted.
thats why they think social imperialist nordic countries are heckin chungus democracies but MAS was eroding democracy in Bolivia
https://carnegieendowment.org/about/trustees
This is who you are allowing to shove ideology into your brain
I'd be fine with the same leader for 1,000 years if they are an agent of the proletariat and beloved of the people. Term limits has literally nothing to do with democracy or lack thereof. By the way, number of parties doesn't either. Two western misconceptions about what democracy is (lots of squabbling parties, lots of turnover in every elected position - neither of these are synonymous with democracy and in fact hinder it in many ways)
If he won the election, he won the election. Term limits are mainly a tool of capital, since capital does not have term limits.
Not to be pedantic, but saying “democracy eroded” makes me think there is some wide-ranging effort to undermine democracy along many vectors. If you just pointing to Evo winning elections in violation of term limits… idk that’s really just one thing. Even if I think that what he did was “undemocratic”, I wouldn’t call that a wholesale undermining of democracy.
It's undemocratic when one person wins multiple elections in a row because a majority votes for them.
How dare the people vote for and get what they want! Democracy has eroded!!!
I disagree, to me erosion is a slow and natural decline that can be kept in check by proper maintenance.
You haven’t shown or proven any slow long term erosion though. Your entire thesis that it’s less democratic now is that an anti-democratic law was overturned and the populace elected who they wanted
- this chart clearly proves that Evo Morales and MAS is less democratic, and therefore eroded democracy. Just because the fascists who came next (as they clearly should have, but don't imply i support them since i never explicitly said that!!!) massacred people doesn't excuse the lack of commitment to democracy from Evo. Checkmate tankie
no term limits are silly. And it's undemocratic to have restrictions on who the public may elect
Who was the president when that constitution was put into place?
Evo, 2009 Consitution. They had the problem of not having a succesor figure. And instead of fixing that problem they went the other shortsighted route of removing term limits.
Do I care about term limits in the face of seething ultra-reactionaries doing everything they could to revert back MAS policies, culminating in a literal coup? Of course not.
Evo never lost a presidential election, and his party did more to politically mobilize people who were up-to-that-moment "non-voters" or blocked from it in several ways.
Ah, I thought you thought the constitution at that time was from some dictatorship from the seventies.
lol no. I'm pretty familiar with what went down in Bolivia with Morales as that's around the time in my radicalization when I began internalizing the incestuous relationship between the CIA, Corporate Media, American Foreign Policy and the IMF. I read Jakarta Method later and it was like I had watched a chapter happen in real time. That was also around the time I really started to grasp how much American media erases the disparities between Indigenous peoples and the governments they live under.
I mean, the fact he wasn't willing to follow laws implemented during HIS rule kinda tells you everything you need to know. "Rules for thee but not for me"
And yet he didn't just not follow it, he took the result to court as he was legally entitled to do. It's very strange how you'll hold to the narrative of an article written in 2017 when you have the benefit of knowing the outcome, of seeing the neo-nazis and other violent reactionaries that opposed him and killed thousands after they ousted him. They didn't just appear over night with a snap of a finger when he didn't "follow the rule", they were an active force in the government and the media that created the very narrative you're now espousing, despite knowing the truth.
I am merely criticising his (lack of) commitment to democracy. I agree that Bolivia was better off with him than it is now, but that doesn't invalidate my point. The fact that the people who came after him were/are worse does not retroactively turn him into a Saint.
the people who came after him
THEY. DID. NOT. COME. AFTER. HIM. THEY WERE THE OPPOSITION HE WAS FIGHTING. It is their fascist propaganda that you're now repeating.
I'm done here, dude. If you'd like to educate yourself so you don't come off like a fash apologist in the future check out The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins and/or Washington Bullets by Vijay Prishad. Jakarta Method covers a specific group of US backed coups and genocides, but has plenty of notes and citations, While Washington Bullets is more of a polemic that covers American Foreign Policy from a broader perspective and assumes you've got a basic background on CIA activity in the Third World.
You know the justices are also elected there, right? It's not like he packed the court to keep in office.
Beyond that, when the choice is between an elected official and a literal military dictator, which path do you think supports democracy?
This again. The fact that I am critizising the one does not mean I support the other. On the contrary, if you wanna read my first comment again.
The immediate choice was between those two. Picking what he picked is not undermining democracy, it was attempting to save it.
I am merely criticising his (lack of) commitment to democracy.
Projection
I am merely criticising his (lack of) commitment to democracy
Citations Needed Episode 25: The Banality of CIA-Curated Definitions of ‘Democracy’
Few words elicit such warm feelings as the term "Democracy." Wars are supposedly fought for it, foreign policies are built around it, protecting and advancing it is considered the United States' highest moral order.
Democracy's alleged opposite - broadly called "authoritarianism," "autocracy" or "tyranny” - is cast as the ultimate evil. The stifling, oppressive boot of the state that curtails liberties and must be fought at all costs. This is the world in which we operate and the one where the United States and its satellite media and NGO allies fight to preserve and defend democracy.
So how is "democracy" defined and how are those definitions used to justify American exceptionalism? Where do positive and negative rights come into play, and how do societal choices like illiteracy, poverty, and hunger factor into our notions of freedom?
On today's episode, we discuss the limits of democracy rankings, the oft-cited "Polity IV" metric devised by the CIA-funded Center for Systemic Peace, and more with guest George Ciccariello-Maher.
Show
Show
Show
Interesting. I agree that democracy is hard to define. But I do not agree that this means we should stop striving for it. And there definitely are governments that are more democratic than others.
What would you consider the most democratic governments? Give me a couple examples
Total
bullshitFuck all the way off
I'm sure you think its fun playing this rhetorical bullshit about "democracy" but people fucking died because the US backed a coup against him that fucking dipshit libs like you nodded your heads too. The coup government massacred indigenous people as soon as they could. And you were nodding along.
they comment in the s.j.works "tankie watchers" comm, so they're probably just fishing for content
Makes sense. Libs acting like this about the Bolivian coup just really piss me off.
Hope they enjoy showing off me calling them a dipshit smuglord for trivializing the lives of indigenous people
I don't recall saying I support the coup. See my first comment for my opinion on the state of Bolivia after the coup.
I wasn't 'nodding along'. The situation in Bolivia has gone from bad to worse. Acknowledging the bad does not mean ignoring the worse.
No of course you don't. People like you never commit to anything. You just want to play around as if there aren't real stakes for real people.
Parroting state department propaganda about "democracy eroding" is fun for you, because you don't care about the actually people and what they want, or that to alternative to MAS and Evo's reelection at that time was fascists that were going to massacre thr indigenous base of MAS, the people that you are trying to claim that "democracy eroded" for.
So fuck you dipshit smuglord
the fact he wasn't willing to follow laws implemented during HIS rule kinda tells you everything you need to know.
What if they were from before his time? Would that actually be better, or would you have a new way to characterize that it tells you all you need to know?
I'll give you that, it shouldn't matter when or under which president a law was implemented when evaluating its validity. The only thing that matters is whether a law has the backing of the population.
him and the bolivian people defeated the reactionary lawfare imposed against them by the ruling class and rich of bolivia, those compradors. Democracy can only be realized when sell outs and imperialists are banished and excised from politics
what is "democracy" to you? Because the will of the people was much closer aligned to the actions of the state under him then after the coup
You remind me of something (Parenti I think?) said, where he criticized people who had bad things to say about Castro, and said that people should compare the current regime with what it replaced; I'm reminded of the government that replaced Evo's and the lady (whose name escapes me) who called the indigenous population satan worshippers.
I've no idea of the state of democracy under Evo, but if I recall correctly, he changed laws to allow the native population to work in the government where apparently prior it had been illegal for them to do so. His rule was actually great for Bolivia, which is probably why his party won the elections again after the coup.
the lady (whose name escapes me)
Agreed, but being more democratic is not the same as being democratic.
but being more democratic is not the same as being democratic.
???
This is your brain on ideology
- Show
https://web.archive.org/web/20191111063323/https://www.en24.news/news/2019/11/10/bolivia-audios-leaked-from-opposition-leaders-calling-for-a-coup-against-evo-morales.html
A series of 16 audios in which opposition leaders call for a coup against the newly re-elected president Evo Morales were leaked through various social platforms.
Local media point out that the destabilizing plan would have been coordinated by the United States Embassy in Bolivia prior to the elections and cites US senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who are said to have direct contact with the Bolivian opposition in the strategy to overthrow Morales.
The plan focuses on the fact that if Evo Morales won the elections on October 20, a civil-military transition government would be established. The new government would allege fraud in the electoral process and would not recognize Morales' electoral victory.
In the audios filtered through social platforms opposition leaders call to burn structures of the government party and to put together a general strike throughout the country and to attack the Cuban Embassy in that country.
The publication of the audios arises in the midst of the political crisis following the electoral triumph of Evo Morales, whom the opposition accuses of committing fraud.
Weeks ago in a speech President Evo Morales had referred to alleged coup plans and that his government had the recordings. Neither the opposition nor the United States Embassy has referred to the leakage of the audios.
SUMMARY OF THE AUDIOS:
AUDIO 1: It illustrates the commitment of US senators Marco Rubio, Bob Menendez and Ted Cruz in the coup plan in Bolivia.
no lol
The coup was undemocratic, that does not mean the state before was democratic. Its a bunch of powerful people fighting for power with no regard for the will of the people.
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
Replace Soviet Union with "Evo Morales" and it still holds. Nothing anybody could ever say to you could change your mind because your mind is already made up.
Its a bunch of powerful people fighting for power with no regard for the will of the people.
Surely you have something resembling evidence to back up this claim and you are not just both-sidesing for US-planted White Christian fascists like a muppet? Even the pro-coup Financial Times admits that:
An ethnic Aymara Indian, Mr Morales empowered the country’s indigenous groups like no Bolivian leader before him. He cut poverty in half and presided over rapid economic growth, fuelled by exports from a gas industry he nationalised. These policies resonated strongly in a country where serfdom was only abolished in 1945 and indigenous people were forbidden until 1952 from entering the square outside the presidential palace.
"the white supremacist US-backed fascists are just as corrupt as the indigenous proletarian government"
seethe 
"Democracy is when the US gets what it wants, and when the US doesn't get what it wants saving democracy is when we do a coup to stop someone we don't want from being democratically elected." - Lemvi
Ah, the good old strawman. I never mentioned the US. I've seen comments like this a few times now. "He speaks out in favor of democracy, so he must blindly agree with anything the US does!" (there, another strawman) No, I can advocate for democracy without being a fan of the US. I'd even go so far as to say that anyone really advocating for democracy should be highly sceptical of the processes they have in the US, as they aren't really democratic.
And yet you have nothing to say about the democratically elected Bolivian courts ruling in the democratically elected Morales' favor. The courts with judges elected by the Bolivian people disagree with you. And who are you to question their, and by extension the Bolivian people, decision?
In this instance we have a court comprised of judges that have been elected not by the people, but by Congress, with each judge having been elected up to ten years ago on one hand. On the other we have a recent referendum held among the people.
They contradict one another, the people do not want to allow a third term for presidents, the court does.
In my opinion there are two questions we should ask to determine which side is more likely to represent the will of the people:
- Which election took place more recently?
- Which election was more direct?
The referendum was more recent than the election of most of the judges. The referendum was also held by the population directly, while the judges were appointed by congress.
So in my opinion the result of the referendum should hold more weight than the judges' decision.
No, how recent an election is isn't the sole criteria. And as we've seen with Brexit, referendums aren't an open-and-shut case for gauging the will of the people. To use another example, there have been multiple referendums in Crimea dating back to the 90s where Crimeans want to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, but I seriously doubt you'll say that the annexation of Crimea by Russia was just Putin doing what the Crimean people wanted to be done since the 90s.
It's not a strawman. You claimed democracy eroded under him when what, term limits changed? Democracy isn't defined by term limits you fucking idiot and the UK has none, Germany has none, etc etc. Does that make it less democratic than other countries? No it fucking doesn't.
You're an idiot. Bolivia is significantly more democratic than the US. You clearly have absolutely no knowledge of how their system is structured, you're entirely vibes based. How do their courts work? What's the structure of the government? How does it interact with the courts? Do you know any of these things in even the vaguest fucking detail at all? No you fucking don't.
When I call the US undemocratic I do so from a position of understanding its entire system top to bottom, its branches, its hierarchy, how its branches interact, who has power over what, etc etc etc. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about, you regurgitate whatever vibe some bullshit liberal media source has put in your feelings and have absolutely zero actual knowledge whatsoever outside of those feels. You're concept of basically every other country is 100% propaganda driven feels rather than any level of actually educated investigation. I bet you couldn't even say how many years exist between elections, you're on that level of lack of knowledge and vibes-based statements here.
And those vibes lead you to idiotically supporting US intervention, coups, and going door to door with death squads killing people. Slap yourself. You're a fuck.
