Meanwhile, in Bolivia:
14/11/19 13:49![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancesofthelight posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics In the beginning, a man of Indigenous Bolivian descent took power in Bolivia, and imposed the most successful socialist regime in South America. Naturally the global Left, witnessing a true proletarian and true success, fawned all over the Leftie Pinochet in Venezuela, who presided over an oil tycoon's regime while simultaneously claiming big oil is burning the planet alive and devouring the world in the Molochian power of climate change.
Under the Bolivian Constitution, however, Presidents are only allowed to serve two terms, and two means two, not four. Naturally, as little beholden to his own laws as a Trump or a Putin, Morales lied and claimed a Constitution in 2009 didn't mean *those* two terms, and his court full of his equivalents of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said "OK, fine by us." So Morales served what was really his third term, claiming it was his second. The global media saw, yawned, and said "Who gives a flying fuck about Bolivia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/bolivia-evo-morales--president-third-term
Naturally, in finest 'Puty and Medvy switcheroo' status, Morales decided that the real meaning of second term was that he wanted a fourth, and he so desperately, badly needed one. Unfortunately for him, 51% of the Bolivian people said "No thank you" and nobody, except Morales, screamed this election was rigged and that he was denied human rights by a majority decision of the Bolivian people (if a very thin majority. Then again it's what we in the USA call a 'majority' election and nobody bats an eye that the lowest possible bar qualifies here, so why should Bolivia get special treatment?).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bolivia-referendum/bolivias-morales-accepts-defeat-in-term-limit-referendum-idUSKCN0VX09E
So then, in what is perhaps the most audacious use of human rights as a political football since the Helsinki Accords and the 'Three Baskets', Evo Morales refused to accept that 51% was enough of a no vote, and in perfect EU fashion decided he was going to get what he wanted anyway. So he goes to the court and did a rather sniveling temper tantrum that if he wasn't given yet another term, his actual fourth, that he would be denied human rights.
Not surprisingly, a court of MAS cronies said "Sure, we'll go along with that."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42165258
Two years later, he does exactly what he said he was going to do, and as it turns out, after shenanigans like this, he didn't quite get the results he wanted, so he stopped counting the votes lest he be denied human rights by yet another election, because the human rights of people in power equal a gods-given right to hold it indefinitely.
https://www.axios.com/bolivia-election-results-evo-morales-runoff-december-3766494e-6e99-4b66-be08-fc5543369d66.html
A military Putsch putting Evita Peron but dumber in power proclaiming that the Indians will be driven into the Mountains and the Chaco, and blamed on the USA, because someone who engineered a third term, screamed and howled that not having a fourth was a human rights violation, and then found out that the School of the Americas graduates running the Bolivian Military decided this was exactly what they would like to do anyway found out that it's easier to engineer staying in power than it is to keep it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/morales-bolivia-military-coup
talkpolitics , I ask you: is there literally anyone else in the world who would proclaim running for another term of office is a human right who'd expect anyone else not beholden to them to accept this at face value?
That's the grim irony behind the putsch, it replaces an already lawless mindset of entitlement to indefinite power, and manages to pull a 1936: lawless leftists succeeded by murderous thugs in uniform on the Right, proclaiming adherence to ancient history but motivated by all too modern outside forces to keep it.
Under the Bolivian Constitution, however, Presidents are only allowed to serve two terms, and two means two, not four. Naturally, as little beholden to his own laws as a Trump or a Putin, Morales lied and claimed a Constitution in 2009 didn't mean *those* two terms, and his court full of his equivalents of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said "OK, fine by us." So Morales served what was really his third term, claiming it was his second. The global media saw, yawned, and said "Who gives a flying fuck about Bolivia.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/bolivia-evo-morales--president-third-term
Naturally, in finest 'Puty and Medvy switcheroo' status, Morales decided that the real meaning of second term was that he wanted a fourth, and he so desperately, badly needed one. Unfortunately for him, 51% of the Bolivian people said "No thank you" and nobody, except Morales, screamed this election was rigged and that he was denied human rights by a majority decision of the Bolivian people (if a very thin majority. Then again it's what we in the USA call a 'majority' election and nobody bats an eye that the lowest possible bar qualifies here, so why should Bolivia get special treatment?).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bolivia-referendum/bolivias-morales-accepts-defeat-in-term-limit-referendum-idUSKCN0VX09E
So then, in what is perhaps the most audacious use of human rights as a political football since the Helsinki Accords and the 'Three Baskets', Evo Morales refused to accept that 51% was enough of a no vote, and in perfect EU fashion decided he was going to get what he wanted anyway. So he goes to the court and did a rather sniveling temper tantrum that if he wasn't given yet another term, his actual fourth, that he would be denied human rights.
Not surprisingly, a court of MAS cronies said "Sure, we'll go along with that."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42165258
Two years later, he does exactly what he said he was going to do, and as it turns out, after shenanigans like this, he didn't quite get the results he wanted, so he stopped counting the votes lest he be denied human rights by yet another election, because the human rights of people in power equal a gods-given right to hold it indefinitely.
https://www.axios.com/bolivia-election-results-evo-morales-runoff-december-3766494e-6e99-4b66-be08-fc5543369d66.html
And what does all this lead to?
A military Putsch putting Evita Peron but dumber in power proclaiming that the Indians will be driven into the Mountains and the Chaco, and blamed on the USA, because someone who engineered a third term, screamed and howled that not having a fourth was a human rights violation, and then found out that the School of the Americas graduates running the Bolivian Military decided this was exactly what they would like to do anyway found out that it's easier to engineer staying in power than it is to keep it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/13/morales-bolivia-military-coup
In all of this, the prior history of Bolivia that was by no means a secret was forgotten, and the spectacular audacity of proclaiming a human right to indefinite terms in office and in power was neglected.
So, people oftalkpolitics , I ask you: is there literally anyone else in the world who would proclaim running for another term of office is a human right who'd expect anyone else not beholden to them to accept this at face value? That's the grim irony behind the putsch, it replaces an already lawless mindset of entitlement to indefinite power, and manages to pull a 1936: lawless leftists succeeded by murderous thugs in uniform on the Right, proclaiming adherence to ancient history but motivated by all too modern outside forces to keep it.
(no subject)
Date: 15/11/19 08:42 (UTC)As for power, it corrupts, always. The longer you stay in power, the more corrupt you become, and the more of it you want, ever more badly. Doesn't matter if you're a leftie dictator who came from the commonfolk but found out sitting on the top has certain sweetness about it; or a Pinochet-like murderous thug propelled and parachuted into the throne by a CIA-trained clique of faschizoid thugs. It's all the same: like Cersei Lannister told Petyr Baelish, "Power is power".
I enjoyed the snarky style, as usual.