Former President of Bolivia, Jeanine Áñez, will be tried this year for the alleged offense of non-compliance with duties and resolutions contrary to the Political Constitution of the State.
The process will be carried out within the framework of a Judiciary that has been extremely questioned by public opinion due to its political dependence and the constant questioning of the former president by sectors aligned with the MAS (Movement to Socialism) party, who accuse her of being a coup leader. for assuming the Presidency in 2019 without respecting the internal procedures of the Plurinational Assembly.
However, it should be borne in mind that Áñez assumed the presidency based on a constitutional sentence and at a critical moment due to the government gap, in order to avoid greater chaos, following the resignation of Evo Morales and all the authorities. to which the presidential succession corresponded.
This political event continues to polarize Bolivian society, and the question remains: Is Áñez a victim of a judicial system politically dependent on the government in power, or guilty of the death of civilians who demonstrated in favor of former President Evo?
Victim of a politicized judicial system?
Six factors must be taken into account to understand Áñez’s ascension to the presidency on an interim basis and his legal recognition by the Legislative Assembly with a majority of the MAS.
First, Evo violated the Constitution when he ran for a fourth consecutive term in 2019 after a referendum that denied him the presidency in 2016.
Second, MAS congressmen did not participate in the extraordinary session of the Assembly convened to resolve the power gap.
Third, on November 12, 2019, after Añez assumed the Presidency, the Plurinational Constitutional Court (TCP) gave legal support to the succession in the framework of Constitutional Sentence 0003/01 of July 31, 2000, which is based on the “vacancy” of the president.
Fourth, Evo was the one who summoned the OAS (Organization of American States) to audit the elections.
Fifth, there are the irregularities of the 2019 electoral process, demonstrated by OAS observers.
And, finally, Article 4 of the Exceptional Law for the Extension of the Constitutional Mandate of Elected Authorities, signed by MAS representatives in January 2020, declares that “exceptionally, the mandate of the President of the Plurinational State is extended… swearing in of the new authorities”.
The socio-political crisis of 2019 placed Añez as a key actor with a margin of action because his investiture provided institutional security in the face of the chaos that developed before, during and after the chain of resignations by the ruling party (MAS) that led to political anarchy.
However, this year Áñez finds himself the victim of a judicial system that is highly questioned for its bias when it comes to political opponents of the MAS.
According to his legal defense, there are numerous illegalities in the process, including his state of health, as he is on a hunger strike; the development of the case and the trial through ordinary courts and not in the Legislative Assembly and through a judgment of responsibilities; among others.
Guilty of the death of citizens?
An infamous event at the beginning of Áñez’s administration was the death of more than 30 citizens in the towns of Senkata (La Paz) and Sacaba (Cochabamba), as a result of military and police operations.
This is the axis of the MAS’s questioning about its interim government and the political-institutional conditions under which it was appointed president of Bolivia.
To explain the MAS’s questioning about the political-institutional conditions in which it took over as its first representative, we identified four legal certainties.
First, the Plurinational Assembly did not meet to admit or deny Evo’s resignation from the Presidency.
Second, the parliamentary majority was not present to receive the president’s swearing-in.
Third, the Constitution establishes a line of presidential succession to the president of the Chamber of Deputies (Áñez was second vice president of the Senate representing the minority opposition bloc).
Finally, Supreme Decree No. 4078, of November 15, 2019, exempts the contingent of the Armed Forces that participated in the re-establishment of internal order from criminal liability.
In short, the violations of the Constitution and the deaths provided the scenario for the MAS to accuse Áñez of being guilty of violating the constitutional order.
Paradoxical, catastrophic, unfair and reprehensible
It is paradoxical that the Plurinational Assembly, which did not swear to her to take office in 2019, then extended her term in 2020, and that the Constitutional Court recognizes her as the first representative at the time and then, with the new government, of Luis Arce , deny it.
The Supreme Decree that gave the military the green light to shoot at mobilized citizens, free from any criminal responsibility, was catastrophic.
It is unfair for a justice system that does not allow due process to a former representative because it lacks a political power to support it.
And it is reprehensible to violate the Constitution, as Evo did to run for the fourth consecutive time for the presidency, and as Áñez did in the Plurinational Assembly to be sworn in as first president.
Áñez’s dual condition of victim and culprit is contradictory because it responds to different certainties, criteria, ideologies and premises.
There is no single truth. For some, Áñez is a symbol of democracy and resistance; for others, coup d’etat and death.
Therefore, as it is not a politically solvable case, it will continue to polarize Bolivian politics, which benefits a minority and harms the majority.
Translation of Giulia Gaspar
