On November 17 2019 12:46 des wrote: If anything term limits are undemocratic, unless your definition of democracy has less to do with achieving the goals of the people and more to do with having a fair shot for the opposition every so often. And if this is what democracy is, I will happily declare myself an opponent of democracy. That the will and welfare of the people should fall second to the rules or nominal multiparty politics is absurdity there just like it's absurdity here.
This doesn’t make any sense to me.. Usually the definition of democracy is not just “the rule of the people”. It is also various mechanisms and rules that protect minorities, limit concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. These rules and mechanisms are going to depend on the type of system you are into. Because power tends to be more concentrated in presidential regimes (most of south America, US), terms limits are oftentimes included in the constitution to avoid slide toward dictatorship. This would not be the case in a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada etc as the parliament has more ways to control the executive branch.
Otherwise, I don’t understand why this forum, and many other social media address this crisis as a partisan issue. The current escalation of violence is really concerning and the current government has to respond for several actions taken in the last week (such Sacaba massacres: https://woborders.blog/2019/11/17/nightmare-scenario/ but also decree absolving armed forces of any responsibility ) .
On November 17 2019 12:46 des wrote: If anything term limits are undemocratic, unless your definition of democracy has less to do with achieving the goals of the people and more to do with having a fair shot for the opposition every so often. And if this is what democracy is, I will happily declare myself an opponent of democracy. That the will and welfare of the people should fall second to the rules or nominal multiparty politics is absurdity there just like it's absurdity here.
This doesn’t make any sense to me.. Usually the definition of democracy is not just “the rule of the people”. It is also various mechanisms and rules that protect minorities, limit concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. These rules and mechanisms are going to depend on the type of system you are into. Because power tends to be more concentrated in presidential regimes (most of south America, US), terms limits are oftentimes included in the constitution to avoid slide toward dictatorship. This would not be the case in a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada etc as the parliament has more ways to control the executive branch.
Otherwise, I don’t understand why this forum, and many other social media address this crisis as a partisan issue. The current escalation of violence is really concerning and the current government has to respond for several actions taken in the last week (such Sacaba massacres: https://woborders.blog/2019/11/17/nightmare-scenario/ but also decree absolving armed forces of any responsibility ) .
Considering the rapid increase in violence by police and the failure to progress on the elections which are her mandate, it sounds like you're blaming the victims of a coup for being repressed.
Considering the rapid increase in violence by police and the failure to progress on the elections which are her mandate, it sounds like you're blaming the victims of a coup for being repressed.
No I am not. I think both the government and provincial authorities have to be held accountable for abusive use of force. I am concerned about the rise of the conservative or far right in Bolivia, especially looking back at the history of the country.
What I am saying is that the coup is used as a political shield for Morales government to shift all the blame of the current crisis on the interim government. At the same time, Morales his government and their supporter have been taking actions that contribute to fuel the crisis and the violence cycle. This has to be denounced as well without falling into a partisan-trap.
If you don't believe me, take it from this Bolivian indigenous activist.
Considering the rapid increase in violence by police and the failure to progress on the elections which are her mandate, it sounds like you're blaming the victims of a coup for being repressed.
No I am not. I think both the government and provincial authorities have to be held accountable for abusive use of force. I am concerned about the rise of the conservative or far right in Bolivia, especially looking back at the history of the country.
What I am saying is that the coup is used as a political shield for Morales government to shift all the blame of the current crisis on the interim government. At the same time, Morales his government and their supporter have been taking actions that contribute to fuel the crisis and the violence cycle. This has to be denounced as well without falling into a partisan-trap.
If you don't believe me, take it from this Bolivian indigenous activist.
Not sure how familiar you are with socialist theory and the histories of burgeoning socialist states being overthrown by capitalists but generally I agree with you.
The issue is that while that's a legitimate, although dangerous for socialist ambitions, domestic issue (criticizing Morales), all it does outside of the country is get used for legitimizing the far right coup and further endanger the most vulnerable people.
Both siding the issue brings legitimacy to the group deliberately exploiting valid discontent to sew chaos and prey on a weakened system as we're seeing now.
Not sure how familiar you are with socialist theory and the histories of burgeoning socialist states being overthrown by capitalists but generally I agree with you.
The issue is that while that's a legitimate, although dangerous for socialist ambitions, domestic issue (criticizing Morales), all it does outside of the country is get used for legitimizing the far right coup and further endanger the most vulnerable people.
Both siding the issue brings legitimacy to the group deliberately exploiting valid discontent to sew chaos and prey on a weakened system as we're seeing now.
I see your point, thank you for clarifying your position. I am a little familiar with this kind of thinking, although I doubt that this perspective is useful to analyse the current situation in Bolivia.
I am not sure what you know about the history of Bolivia. Within its two centuries of existence, Bolivia has known more governments than any other countries in the World. Bolivian history is a long serie of revolutions and counterrevolutions by”Caudillos”. A lot was achieved during the revolution of 1952 (including common property for indigenous territories etc.), but many social gains were lost in subsequent coups, and then later by neo liberal government.
To come back to my original point. Although I disagree with Morales on some things (including his fourth run in the presidency), I still believe he has achieved more during its 14 years in power than any other president in Bolivia since the 1950s. His social (and economic) legacy is among the most impressive in the region..
The problem with the current strategy of communication of Morales and his allies is that it frames the current crisis exclusively as a coup against indigenous people by a rampant fascist right. The MAS is urging its supporters to take arms, while Morales tweets that he wants peace. They deny all legitimacy to the movement for democracy that started spontaneously four weeks ago. Note that the first protest movements were mostly bipartisan, peaceful and dominated by urban middle-class, students, centre and left-alternative to the MAS; including several indigenous leaders. The right joined them through the backdoor. They gained more traction over time, as the response of Morales' government became increasingly dismissive and violent.
I sincerely believe that fuelling the tensions and encouraging further polarization is only going to push the centrists, either out of politics or into the arms of the reactionary right. In my view, this is just a gambit by MAS and Morales to sabotage the current climate in order to go back to power asap. It is a dangerous strategy, as it will either succeed or pave the road to a repressive dictatorship. Case in point, Carlos Mesa (centrist alternative to Morales) has been completely eclipsed by fascists clowns such as Camacho.
TLDR: I think that Morales followers should prioritize securing their achievements and legacy and work toward appeasing the situation, (including a possible return of Morales) instead of throwing gasoline on the fire. Also, don't get me wrong I am not blaming the victims. The police has to face its responsibility for the massacres and the oubreaks of the last 3-4 days. The interim government is also behaving irresponsibly in that regard.
Not sure how familiar you are with socialist theory and the histories of burgeoning socialist states being overthrown by capitalists but generally I agree with you.
The issue is that while that's a legitimate, although dangerous for socialist ambitions, domestic issue (criticizing Morales), all it does outside of the country is get used for legitimizing the far right coup and further endanger the most vulnerable people.
Both siding the issue brings legitimacy to the group deliberately exploiting valid discontent to sew chaos and prey on a weakened system as we're seeing now.
I see your point, thank you for clarifying your position. I am a little familiar with this kind of thinking, although I doubt that this perspective is useful to analyse the current situation in Bolivia.
I am not sure what you know about the history of Bolivia. Within its two centuries of existence, Bolivia has known more governments than any other countries in the World. Bolivian history is a long serie of revolutions and counterrevolutions by”Caudillos”. A lot was achieved during the revolution of 1952 (including common property for indigenous territories etc.), but many social gains were lost in subsequent coups, and then later by neo liberal government.
To come back to my original point. Although I disagree with Morales on some things (including his fourth run in the presidency), I still believe he has achieved more during its 14 years in power than any other president in Bolivia since the 1950s. His social (and economic) legacy is among the most impressive in the region..
The problem with the current strategy of communication of Morales and his allies is that it frames the current crisis exclusively as a coup against indigenous people by a rampant fascist right. The MAS is urging its supporters to take arms, while Morales tweets that he wants peace. They deny all legitimacy to the movement for democracy that started spontaneously four weeks ago. Note that the first protest movements were mostly bipartisan, peaceful and dominated by urban middle-class, students, centre and left-alternative to the MAS; including several indigenous leaders. The right joined them through the backdoor. They gained more traction over time, as the response of Morales' government became increasingly dismissive and violent.
I sincerely believe that fuelling the tensions and encouraging further polarization is only going to push the centrists, either out of politics or into the arms of the reactionary right. In my view, this is just a gambit by MAS and Morales to sabotage the current climate in order to go back to power asap. It is a dangerous strategy, as it will either succeed or pave the road to a repressive dictatorship. Case in point, Carlos Mesa (centrist alternative to Morales) has been completely eclipsed by fascists clowns such as Camacho.
TLDR: I think that Morales followers should prioritize securing their achievements and legacy and work toward appeasing the situation, (including a possible return of Morales) instead of throwing gasoline on the fire. Also, don't get me wrong I am not blaming the victims. The police has to face its responsibility for the massacres and the oubreaks of the last 3-4 days. The interim government is also behaving irresponsibly in that regard.
Allowing the coup to stabilize is probably the best way to make sure they lose all of their gains under Morales imo. The west isn't going to support overthrowing a fascist government that is pro-business. Once it's solidified, only a full blown revolution (with the army against them atm it seems) can reclaim it.
Allowing the coup to stabilize is probably the best way to make sure they lose all of their gains under Morales imo. The west isn't going to support overthrowing a fascist government that is pro-business. Once it's solidified, only a full blown revolution (with the army against them atm it seems) can reclaim it.
Well, I think your position is only viable if you are 100% sure that the interim government will not hold its promise to hold fair elections in some weeks. I cannot be that certain, and would prefer waiting before engaging in violent actions and rhetoric that can only increase the current polarization.
Also at this point there is not much evidence that support Western intervention (“the lithium coup”). As for the pro-business.. The last decade of Morales government has been a thriving environment for businesses, including extractive industries… I don’t think any business or foreign investor would trade the stability that prevailed during Morales for the current situation.
On November 17 2019 12:46 des wrote: If anything term limits are undemocratic, unless your definition of democracy has less to do with achieving the goals of the people and more to do with having a fair shot for the opposition every so often. And if this is what democracy is, I will happily declare myself an opponent of democracy. That the will and welfare of the people should fall second to the rules or nominal multiparty politics is absurdity there just like it's absurdity here.
This doesn’t make any sense to me.. Usually the definition of democracy is not just “the rule of the people”. It is also various mechanisms and rules that protect minorities, limit concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. These rules and mechanisms are going to depend on the type of system you are into. Because power tends to be more concentrated in presidential regimes (most of south America, US), terms limits are oftentimes included in the constitution to avoid slide toward dictatorship. This would not be the case in a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada etc as the parliament has more ways to control the executive branch.
The election cycle is already in place to check if the people still want their leader though. Term limits just make them choose a new leader every so often, rather than sticking with a known quantity if they feel that known quantity is doing a good job. You can also provide an additional check if someone's term is a disaster via recall options (Bolivia had one for Morales in 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bolivian_vote_of_confidence_referendum). Power is still granted to the leader with the consent of the people in a democracy. Furthermore, dynasticism is not prevented by term limits, and is an easy workaround.
In short though I think liberal democracy's checks are more focused around providing opposition parties a chance to lead under the apparent supposition that no one government can actually represent the people. Bolivia may well have failed to conform to the standards of liberal democracy, but given the gains Morales made for the indigenous and poor people of Bolivia...maybe that's more damning of us.
Allowing the coup to stabilize is probably the best way to make sure they lose all of their gains under Morales imo. The west isn't going to support overthrowing a fascist government that is pro-business. Once it's solidified, only a full blown revolution (with the army against them atm it seems) can reclaim it.
Well, I think your position is only viable if you are 100% sure that the interim government will not hold its promise to hold fair elections in some weeks. I cannot be that certain, and would prefer waiting before engaging in violent actions and rhetoric that can only increase the current polarization.
Also at this point isn’t much that support Western intervention (“the lithium coup”). As for the pro-business.. The last decade of Morales government has been a thriving environment for business, including extractive industries… I don’t think any business or foreign investor would trade the stability that prevailed during Morales for the current situation.
Allowing the coup to stabilize is probably the best way to make sure they lose all of their gains under Morales imo. The west isn't going to support overthrowing a fascist government that is pro-business. Once it's solidified, only a full blown revolution (with the army against them atm it seems) can reclaim it.
Well, I think your position is only viable if you are 100% sure that the interim government will not hold its promise to hold fair elections in some weeks. I cannot be that certain, and would prefer waiting before engaging in violent actions and rhetoric that can only increase the current polarization.
Also at this point isn’t much that support Western intervention (“the lithium coup”). As for the pro-business.. The last decade of Morales government has been a thriving environment for business, including extractive industries… I don’t think any business or foreign investor would trade the stability that prevailed during Morales for the current situation.
Once they don't it's too late though.
Well ok.. What are the elements in the current crisis that makes you believe that the interim gov will not run elections? Really curious about your answer.
On November 17 2019 12:46 des wrote: If anything term limits are undemocratic, unless your definition of democracy has less to do with achieving the goals of the people and more to do with having a fair shot for the opposition every so often. And if this is what democracy is, I will happily declare myself an opponent of democracy. That the will and welfare of the people should fall second to the rules or nominal multiparty politics is absurdity there just like it's absurdity here.
This doesn’t make any sense to me.. Usually the definition of democracy is not just “the rule of the people”. It is also various mechanisms and rules that protect minorities, limit concentration of power and provide for checks and balances. These rules and mechanisms are going to depend on the type of system you are into. Because power tends to be more concentrated in presidential regimes (most of south America, US), terms limits are oftentimes included in the constitution to avoid slide toward dictatorship. This would not be the case in a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada etc as the parliament has more ways to control the executive branch.
The election cycle is already in place to check if the people still want their leader though. Term limits just make them choose a new leader every so often, rather than sticking with a known quantity if they feel that known quantity is doing a good job. You can also provide an additional check if someone's term is a disaster via recall options (Bolivia had one for Morales in 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bolivian_vote_of_confidence_referendum). Power is still granted to the leader with the consent of the people in a democracy. Furthermore, dynasticism is not prevented by term limits, and is an easy workaround.
In short though I think liberal democracy's checks are more focused around providing opposition parties a chance to lead under the apparent supposition that no one government can actually represent the people. Bolivia may well have failed to conform to the standards of liberal democracy, but given the gains Morales made for the indigenous and poor people of Bolivia...maybe that's more damning of us.
Yes.. However, it somehow puzzles me that a dictator like Putin respected the term limits (at least until now), while Morales thought it would be a good idea to run for a fourth time.
I disagree with your idea that people's vote is enough of a check. If somebody like Morales doesn't respect the term limits, this can be used as a precedent by the next "Caudillo" in charge. And once you stay in power indefinitely, it is very easy to corrupt the system further and use it for your personal gain.
Also, in Morales case it pissed a lot of people off when he put himself above the constitution that he himself drafted.
Allowing the coup to stabilize is probably the best way to make sure they lose all of their gains under Morales imo. The west isn't going to support overthrowing a fascist government that is pro-business. Once it's solidified, only a full blown revolution (with the army against them atm it seems) can reclaim it.
Well, I think your position is only viable if you are 100% sure that the interim government will not hold its promise to hold fair elections in some weeks. I cannot be that certain, and would prefer waiting before engaging in violent actions and rhetoric that can only increase the current polarization.
Also at this point isn’t much that support Western intervention (“the lithium coup”). As for the pro-business.. The last decade of Morales government has been a thriving environment for business, including extractive industries… I don’t think any business or foreign investor would trade the stability that prevailed during Morales for the current situation.
Once they don't it's too late though.
Well ok.. What are the elements in the current crisis that makes you believe that the interim gov will not run elections? Really curious about your answer.
The new minister of the interim Government of Bolivia, Arturo Murillo, announced on Sunday the creation of a "special apparatus of the Prosecutor's Office" to stop deputies related to the Movement To Socialism (MAS) of former President Evo Morales, who according to the official version would be committing acts of subversion and sedition.
So their first acts since taking power have been a religiously fanatic swearing themselves in, cops cutting and burning indigenous symbols, cops attacking a reporter and killing protesters, refusing a deal for elections without explanation, and hunting down the opposition.
Sounds like people that should have been condemned rather than portrayed as fighting for democracy or freedom (which doesn't seem to be their concern at all now that they have power).
Beyond that there's the history of regime changes in South America supported by the OAS and/or the US.
Allowing the coup to stabilize is probably the best way to make sure they lose all of their gains under Morales imo. The west isn't going to support overthrowing a fascist government that is pro-business. Once it's solidified, only a full blown revolution (with the army against them atm it seems) can reclaim it.
Well, I think your position is only viable if you are 100% sure that the interim government will not hold its promise to hold fair elections in some weeks. I cannot be that certain, and would prefer waiting before engaging in violent actions and rhetoric that can only increase the current polarization.
Also at this point isn’t much that support Western intervention (“the lithium coup”). As for the pro-business.. The last decade of Morales government has been a thriving environment for business, including extractive industries… I don’t think any business or foreign investor would trade the stability that prevailed during Morales for the current situation.
Once they don't it's too late though.
Well ok.. What are the elements in the current crisis that makes you believe that the interim gov will not run elections? Really curious about your answer.
The new minister of the interim Government of Bolivia, Arturo Murillo, announced on Sunday the creation of a "special apparatus of the Prosecutor's Office" to stop deputies related to the Movement To Socialism (MAS) of former President Evo Morales, who according to the official version would be committing acts of subversion and sedition.
So their first acts since taking power have been a religiously fanatic swearing themselves in, cops cutting and burning indigenous smybols, cops attacking a reporter and killing protesters, refusing a deal for elections without explanation, and hunting down the opposition.
Sounds like people that should have been condemned rather than portrayed as fighting for democracy or freedom (which doesn't seem to be their concern at all now that they have power).
Beyond that there's the history of regime changes in South America supported by the OAS and/or the US.
Well as I mentioned earlier, Camacho (the guy with the bible) is not part of the government, does not sit in parliament and was not a candidate to the presidential elections. He is a clown who has a very good 6th sense to get attention from Western media (which does not mean he is not dangerous). He is also currently the bogeyman in chief for MAS.
I would agree that the police brutality is concerning. And the same goes for several actions of the interim government. But at the same time there was no typical "coup moves" (i.e. jailing political opponents, cerfews, limited freedom of the press). I still stand by my conclusion that it is better to wait (very cautiously don't get me wrong) instead of setting the whole country on fire.
On Friday, cocaleros used fire arms as well as dynamite and (allegedly) artisanal rocket launchers against the police. And this is Morales' base. The same night hundreds of indigenous communities in Potosi showed that it was also possible to protest the coup without any single bloodshed. And this city is both populated by a majority of indigenous, as well as the centre of the movement contesting the validity of Morales election.
If you see them planning to hunt down opposition like animals, refusing an election (which is their primary job) without explanation, and police attacking reporters/protesters as "no typical coup moves" I think we've reached an impasse.
On November 19 2019 09:51 JimmiC wrote: None of what he said is how you re-framed it. Please don't be incendiary just for the sake of it. Your last post added no value to the discussion, did not respond to what he said or provide no information. Keep that out of here. Thank you.
Hunting them like animals is a quote
Añez’s new interior minister, Arturo Murillo, said Wednesday that he had spoken with police and ordered a hunt for his predecessor, Juan Ramón Quintana — using the Spanish word for hunt that applies to chasing an animal.
“Why is it a hunt? Because he is an animal who is killing people,” Murillo said. Quintana apparently had vanished from sight.
you linked the article that said the new president refused elections without an explanation
Her chief responsibility as temporary leader though is organising new elections within 90 days, and for this she has shown only limited enthusiasm. On Thursday, politicians from Morales’s party and the interim government said they had struck a deal to pave the way for a new vote in 90 days. But on Friday Áñez said that deal had failed, without providing further explanation.
On November 19 2019 09:51 JimmiC wrote: None of what he said is how you re-framed it. Please don't be incendiary just for the sake of it. Your last post added no value to the discussion, did not respond to what he said or provide no information. Keep that out of here. Thank you.
Hunting them like animals is a quote
Añez’s new interior minister, Arturo Murillo, said Wednesday that he had spoken with police and ordered a hunt for his predecessor, Juan Ramón Quintana — using the Spanish word for hunt that applies to chasing an animal.
“Why is it a hunt? Because he is an animal who is killing people,” Murillo said. Quintana apparently had vanished from sight.
you linked the article that said the new president refused elections without an explanation
Her chief responsibility as temporary leader though is organising new elections within 90 days, and for this she has shown only limited enthusiasm. On Thursday, politicians from Morales’s party and the interim government said they had struck a deal to pave the way for a new vote in 90 days. But on Friday Áñez said that deal had failed, without providing further explanation.
Keep the backseat moderating to yourself would ya please?
He explained himself clearly, there is no need to this attacking position. Not agreeing with your choice of news sources and cherry picking out of the stories I post only what you want to hear is what causes issues.
I was trying to just give you a straightforward and friendly bit of advice, but if you would prefer moderation I won't in the future.
Good night.
We have contrary positions for which I made my case and they made theirs and I'm willing to agree to disagree on it lest they make a more convincing argument (and presume they are in the same position). Your unsolicited advice isn't helpful to that end.
EPT
as the parliament has more ways to control the executive branch. ![[image loading]](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ilUbhA3_Stf0/v0/1000x-1.jpg)
