Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The war waged by politicians using judges in Bolivia is an omen of what is to come for Mexico with the “democratic” election of its judges. The war in that Andean country was unleashed by politicians seeking positions, who wage confrontations by forcing “their” judges to endorse or reject legally controversial behaviors and aspirations. Each side seeks that “their” judges twist the law with interpretations in their favor.
It is pertinent to remember that Evo Morales, the former President of Bolivia, convinced AMLO of the political convenience of promoting the “democratic” election of judges in Mexico to benefit those in power. The clear and precise understanding was that the election of judges would allow those with political power to fill almost all the judgeships with unconditional supporters. And said and done: since the candidates do not campaign, they are virtually unknown to 90% of the population. With a turnout that did not exceed 20% participation, Morales managed to mobilize his party to elect all the judges in Bolivia.
Having absolute control over the Judiciary allowed Morales to create the legal framework that his interests required. National and foreign investment had to negotiate directly with him the conditions of their operation in the country. The law of Bolivia was Morales’s word, not what the Constitution or the laws emanating from it said. The Bolivian Judiciary bowed to the dictates of President Morales.
Morales finally had to leave power when a popular plebiscite denied him permission to repeat in power for a fifth time.
However, Morales left the presidency in charge of his favorite pupil, Luis “Lucho” Arce, the former Bolivian Minister of Economy during Morales’ long term in office. The military forced Morales to seek asylum, first in Mexico (remember Ebrard’s awkward hug when Morales got off the plane) and then in Argentina. But when “Lucho” won the presidency, he also managed to arm an important group of judges in his favor.
Thus, from the Bolivian Supreme Court to the last district judge, both Arce and Evo Morales had their supporters embedded in the entire Bolivian Judiciary. At that point, the political war between them began.
Morales returned to Bolivia from his refuge in Argentina, intending to compete in the next presidential elections as the candidate of his movement, Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS). However, pro-Arce judges denied Morales the right to run again, citing the legitimacy of the popular referendum of previous years. Other judges, supporters of Morales, gave him a free hand to run for the Presidency of the Republic. And so the war between the judges, including that country’s Supreme Court, was unleashed.
The Supreme Court’s President is a Morales supporter, but there is a tie with Arce’s supporters. Thus, the Judiciary cannot resolve the conflict between the two positions since Arce also intends to run for the Presidency for the MAS.
To deepen the country’s political crisis, Arce apparently staged a military coup attempt against his government to justify the dismissal of Bolivian Army commanders allied with Morales. Thus, he secured the army’s support to strengthen his claim for the presidential candidacy.
Evo Morales organized a march from his territories in the coca-growing areas of Bolivia to La Paz, the Bolivian capital, to destabilize Arce’s government and provoke its fall. However, Arce mobilized his followers, supported by the Army, and they rejected the arrival of Morales’ people ready to overthrow the government. Morales had to retreat to his territories. At all times, the central demand of the protests was for the Judiciary to recognize Morales’ right to run for the Presidency of Bolivia.
But things did not stop there. The Prosecutor of the Department (State) of Tarija, Sandra Gutiérrez, ordered the arrest of Morales for pedophilia but was dismissed by her boss, a friend of the former President, leaving the resolution without effect for his alleged crimes of human trafficking and smuggling people. Then Bolivia’s national prosecutor warned that he had “a process against Morales with an open investigation” for allegedly raping a 15-year-old minor when he was President in 2015.
Some pro-Morales judges defend him and excuse him from any accusation, while judges addicted to Arce accuse and investigate him with the intention, apparently, of imprisoning him. From the city of Cochabamba, Morales declares his innocence, clarifying that the trial on the alleged rape was dismissed and that it is a political persecution by Arce, who does not want to allow him access to the presidential candidacy.
This is the political war unleashed between two characters who have taken over the Bolivian judiciary “democratically” elected by a minimal part of the Bolivian population. They have turned the Bolivian Judiciary into a simple pawn of the interests of Bolivia’s political, business, and criminal groups.
In that country, the reigning law is the law of the strongest.
Let us transfer this Bolivian experience to Mexico as it is lived today and in real-time. The “democratic” demagogy about the popular election of judges is the same in Mexico as in Bolivia. The resistance to this change in the Judiciary in Mexico is also cataloged by AMLO, the incumbent President, and Morena as a coup d’état, just as it happened in Bolivia. However, the same political, economic, and criminal actors happily salivate with the fantasy of controlling the entire judicial power. At the same time, they prepare their lists of judges that they will impose with the vote of the submissive masses, benefactors of Morena, even if it is only 10% or 15% of the electoral roll. That is how they did with the revocation of the mandate in 2022. That is how few voted in Bolivia, and that is how it will be in Mexico.
Some might think it is absurd to compare Mexico, an economic power and international political actor, with Bolivia, a landlocked country with a population depleted by the economic crisis and years of isolation. But both countries have something in common. They have political classes dedicating their time and energy to cultivating, fostering, and strengthening their peoples’ most profound complexes and insecurities, continually discussing the imminent danger of a new conquest by evil foreign forces. They have created the myth that they can survive only through tlatoanis as leaders. There is not the slightest intention of fostering a democratic culture. Everything has to do with imposing leadership: the stern and domineering father. These are societies where the dominant force is hegemonic and absolutist.
Bolivia is telling us what awaits us with this path. Mexico is going straight to the election of a Judicial Power that will establish a new tombstone over a people half buried in authoritarianism and subordination. There is an opportunity for resistance before the burial of the constitutional and republican order. The workers of the Judicial Branch and the Judicial Branch itself can defeat this path that marks the route to the death of democracy and of Mexico itself. Will society rise to defend itself and save Mexico, accompanying the workers of the Judicial Branch?
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Further Reading: