Vote in democratic fragility

When this text comes into being, the vote will take place in Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. This is a second subnational round in Bolivia, a first presidential and legislative round in Peru and a second presidential round in Ecuador. Three different choices but all steeped in uncertainty and fragmentation.

The uncertainty not only about the outcome, nor because of the pandemic – it was voted with some normality last year – but because of long-standing institutional deterioration. This has been the reason for the fragmentation, generating a natural disaffection among the citizens and, consequently, an increasingly fragile democracy. And this is a feature of politics in almost all of Latin America.

In bolivia the second round of governors will be held in La Paz, Tarija, Chuquisaca and Pando. Already on Sunday March 7, on the occasion of the first subnational round, it had become clear that the final victory of Arce-Choquehuanca in October 2020 was an anomaly caused by the fragmentation of anti-masism, initially 10 candidates then reduced to 5 Thus, in 2021, the MAS was defeated in the main cities of the country.

Thus, five days after this electoral disappointment, and after Evo Morales’ consultation with Havana, the MAS government proceeded to co-opt the judiciary, an offensive intended to absolve supporters and persecute opponents. It was followed by a real witch hunt which violates the rights of Jeanine Añez and several of her former ministers and collaborators.

In short, the vote in Bolivia is undergoing serious changes in the constitutional order. Perhaps the country is on the verge of breaking up, a kind of Fujimori but “on the left”, according to them.

In Peru Voting in conditions of extreme fragmentation, 18 candidates are vying for the presidency. Polls indicate that less than 3 points separate the leading six, a range of 6.8% to 9.5%, while 25% of society is indifferent to the election and 26% of those interested in voting are undecided. This is not a scenario that inspires confidence or optimism.

It is the inevitable result of recurring institutional crises, plagued by cases of corruption, prosecutions and convictions of former presidents, disqualification of candidates and a short history of political parties. In other words, parties that emerge with a winning candidate do not disappear until a short time later. All of this for decades, in fact.

It is a very Peruvian miracle that, in this context, the economy has grown steadily and that inequalities have fallen sharply.

In Ecuador the second presidential round takes place between Andrés Arauz and Guillermo Lasso, an election under the shadow of Rafael Correa. Arauz is the latter’s dolphin. All the other candidates in the first round, nine in total, are staunch opponents of Correismo, a political force known for its corruption and authoritarian practices. By the way, Correa is doomed and a fugitive.

As was the case in Bolivia compared to the MAS, the ongoing fragmentation could well deliver the victory to Correísmo, in particular because of the accusations between Lasso and the candidate Yaku Pérez, third in the first round.

Moreover, during the 2017 election, Yaku Pérez declared that a banker was “preferable to a dictatorship”. This is a fairly topical dilemma; Correa’s return to Ecuador would not be exactly Rómulo Betancourt’s return to Venezuela. They should know that political pettiness often wears out society and breeds apprehension; this increases the percentage of undecided and indifferent.

Correa’s possible return would also be a litmus test for justice; Look at Argentina where the priority of Kirchnerism is the exoneration of its corrupt leaders. Like in Bolivia, a possible return of the correísmo to the power forces us to reflect on the subsequent persecutions of the adversaries. Correa’s renowned trolls threaten opponents without discriminating against them too much.

Democracy in Latin America is struggling and in serious trouble. So many years of changing the constitution at will, persecuting journalists, and interfering with justice – without stealing the elections, either with the design of the electoral system or with the vote count – have left their mark.

Authoritarians aligned with Castro-Chavismo, ALBA, Puebla, São Paulo and other strategies are good at doing politics, understanding politics as the building of a Cuban one-party system and its perpetuation in power. Democrats in the region, those who protect the separation of powers, individual guarantees and alternation are on the defensive. Democracy passes through their fingers without seeming to be able to hold it back.

The dream of 2001, when the Inter-American Democratic Charter was signed, a continent in which only Cuba needed to be fully democratic, is today that, a dream. And by the way, we feel very far away.

KEEP READING: