Bolivian President Evo Morales was an important symbol of the ascendency of indigenous political groups in Latin America, and he did some genuinely good things for his country.
Inevitably, he slid into more autocratic and undemocratic practices. He defied the constitutional ban on a third term and then rigged an election to grab a fourth. People rioted, the police and military refused to crackdown on the protests and Morales was forced to abdicate. Was it a coup? Possibly.
Immediately in the hellscape of social media, self-appointed experts decided that the CIA must've overthrown Morales, because Bolivia is rich in lithium. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The problem with assigning responsibility to the CIA is that basically strips the Bolivian people of any agency in the affairs of their country. There's a strain of foreign policy thinking that unites elements of the Right and Left that basically holds that anything that happens in the world is because America made it happen. The Berlin Wall? Reagan did that, say conservative. Opposition to Maduro and Morales? Must be the CIA say leftists.
Morales was trampling on democratic norms. Ultimately that was the problem. Now, could it be a right-wing coup? If the subsequent elections have the appearance of fraud, yet a right wing president is installed by the military, then I think we can call it a coup. But if there are free and fair elections, and Bolivians are able to select a new president, then maybe this was an important moment in Bolivia's democratic history. IT, COULD. GO. EITHER. WAY. But to anoint this as another bad action by the CIA because you hate the CIA seems to be rushing to judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment