What is Happening in Bolivia? From the botched 2019 elections to MAS’ triumphal return in 2020, and beyond

de las elecciones fallidas del 2019 al regreso triunfal del MAS en el 2020 y más allá

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.28939/iam.debats-137-2.3

Keywords:

Bolivia, Crisis, MAS, Movimientos Sociales, Transiciones Políticas

Abstract

After winning three consecutive presidential elections in 2005 (53.74%), 2009 (64.22%) and 2014 (61.36%), Evo Morales only polled 47.08% in the controversial 2019 elections, which were marred by accusations of fraud from opponents and international observers and which ended with Morales’ ouster amid street protests, police riots, and Army intervention. However, almost exactly a year later, his party — Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) — won 55.1% of the votes and returned to power under Luis Arce and David Choquehuanca. What seemed like a triumphant return of the only broad-based Bolivian party soon showed internal rifts when it came to selecting candidates for the March 2021 regional elections. Evo Morales' return to the country in November 2020 and his efforts to remain as the head of the Party and above all to personally choose its candidates led to further internal strife and electoral defeats. This paper analyses the reasons for the fall of the hitherto unbeatable former President and his Party, as well as the reasons for the early return of the MAS, focusing on its links to society. It also charts popular disenchantment with the party as its long spell in government wore on. The paper delves into the political shifts that took place over this period, their impacts on the 2021 regional elections, and the likely consequences for the Party’s future.

Published

2023-11-17

Issue

Section

SPECIAL ISSUE

How to Cite

Cunha Filho, C.M. (2023) “What is Happening in Bolivia? From the botched 2019 elections to MAS’ triumphal return in 2020, and beyond: de las elecciones fallidas del 2019 al regreso triunfal del MAS en el 2020 y más allá”, Debats. Journal on culture, power and society, 137(2), pp. 41–56. doi:10.28939/iam.debats-137-2.3.