Bolivian right eyes return in elections marked by economic crisis
The Andean country is struggling through its worst crisis in a generation, marked by annual inflation of almost 25 per cent and critical shortages of fuel and foreign exchange.
Polls show voters poised to punish the ruling Movement Towards Socialism (known by its Spanish acronym MAS), in power since Evo Morales was elected Bolivia's first Indigenous president in 2005.
"We're experiencing a tremendous crisis so we need a change," Alicia Vacaflor, a 62-year-old importer of industrial machines, told AFP after voting in the biting cold at a school in central La Paz.
Karla Coronel, a 46-year-old market analyst, agreed on the need for a new direction.
"Socialism has brought us nothing good," she declared.
More than 7.9 million Bolivians are eligible to vote Sunday, choosing between eight presidential candidates as well as electing 166 members of Bolivia's bicameral legislature.
Center-right business tycoon Samuel Doria Medina and right-wing ex-president Jorge "Tuto" Quiroga are the favorites to succeed Morales's unpopular successor, Luis Arce, who is not seeking re-election.
Polls showed Doria Medina, 66, and Quiroga, 65, neck-and-neck on around 20 percent, with six other candidates, including left-wing Senate leader Andronico Rodriguez, trailing far behind.
A run-off will take place on October 19 if no candidate wins an outright majority.
The two frontrunners have vowed radical reforms to Bolivia's big-state economic model if elected.
They want to slash public spending, open the country to foreign investment and boost ties with the United States, which were downgraded under the combative Morales, a self-described anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist.
"Today is a very important day for Bolivians because through voting we can emerge from this economic crisis peacefully, democratically," Doria Medina told the press after voting at a polling station in La Paz.
Agustin Quispe, a 51-year-old miner, accused both the left and right of failing to advance "new ideas."
Branding Doria Medina and Quiroga, both of whom are on their fourth run for president, "dinosaurs," he said he supported centre-right candidate Rodrigo Paz.
- Shades of Argentina -
Analysts say the election resembles that of Argentina in 2023, when voters dumped the long-ruling leftist Peronists and elected libertarian candidate Javier Milei in a bid to end a deep economic crisis.
"What people are looking for now, beyond a shift from left to right, is a return to stability," Daniela Osorio Michel, a Bolivian political scientist at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, told AFP.
Unlike Milei, who was a political newcomer, Doria Medina and Quiroga are experienced candidates.
Doria Medina, a millionaire former planning minister, made a fortune in cement before going on to build Bolivia's biggest skyscraper and acquire the local Burger King fast food franchise.
Seen as a moderate, he has vowed to halt inflation and bring back fuel and dollars within 100 days, without cutting anti-poverty programs.
The tough-talking Quiroga, who trained as an engineer in the United States, served as vice-president under ex-dictator Hugo Banzer and then briefly as president when Banzer stepped down to fight cancer in 2001.
"We will change everything, absolutely everything after 20 lost years," he trumpeted during his closing rally in La Paz on Wednesday.
- Morales looms large -
Bolivia enjoyed more than a decade of strong growth and Indigenous upliftment under Morales, who nationalized the gas sector and ploughed the proceeds into social programs that halved extreme poverty.
But underinvestment in exploration has caused gas revenues to implode, falling from a peak of $6.1 billion in 2013 to $1.6 billion last year.
With the country's other major resource, lithium, still underground, the government has nearly run out of the foreign exchange needed to import fuel, wheat and other key commodities.
Bolivians have repeatedly taken to the streets to protest against rocketing prices and hours-long waits for fuel, bread and other basics.
Morales, who was barred from standing for a fourth term, has cast a long shadow over the campaign.
The 65-year-old has called on his mostly rural Indigenous supporters to spoil their ballots over the refusal by electoral authorities to allow him to run again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
9 hours ago
- The National
What can go wrong when diplomats are above the law?
Diplomatic immunity is a fundamental principle of international law that allows diplomats to perform their duties without fear of coercion or harassment from their host state. This principle was notably highlighted during the Tehran hostage crisis that began in 1979, when the International Court of Justice reaffirmed that the law of diplomatic relations is essential for maintaining peaceful interstate connections and the stability of the global legal order. Although diplomatic immunity is crucial, its application often raises concerns because it can shield envoys from accountability for serious misconduct. With roots going back more than 6,000 years, the concept of diplomatic immunity serves as both a vital safeguard and a source of public frustration, prompting calls for reform to align it with the realities of the 21st century. The origins of diplomatic immunity can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamian civilisations, where messengers played a pivotal role in communication and governance. The Code of Hammurabi, established around 1754 BCE, imposed severe penalties for harming messengers, underscoring their importance in maintaining order across vast empires such as Assyria and Babylonia – modern-day Iraq. These envoys, often appointed by kings and carrying royal seals, enjoyed immunity from arrest during official missions and local authorities were required to help them deliver their messages promptly. This historical precedent laid the groundwork for modern diplomatic protections. By the 18th century, countries such as Great Britain formalised these principles through laws such as the Diplomatic Privileges Act of 1708, recognising that safeguarding the both the dignity and independence of foreign envoys were essential for effective diplomacy. Today, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations codifies these protections, ensuring that diplomats can operate free from undue interference. Historically, three main theories have justified diplomatic immunity. The first, known as representative theory, viewed diplomats as extensions of their sovereign, deriving their dignity and immunity from the ruler. This theory faced criticism for placing diplomats above the law and has largely been abandoned due to its potential for abuse. The second, the extraterritoriality theory, emerged in the 17th century and treated diplomatic premises as extensions of the sending state's territory, exempting diplomats from the host state's jurisdiction. However, its reliance on legal fiction and tendency to grant unlimited privileges led to its decline. The prevailing modern justification is the functional necessity theory, which posits that immunity is essential for diplomats to perform their duties independently, free from political or legal pressures. This theory underpins the Vienna Convention, balancing privileges with obligations to respect the host state's laws. The Vienna Convention's Article 41 outlines diplomats' rights and responsibilities, requiring them to respect local laws, avoid interfering in the host state's affairs and use mission premises appropriately. Diplomats and their families are also prohibited from engaging in profit-making activities. While most diplomats adhere to these rules, the convention's broad immunities have enabled abuses, including criminal offences, civil violations and administrative misconduct. High-profile cases – such as diplomats evading traffic fines, tax obligations or even serious crimes like assault – have fuelled public outrage, as victims are often left without recourse. The convention provides remedies such as expelling diplomats, waiving their immunity, exercising the sending state's jurisdiction or even cutting diplomatic ties. However, these measures are underutilised owing to political considerations and the reciprocal nature of immunity, which discourages states from taking action for fear of retaliation. This creates a cycle in which diplomatic convenience often trumps accountability, undermining public trust in the system. Diplomatic immunity is a double-edged sword. Without it, diplomats face risks of harassment, fabricated charges or even being taken hostage, particularly when relations between states are strained. The Tehran hostage crisis vividly demonstrated the chaos that ensues when diplomatic protections are violated. Yet, unchecked immunity can lead to impunity, allowing diplomats to evade justice for serious crimes. This tension between protecting diplomats and ensuring accountability lies at the heart of the debate over diplomatic immunity. For ordinary citizens, the inability to hold diplomats accountable – whether for civil claims like unpaid debts or criminal acts like violence – creates a sense of injustice. Article 41's requirement to respect local laws is often overshadowed by the broad protections afforded to diplomats, leading to perceptions that they operate above the law. This imbalance has sparked calls for reform to better align diplomatic immunity with principles of fairness and public security. Technological advancements have transformed diplomatic communication, reducing reliance on traditional methods like diplomatic bags and couriers. Satellite communication, mobile phones, emails and video conferencing have enabled direct negotiations between government ministers, non-diplomatic officials and private sector actors. The inability of host states to prosecute diplomats for criminal acts or compensate victims of civil offences undermines public confidence in the justice system Public diplomacy is increasingly conducted through mass media, the internet and public-private initiatives, even in developing nations. These changes have diminished the exclusive role of diplomats as envisioned in Article 3 of the Vienna Convention, which outlines their functions as representing the sending state and fostering friendly relations. Despite these shifts, a physical diplomatic presence remains indispensable. Face-to-face interactions allow diplomats to assess public sentiment, gather first-hand information and maintain confidential channels that technology cannot fully replicate. For example, nuanced negotiations or crisis management often require the personal touch and formality of traditional diplomacy. Although technology has streamlined communication, it cannot replace the practical utility of in-person liaison between diplomats and the host state. The Vienna Convention, rooted in customary practices from a pre-digital era, is increasingly misaligned with modern realities. Absolute immunity, as the adage 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' suggests, risks fostering impunity for serious diplomatic misconduct. The inability of host states to prosecute diplomats for criminal acts or compensate victims of civil offences undermines public confidence in the justice system. To remain relevant, the convention must evolve to reflect technological advancements and changing diplomatic roles. Reform should focus on striking a balance between functional necessity and accountability. Key proposals include restricting immunity to acts directly related to diplomatic duties, with clearer mechanisms to address criminal and civil violations. For instance, serious crimes like assault or trafficking could be excluded from immunity protections. States should more readily utilise remedies like expulsion or the waiving of immunity. Sending states could also exercise jurisdiction over their diplomats' misconduct, ensuring accountability without disrupting diplomatic relations. The convention should acknowledge the role of modern communication technologies, potentially reducing the need for blanket immunities. For instance, secure digital channels could replace some traditional diplomatic functions, narrowing the scope of required protections. A more robust framework for reciprocal accountability could deter abuses while maintaining diplomatic protections. States could agree to standardised responses to misconduct, reducing the political barriers to action. In conclusion, while diplomatic immunity is essential for fostering peaceful interstate relations, its current form leans too heavily towards protecting diplomats at the expense of public security and justice. The public's growing intolerance for diplomatic impunity, coupled with technological advancements, underscores the need for reform. A modernised Vienna Convention should prioritise functional necessity while ensuring accountability for abuses, protecting both diplomats and the citizens of host states. Achieving this balance requires political will to overcome the inertia of reciprocity and a commitment to adapting diplomatic law to the 21st century. By limiting immunity to essential functions, strengthening accountability mechanisms and integrating technological realities, the international community can preserve the integrity of diplomatic relations while addressing legitimate public concerns.
UAE Moments
19 hours ago
- UAE Moments
More Celebrities Speak Out on Gaza: U2, Madonna, Olivia Rodrigo, and Radiohead
More and more artists are stepping into the conversation on Gaza, with U2, Madonna, Olivia Rodrigo, and Radiohead recently making statements. Some are heartfelt, some are cautious, but all show how the crisis is impossible to ignore. U2 Divided in Their Words The Irish band made a joint post on August 10, with each member sharing their take. Bono condemned both Hamas and Israel, calling Netanyahu's government a 'moral failure.' Meanwhile, The Edge didn't hold back—using words like 'genocide' and 'ethnic cleansing.' The mixed messaging sparked even more debate among fans. Olivia Rodrigo's Emotional Plea The young pop star spoke up in July, calling the Gaza humanitarian crisis 'horrific and completely unacceptable.' She spotlighted children suffering without food, water, or medical care and even donated to Unicef, encouraging her fans to pitch in too. Madonna's Call to the Pope Madonna appealed to Pope Leo XIV earlier this month, asking him to bring light to Gaza's children. Her post was deeply personal—she tied it to her son's birthday, saying the best gift she could give was to fight for innocent lives. Still, she avoided directly condemning Israel, sticking to a 'both sides suffer' message. Radiohead's Complicated Stance Radiohead has long faced heat for performing in Israel despite boycott calls. But in May, Thom Yorke finally addressed Gaza head-on, slamming Netanyahu's government as 'out of control' and labeling the siege 'horrific.' Critics, however, said his words still fell short—especially when he questioned the 'Free Palestine' rallying cry.
Zawya
a day ago
- Zawya
President El-Sisi Meets Governor of the Central Bank of Egypt
Today, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi met with the Governor of the Central Bank of Egypt, Mr. Hassan Abdallah. The Spokesman for the Presidency, Ambassador Mohamed El-Shennawy, said the meeting addressed several topics related to the performance of the Egyptian economy during the current period, including efforts to reduce inflation rates and indicators for enhancing the country's foreign exchange reserves. The meeting also reviewed the situation of the global economy, the repercussions of the challenges facing various countries around the world, and their implications for the overall economy. President El-Sisi emphasized that the availability of sufficient dollar resources reflects positively on the provision of a reassuring stock of various goods, petroleum products, and production supplies for factories. The President also stressed the need to continue efforts to increase dollar earnings, particularly from local resources, and to continue coordination between the government and the Central Bank of Egypt to ensure the maintenance of a flexible and unified exchange rate for foreign currency. The meeting also reviewed items related to providing opportunities and financing for the private sector to drive economic growth, which attract more investment flows and maximize the role of the private sector in economic activity. President El-Sisi gave directives to enhance incentives to benefit from the available economic opportunities and provide opportunities for the private sector to drive economic growth, which would contribute to attracting more investment flows. The President stressed the need to continue intensive efforts to provide conditions conducive to attracting more foreign investment and empower the private sector. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Presidency of the Arab Republic of Egypt.
