In most of the major Latin American coups I can think of, 1) the elected President and supporters did make errors, or even broke the law and 2) the coup was preceded by protests.
What matters is how the leader is removed, and which power is installed afterward
What matters is how the leader is removed, and which power is installed afterward
Now, on to Evo Morales: do I personally like the idea of a 4-term president? Nope (though do a coup on Merkel next). Was it OK for him to run? A bad idea, though he technically got court approval. Were there good-faith concerns about the first-round vote-counting process? Yep.
But - after he accepted elections under new authorities (has anyone claimed he would actually lose?) the military forced his resignation and arrested electoral authorities; his home was ransacked; unelected "Macho Camacho" (yes) opposition figure plants a bible in the palace...
I can't confirm this, but I'm seeing reported all over that Camacho's bible performance was accompanied by very worrying anti-indigenous declarations. But even if not - why is he there in the first place?
And Morales is denouncing an apparent warrant issued for his arrest, saying it is illegal. "Coup-plotters are destroying the Rule of Law," he says. Just because he made mistakes over the past few months doesn't mean he can't be right now.
To be clear - the comparison to Merkel is of course a very broad one, and I think Morales violated the spirit of the law (at least) by ignoring the 2016 referendum and running again. Still, that does not mean a military coup cannot come afterward.
And just following up on the other tweet above - La Jornada (MX) reports that it was a pastor and ally of Macho Camacho that said that (indigenous goddess) "Pachamama will never return to the government palace" jornada.com.mx/2019/11/11/pol…
For some reason, the people who really know Latin American history keep saying this more and more. Thread:
