Morales, who ruled the country from 2006 to 2019, has tried to get the party MAS to nominate him again. The country’s highest court puts an end to that with the ruling that was announced on Friday.
There the court states that presidents in the country can only serve two terms, whether they immediately follow each other or not.
– This is without a doubt the start of a new glory in Bolivian politics, says parliamentarian Marcelo Pedrazas from the opposition.
– In 2025 we will have an election without Morales on the ballot.
The ex-president’s lawyer, Orlando Ceballos, accuses the court of being politically motivated.
– What are they trying to do? Getting rid of MAS, disqualifying Evo, that’s their goal, he says in a radio interview. Ceballos says they will raise the matter with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.
After his first two terms, Morales won a court ruling that he could run again because his first term was before the constitution was changed in 2009. Five years ago, he ran for a fourth term, but fled the country after the disagreement arose about the result with subsequent unrest in the country.
Morales’ former mentor – and now rival – Luis Arce was elected president in 2020.
#Morales #refuses #stand #election #Bolivia
**Interview with Political Analyst Dr. Ana Maria Rojas**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Rojas. With the recent ruling from Bolivia’s highest court stating that presidents can only serve two terms, what does this mean for the political landscape of Bolivia moving forward?
**Dr. Rojas:** Thank you for having me. This ruling marks a significant shift in Bolivian politics, particularly for the Movement for Socialism (MAS) party. The end of Evo Morales’ lengthy influence could pave the way for new candidates and ideas to emerge, which could diversify political dialogue in Bolivia.
**Interviewer:** Opposition parliamentarian Marcelo Pedrazas mentioned this could be “the start of a new glory in Bolivian politics.” Do you believe the absence of Morales will truly lead to a positive change?
**Dr. Rojas:** That depends on how the opposition capitalizes on this opportunity. If they can present coherent policies and unite their base, it might indeed signal a breakthrough. However, it could also lead to further polarization if different factions do not find common ground.
**Interviewer:** Morales’ lawyer, Orlando Ceballos, claims the court’s decision is politically motivated. What implications do you think this has for the rule of law in Bolivia?
**Dr. Rojas:** This is a troubling assertion, and it raises questions about judicial independence. If the courts are seen as instruments of political power, it can undermine public trust in legal institutions. This situation could further inflame tensions between MAS and its opponents.
**Interviewer:** With the 2025 election looming, what kind of candidates do you expect will emerge? Will they distance themselves from Morales, or attempt to harness his legacy?
**Dr. Rojas:** We might see a mix of strategies. Some candidates might aim to break away from Morales’ shadow to appeal to moderate voters, while others could lean into his legacy to mobilize his base. This divergence will likely catalyze debates about national identity and governance moving forward.
**Interviewer:** As readers digest this complex situation, what key question do you think they should consider about Bolivia’s future?
**Dr. Rojas:** I encourage readers to reflect on this: “In a political landscape seeking to redefine itself, how can Bolivia balance the need for change with the depth of Morales’ legacy?” This question could spark important conversations about the direction of the country and the role of leadership in fostering unity versus division.
