Bernie Sanders, others call it a coup, but never denounced Morales’ election fraud in Bolivia | Opinion
The presidents of Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the president-elect of Argentina — plus U.S. Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders — either remained silent or congratulated former Bolivian President Evo Morales for his fraudulent Oct. 20 election. Now, that Morales has been pushed out, they are angrily denouncing what they call a “coup.”
But was Morales’ forced resignation really a “coup?” Or was it a legitimate restoration of the rule of law after an unconstitutional president rigged an election?
And should Morales be in Mexico, where he arrived Tuesday after being granted political asylum, or should he be in a Bolivian jail on election-fraud charges?
These are important questions for reasons that go way beyond Bolivia’s political crisis. They raise the issue of whether an armed forces’ potential demand for free elections in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba or Honduras would be a coup, or just the opposite — a justified move to restore constitutional order.
To be clear, contrary to what admirers of late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet believe, I don’t think there’s such a thing as a “good” coup or a “good” dictator. Whenever the military breaks constitutional order, it should be denounced as a coup and be subjected to international sanctions.
That’s why over the years I have criticized both rightist and leftist coups, including those of Pinochet, Argentina’s dictator Jorge Rafael Videla, and — yes — the 2002 coup against Venezuela’s late strongman Hugo Chávez.
In all of those cases, the military toppled or forced the resignations of democratically elected presidents.
Bolivia’s Morales, by comparison, was an unconstitutional president clinging to power way beyond his constitutional term limits. In addition, he blatantly rigged his latest election victory. It’s hard to argue that there can be a “coup” against a coup monger.
Under Bolivia’s constitution, Morales, who took office in 2006, was allowed to serve only two consecutive terms. But he twisted the laws to stay in power way beyond these term limits.
In 2016, he held a referendum to let him run for a fourth consecutive term. He lost, but ran anyway. Then, he rigged the Oct. 20 elections, according to his own government-invited 92-member electoral observation mission from the Organization of American States. A subsequent audit by a separate 30-member OAS team, also invited by the Morales government, corroborated that he had not won the first-round vote, as he claimed.
Massive protests had erupted, and the country was almost paralyzed after Morales had proclaimed himself the winner. His supporters say that Morales’ departure was a coup because the military suggested that he quit to prevent further violence.
Morales critics, however, argue that the military never put a pistol to his head or threatened to use violence against him, but merely made a suggestion that he leave office to allow free elections and solve the crisis.
In the case of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, it’s almost laughable that dictatorships that have not allowed free elections in six decades — such as Cuba — or have rigged their most recent elections now dare to give lessons about democracy.
And in Democratic presidential candidate Sanders’ case, his view is probably a mixture of ignorance, blank support for Latin America’s leftist regimes and nostalgia for his 1985 trip to support Nicaragua’s radical leftist Sandinista regime. Sanders’ adoration for leftist dictatorships makes him politically radioactive in Florida if Democrats nominate him as their candidate in 2020 elect. In that case, they probably shouldn’t even bother to campaign in Florida.
As for left-of-center Mexican president Andres Manuel López Obrador and Argentina’s President-elect Alberto Fernandez, their enthusiastic support for Morales is a typical case of selective defense of democracy. They shamefully congratulated Morales for his election fraud in October, while praising the violent riots in Chile and Ecuador against these countries’ legitimate presidents.
Still, if Bolivia’s new interim President Jeanine Añez remains in power indefinitely, it will be a coup. But if the constitution’s line of succession is respected, and she calls for a new election within 90 days without running herself as a candidate, it will a constitutional move to invalidate Morales’ illegal power grab.
Don’t miss the “Oppenheimer Presenta” TV show at 8 p.m. E.T. Sunday on CNN en Español. Twitter: @oppenheimera
This story was originally published November 11, 2019 at 4:13 PM.
