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 Sofia Gutiérrez**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Sofia. The recent ruling by Bolivia’s highest court has generated significant reactions across the political spectrum. What do you make of the court’s decision to bar Evo Morales from running for president again?
**Sofia Gutiérrez:** Thank you for having me. This ruling is undoubtedly a pivotal moment in Bolivian politics. It not only enforces the two-term limit for presidents but also symbolizes a shift away from Morales’ long-standing influence.
**Interviewer:** Marcelo Pedrazas from the opposition has called this a “new glory” for Bolivian politics. Do you think this could foster healthier democratic practices in the country?
**Sofia Gutiérrez:** Potentially, yes. The absence of Morales on the ballot may encourage the emergence of fresh political voices and reduce the polarization centered around him. However, it will depend on whether the political environment allows for genuine competition and discourse.
**Interviewer:** On the flip side, Morales’ lawyer claims the court’s decision is politically motivated, aiming to sideline the MAS party. How do you respond to concerns about the politicization of the judiciary in Bolivia?
**Sofia Gutiérrez:** This is a valid concern. Historically, Bolivia’s justice system has been accused of alignment with the ruling powers, so it’s crucial to scrutinize the motivations behind such decisions. If the judiciary is seen as an extension of political interests rather than an independent branch, it can undermine public trust in the democratic process.
**Interviewer:** Many bolivians might wonder—do you believe Morales remains a significant influence on political dynamics, even if he cannot run for office?
**Sofia Gutiérrez:** Absolutely. His legacy, both positive and negative, will continue to shape Bolivian politics. His ability to mobilize support remains strong, and even in his absence, his ideology will linger in political discussions and party strategies.
**Interviewer:** As the country looks ahead to the 2025 elections, what are your thoughts on the potential for real political change in Bolivia?
**Sofia Gutiérrez:** That ultimately depends on how various political entities adapt to this new landscape. If opposition parties can unite and present a coherent alternative to the MAS, we might witness a significant transformation. However, if factions remain divided, the opportunity for change could diminish.
**Interviewer:** Thanks for sharing your insights. To our readers, how do you feel about the potential for a new political era in Bolivia without Morales? Do you believe this decision truly fosters democratic principles, or is it another step toward political maneuvering? Let’s hear your thoughts.
