The vast majority of Bolivian political analysts still suffer from the boomerang hangover from their immediate analysis of what happened in Bolivia last November 10. They have called that civic-military intervention against a constitutional government “constitutional succession” even against the provisions of the Bolivian Constitution.
International opinion, dictionary in hand, has explained to them that this event was a “coup d’état”, but the vast majority of Bolivian analysts were caught up in the illusory slogan: “a spontaneous civic/citizen movement overthrew the Morales government from the streets”.
The days pass, and despite the fact that the national corporate press (private and public under the control of the current usurper government) wastes ink, paper, and time to repeat that “in Bolivia there was no coup d’état,” the main actors in the coup confess with their actions and words that what happened in that South American country, last November 10, was a coup d’état to prevent the presidential re-election of Evo Morales.
Former Santa Cruz civic leader Luis F. Camacho, the main architect of the alleged spontaneous civic protest against Morales, confessed a few days ago that “his father negotiated with the military and police, through the current Minister of Defense, to overthrow Evo Morales”. This unexpectedly leaked audiovisual confession left Bolivian political analysts who deny the coup on the sidelines.
Crutches utilized in Bolivia such as “unity government”, “reconciliation”, “transition”,… to refer to the current de facto regime do not coincide with its actions either. The IACHR and the UN mission established that there were two massacres under the current de facto regime in Bolivia that should be investigated.
The vengeance and the chastisement that the current de facto government minister is undertaking against journalists, digital activists, solidarity activists with the victims of the massacres, dissident social leaders, etc., belie the efforts of the pen of the “well-thinking” analysts.
Not to mention the blatant nepotism in the current de facto regime that surpasses the Roman Curia’s favouritism in the 16th century. Or the distribution of key positions in the administration of public companies. Or the “negotiation of customs and the 250,000 dollars between Camacho and Pumari”. The express cynicism of the supposedly civic patriots overwhelms the “situational narrative” of Bolivian analysts.
Although the “questionable” final report of the OAS on the latest Bolivian electoral process has already “beaten” Bolivian opinion makers, the latest statements by Jeanine Añez (the self-proclaimed President of Bolivia) on the upcoming elections are devastating to analysts who deny the coup.
“…we don’t want the vote to be dispersed, we don’t want what happened on October 20 to happen,” says Añez, referring to the upcoming elections. What happened on October 20? The Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) won those elections in the first round. The neoliberal political parties were not able to put together a single political front to confront the MAS.
The self-proclaimed President calls for the unity of the political parties in the next elections to avoid a repetition of the October 20 election results.
Given such a confession on the part of the president, why do Bolivian analysts still persist in their “lucubration” that there was no coup d’état in Bolivia? Could it be that there is a special dictionary of political science for Bolivia? Or could it be that Bolivian politics is simply not a science?
Translation by Internationalist 360°