The twice-delayed Bolivian election of October 2020 resulted in a landslide victory for Luis Arce over 6 competitors. Luis Arce belongs to the MAS party, or the “Movement Toward Socialism” party when translated in English. He won over 50% of the votes, clearly avoiding a run-off election against other favored candidates. Election observers believe Arce’s victory may have been aided by his consolidation of the center-left and left vote while the centrist and right-leaning vote was split amongst several figures (note, interim president Áñez dropped out a month before the election, but the vote was still split amongst right-wing leaders).
This year’s election results were not a surprise. Back in March, a national poll showed Arce with a growing lead- from 32% in February to 33.3% that month, as second-place Carlos Mesa fell from 23% to 18.3% (Morales pick leads in Bolivia opinion polls). Although the Bolivian Electoral Tribunal chose not to do a rapid count of votes for fear of accuracy concerns, an unofficial quick-count put Arce far ahead of Carlos Mesa early in election week. People within the country considered the election relatively peaceful. According to Al Jazeera, polling stations remained open even after closing time, signifying both high voter turnout and a dedication to democracy by the government. Deputy Security Minister Wilson Santamaria described the election as “a calm day throughout the country.” Salvador Romero, head of Bolivia’s election authority, announced that voting participation was 88%, the country’s “second highest record in our history and one of the highest in Latin America in the 21st century”. Bolivia’s recent election is a relief to its citizens and election critics worldwide as compared to the aftermath of the 2019 election. Then-President Evo Morales had been a popular political figure for much of his 14 years in office but as the economy slowed down and Morales became implicated in personal scandals, the public began turning against him. Under the Bolivian constitution, Evo Morales should not have been able to run for president again in 2019. A constitutional change that would allow him to do so was rejected by Bolivian voters 51% to 49% in 2016; however, Morales’ party convinced the constitutional court to remove term limits without popular support. Morales continued gaining unpopularity by the time of the October 2019 election. Not only had he ignored popular will, but his decree in July 2019 allowing for “controlled burning” had caused large forest and grassland fires. He needed a 10-point lead to avoid a runoff election, in which candidates who receive the least support are unable to participate and their votes typically go to either the incumbent or the incumbent’s main rival. If a runoff occurred, Morales faced a “high probability” of losing because of a united opposition. Partway through the election, the quick count, which had placed Morales only about 8% over opponent Carlos Mesa Gisbert, stopped releasing results. President Morales declared himself the victor, stating that “rural areas would guarantee his victory” despite the preliminary results being released from Bolivia’s urban regions. This victory was immediately cast into doubt. Not only had the count appeared to have stopped arbitrarily, many saw the election authority as biased towards Morales. An election watchdog called the Organization of American States declared that they had seen “serious irregularities” in the Bolivian election. The opposition garnered enough public support to attempt an overthrow of President Morales over concerns not just of election legitimacy but of trust, in Morales and his government. Bolivian citizens and opposition figures took to the streets to protest an unfair election. By the 7th of October, 3 Bolivians had been killed in clashes between pro and anti-Morales groups. In November, the police turned against Morales and joined street protests. In what Morales described as a “coup d’etat”, senior military officials suggested Morales step down to keep the peace. The interim government, led by Senate second vice president Jeanine Áñez, has been criticised for its response to protests and the political crisis. Citizens and watchdog groups criticise Áñez for granting immunity to the police in order to quell protesters. Her regime has seen the killing of protesters by police, such as five in El Alto in November 2019. Her handling of the coronavirus, which has led to almost 10,000 deaths in Bolivia so far, has been criticised. Although election analysts are yet unable to determine the consequences of the Áñez regime on this year’s election, her and her aligned parties have been handily rejected by the Bolivian people this time around. Arce has termed his victory a “return to democracy”, and pledges to “rebuild… in peace”. President-elect Luis Arce is seen at a ceremony held in La Paz, Bolivia. He has promised national unity to the Bolivian people, promised to take bold steps to alleviate the economic and health impacts of COVID-19, and has promised to rebuild alliances with other political parties and business leaders to reboot the Bolivian economy and infrastructure. The Bolivian election is drastic proof that democracy can withstand and overcome evident obstacles to democratic values— a reminder, especially, to Americans worried about the state of the country following our recent election. While the world endures a new era of political discord and challenges to the foundations of democratic society, we patiently wait to see the change Luis Arce and his party have promised to bring to Bolivia.
0 Comments
![]() The Trudeau administration, the current government of Canada, is under fire for Trudeau’s participation in a decision to “to award a sole-source contract to a charity with ties to his family to run a C$900-million government grant program” (Blatchford). The charity is WE Charity, “an international charity and educational partner” with a mission to provide students the tools for lasting, transformative social change (WE Charity). The “sole-source contract” is a legal agreement that both bars any other charity in Canada from awarding post-secondary students and recent graduates with money in exchange for “hours spent volunteering because of the COVID-19 pandemic[,]” and provides WE Charity “C$19.5 million” ($14.5 million in US dollars) from the federal government. Julie Gordon and Steve Scherer from Reuters reported on July 30 that the nonpartisan Canadian civil service had given the recommendation of WE Charity to run the government program giving money to students without the input of Prime Minister Trudeau. In a virtual parliamentary meeting, Trudeau claimed that he “did absolutely nothing to influence that recommendation.” The connection between Trudeau’s family and WE Charity is tangible. CBC Kids News explains that both Trudeau’s mother and his brother have been paid in the past by the organization for being guest speakers at charity events. In the polls, Reuters reports that Trudeau’s political party, the Liberals, has a narrowing lead over its competitors. On July 13, Andy Blatchford from POLITICO quoted Trudeau as being “sincerely sorry” for not recusing himself (removing himself from the matter) totally from his decision. WE Charity has pulled out of the student grant program, which will now be headed by the federal government. Works Cited “About WE Charity.” Https://Www.We.Org, WE Charity, 2020, www.we.org/en-ca/about-we/we-charity.Blatchford, Andy. “Trudeau ‘Sincerely Sorry’ for Contract to Charity with Family Ties.” POLITICO, 13 July 2020, www.politico.com/news/2020/07/13/trudeau-charity-contract-controversy-359731.Gordon, Julie, and Steve Scherer. “Canada’s Trudeau Denies Charity Received Preferential Treatment.” Reuters, 30 July 2020, www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-politics-trudeau/canadas-trudeau-says-there-was-no-preferential-treatment-for-charity-idUSKCN24V2LO.“Here’s What the WE Scandal with Justin Trudeau Is All about.” CBC Kids News, 20 July 2020, www.cbc.ca/kidsnews/post/heres-what-the-we-scandal-with-justin-trudeau-is-all-about. 7/16/2020 0 Comments Chile’s Socio-Economic Debacle In an October 2000 interview, Milton Frieman described how the free market aided the overthrow of Pinochet’s military junta in Chile. “[The] military government followed the opposite of military policies.” The juxtaposition between the top-down hierarchy of a military organization and the bottom-up structure of the free market, as well as the connection between free markets and political freedom, led to the undermining of “political centralization and political control” (“Milton Friedman”).
According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2020 Index of Economic Freedom, Chile ranks #2 among countries in the Americas in economic freedom (“Chile Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business, Trade, FDI, Corruption”). Essentially, the right to one’s labor and property (a free-market principle) is strong in the country (“2020 Index of Economic Freedom”). The country is a success story of free-market principles, strong enough to undermine political centralization and cause a democratic revolution in a fascist-led country. Chile has become “one of Latin America’s wealthiest countries but also one of its most unequal” (“One Million Join Chile March against Inequality”). Notable is the fact that many facets of the current government are remnants of the Pinochet dictatorship. The brother of the Chilean president, Jose Pinera, runs a “privatised pension system… introduced during the dictatorship.” The current constitution was commissioned in 1980, also introduced by Pinochet (“Chile”). The free market ideals that transformed Chile’s economy seemingly left most Chileans behind, as a 2017 UN report “found that the richest 1% of the population earns 33 percent of the nation’s wealth” (“In Chile, Unresolved Economic Problems May Lead to New Protests”). The Chilean public demonstrated their outrage in the widescale protests of 2019, which began early October with “a student-led demonstration against transport fares” (McGowan). Students responded, “[e]vade, and not pay.” In the largest demonstration, over 1 million people, or 5% of Chile’s population, walked the streets of Santiago in solidarity over Chile’s failure to translate their wealth into happiness for many people. Millions of Chileans, young and old, have latched on to the sentiment that the government is no longer working for them. Lili Loufbourow writes in “Chile’s People Have Had Enough” that Chileans face an “unsustainably high cost of living, poverty-level retirements, bad and expensive healthcare, poor education, and crushing debt” (Loofbourow). These protests have ceased, for the most part, amidst the ongoing coronavirus pandemic (Afp); however, the underlying socio-economic issues remain unsolved. As Lucia Newman, Latin America Editor for Al Jazeera describes, “the pandemic is exposing the country’s inequalities.” One family she covers discusses how, when they were poor in 1980, there was hope that the free market would uplift their family. Now, there is no optimism that things will change. “With the resources this country has, these problems should have been solved many years ago,” comments 42-year-old Juan Carlos Gonzalez, who earns slightly more than the minimum wage of $367 a month. Works Cited “2020 Index of Economic Freedom.” Index of Economic Freedom, Heritage Foundation, 2020, www.heritage.org/index/about. Afp, Lucía Lacurcia And. “Pandemic Tensions Revive Protests in Latin America.” The Tico Times Costa Rica, 19 July 2020, ticotimes.net/2020/07/19/pandemic-tensions-revive-protests-in-latin-america. “Chile.” Constitute, 2019, www.constituteproject.org/ontology/Chile?lang=en. “Chile Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business, Trade, FDI, Corruption.” Index of Economic Freedom, Heritage Foundation, 2020, www.heritage.org/index/country/chile. “In Chile, Unresolved Economic Problems May Lead to New Protests.” NBC News, 11 Mar. 2020, www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/chileans-worry-unresolved-problems-may-lead-new-protests-n1155701. Loofbourow, Lili. “Chile’s People Have Had Enough.” Slate Magazine, 26 Oct. 2019, slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/chile-protests-against-president-pinera-and-deep-inequality.html. McGowan, Charis. “Chile Protests: What Prompted the Unrest?” Al Jazeera, 30 Oct. 2019, www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/chile-protests-prompted-unrest-191022160029869.html. “Milton Friedman.” Commanding Heights, PBS, 1 Oct. 2000, www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10. “One Million Join Chile March against Inequality.” BBC News, 26 Oct. 2019, www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50191746. |
AboutEvents from North, Central and South America. ArchivesCategories |