Bolivia’s president set to lose bid for fourth term

USA TODAYLIMA, Peru — Evo Morales’ bid to be president of Bolivia for nearly 20 uninterrupted years looks set to fail. With 72% of the votes counted from Sunday’s referendum on allowing presidents to be reelected twice consecutively, the “No” campaign had garnered 55%. If that result is confirmed by the final tally, as most experts expect, it will mark the first time the self-described socialist has lost at the ballot box since assuming power in January 2006.

In the last 10 years Morales — an indigenous Aymara who used to grow coca and who has long had an antagonistic relationship with Washington — won reelection twice, in 2009 and 2014. He also won two previous referendums, both in 2008: one to see whether he should continue in office, and another to approve the same constitution that he now wants to amend.

That constitution allows presidents to be reelected twice, once straight after their first term and a second time after they sit out a term. The 56-year-old was only able to run in 2014 after he argued — controversially but also successfully — that his first election did not count because it came under a previous constitution.

Morales, however, was being cautious, saying on Monday that his Movement for Socialism party would “patiently wait for the final whistle” from the country’s electoral authorities before conceding defeat. But he also railed against the role played by social media in the election, an example of the supposed authoritarianism that his critics often complain about.

“Perhaps in the future, it will be important to debate this issue of the social media,” he said. “In some countries, with bad information, they bring down governments.”

A key figure in the leftist “pink tide” that has swept Latin America over the last decade-and-a-half, Morales has been hugely popular in Bolivia.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Latest Tweets by @IASecurity

Videos Featuring Our Experts

Kingpins and corruption: Targeting transnational organized crime in the Americas Roger Noriega on the Crisis in Venezuela: The world's response | IN 60 SECONDS

Venezuelan crisis: A brief history by Roger Noriega | IN 60 SECONDS

WAC Philadelphia: Latin America’s Role in 2017 and Beyond, feat. José R. Cárdenas

Promo for CNN's AC360°: "Passports in the shadows", feat. Roger Noriega

Ambassador Roger Noriega on PBS NewsHour discussing U.S.-Mexico relations under Trump

José Cárdenas Interview with Opinion Journal: "Hungry in Venezuela"

Ambassador Noriega Analyzes President Obama’s visit to Cuba on PBS’ ‘Newshour’


During the last several decades, the United States has invested billions of dollars in trying to help the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean deliver better lives for their citizens. This has meant helping them increase internal security by combating the illicit growing and trafficking in narcotics and the activities of terrorist groups, as well as helping them to shore up their democratic and free market institutions.

Unfortunately, in recent years, continued progress in these areas has been threatened, not least by the elections of radical populist governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. These governments have instituted retrograde agendas that include the propagation of class warfare, state domination of the economy, assaults on private property, anti-Americanism, support for such international pariahs as Iran, and lackluster support for regional counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics initiatives.

We are a group of concerned policy experts that fear the results of these destructive agendas for individual freedom, prosperity, and the well-being of the peoples of the region. Our goal is to inform American policymakers and American and international public opinion of the dangers of these radical populist regimes to inter-American security.