Textbook Coup

It's getting harder for the corporate media to dress up the coup in Bolivia as a people power uprising. Reuters reports that

Earlier on Tuesday, [self-declared interim president] Anez called for Bolivians to come together but fell short of promising protection for MAS lawmakers who have asked for safety guarantees.

“We are emerging from one of the darkest episodes of our democratic history,” said Anez. “To those who have caused damage or committed any crime: God and justice will judge you.”

More than 30 election officials have been arrested following Morales’ resignation, according to the office of Bolivia’s attorney general.

That's why Morales had to resign; he was headed to prison otherwise. The fact that Peru and Ecuador refused to accommodate the Mexican transport of Morales shows that the coup was an international effort of the Organization of American states, which preposterously claimed that yes there was a coup but it was perpetrated by Morales himself when he engaged in electoral fraud on October 20.

On the purported vote rigging Jacobin writes,

Delegitimizing foreign elections where the wrong person wins, of course, is a favorite pastime of corporate media. There is a great deal of uncritical acceptance of the Organization of American States’ (OAS) opinions on elections, including in coverage of Bolivia’s October vote (for example, BBC; Vox; Voice of America), despite the lack of evidence to back up its assertions. No mainstream outlet warned its readers that the OAS is a Cold War organization, explicitly set up to halt the spread of leftist governments. In 1962, for example, it passed an official resolution claiming that the Cuban government was “incompatible with the principles and objectives of the inter-American system.” Furthermore, the organization is bankrolled by the US government; indeed, in justifying its continued funding, US AID argued that the OAS is a crucial tool in “promot[ing] US interests in the Western hemisphere by countering the influence of anti-US countries” like Bolivia.

In contrast, there was no coverage at all in US corporate media of the detailed new report from the Washington-based think tank CEPR, which claimed that the election results were “consistent” with the win totals announced. There was also scant mention of the kidnapping and torture of elected officials, the ransacking of Morales’s house, the burning of public buildings and of the indigenous Wiphala flag, all of which were widely shared on social media and would have suggested a very different interpretation of events.

Words have power. And framing an event is a powerful method of conveying legitimacy and suggesting action. “Coups,” almost by definition, cannot be supported, while “protests” generally should be. Chilean president Sebastian Piñera, a conservative, US-backed billionaire, has literally declared war on over a million people demonstrating against his rule. Corporate media, however, has framed that uprising not as a protest, but rather a “riot” (for example, NBC News; Reuters; Toronto Sun). In fact, Reuters described the events as Piñera responding to “vandals” and “looters.” Who would possibly oppose that?

Morales was the first indigenous president in his majority-indigenous nation — one that has been ruled by a white European elite since the days of the conquistadors. While in office, his Movement Towards Socialism party has managed to reduce poverty by 42 percent and extreme poverty by 60 percent, cut unemployment in half, and conduct a number of impressive public works programs. Morales saw himself as part of a decolonizing wave across Latin America, rejecting neoliberalism and nationalizing the country’s key resources, spending the proceeds on health, education, and affordable food for the population.

Bolivia is headed toward civil war. Self-declared interim president Jeanine Añez Chavez is facing dissolution of her self-appointment today by a majority of legislators, according to Clifford Krauss:

It seemed uncertain that Ms. Añez would be able to calm the tense and deeply polarized nation. Shortly after her announcement, members of Mr. Morales’s party said they would hold another legislative session on Wednesday to nullify her decision.

Añez can ignore the duly elected legislature or she can order members of the majority imprisoned. Both are illegal and very difficult to defend in the mainstream press.

Añez has already called the army out into the streets. Can the army quell a popular uprising or are we headed toward another shattered nation?

We know from the last decade-plus that the U.S. prefers a failed state to a functioning one.