- Massive protests have broken out in Bolivia over accusations that President Evo Morales committed election fraud.
- When polls closed on Oct. 20, results showed the race was headed for a runoff, but then there was an unexplained gap in reports of the election results for nearly 24 hours.
- When new results were posted the next day, it showed that Morales was beating his opponent by a razor-thin margin, and he was later declared president.
- The U.S. and other countries have refused to recognize Morales as the president until after an audit, and many have compared Morales’ tactics to those of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Protests all over Bolivia have continued for over a week now following allegations that President Evo Morales committed election fraud.
On Oct. 20, voters in Bolivia headed to the polls to cast their votes for either President Evo Morales or his opponents, the strongest of which was Carlos Mesa, who himself had served as president from 2003 until he resigned in 2005.
When the polls closed that night, the results from Bolivia’s election tribunal indicated the race was headed for a runoff that analysts said Morales had a strong chance of losing.
But then the tribunal mysteriously stopped updating the election results for nearly 24 hours, and when reporting finally resumed after the unexplained gap, it showed that Morales was beating Mesa by a razor-thin margin needed to avoid a runoff.
In order for Morales to prevent a second round of voting, he needed to win by over 10%. A few days later, the tribunal declared that Morales had secured that margin by less than a percentage point, with Morales receiving 47.07% of the vote to Mesa’s 36.5%.
Protests Over Alleged Fraud
Mesa and other opposition leaders accused Morales of election fraud, and called for people to hold demonstrations.
“What is happening in Bolivia is a gigantic fraud to rob us of our right to go to a second round, where we have a chance of winning,” Mesa said speaking to CNN following the election. “We are talking about a clearly established fraud by a government that has the electoral council at its service.”
Meanwhile, people took to the streets all over the country to protest against the election outcome. While some of the demonstrations have remained peaceful, other protestors have set fire to government buildings and knocked over statues.
These demonstrations have continued since the election, with protestors building barricades and blocking highways and buildings, causing many shops and schools to close down.
Police have reportedly responded by firing tear gas at protestors, and numerous injuries have been reported all over the country.
However, the people demonstrating are not all protesting against Morales. In fact, a lot of the clashes and violence that have been seen at these protests are actually between Mesa’s supporters and Morales’ supporters.
On Monday, both Mesa and Morales held rallies, where they each accused the other’s supporters of inciting violence.
At his rally, Mesa doubled down on the fraud accusations. Earlier in the day, he told Reuters that his protestors would not stop or accept negotiation, and added that the crisis was caused entirely because Morales wanted to stay in power for his lifetime.
“I have no doubt that his intention is to stay in government indefinitely, illegitimately,” Mesa said. “This is a political process that is debasing, deteriorating and corrupting – that is expressed by the desire for power for power’s sake.”
Morales for his part has continued to affirm his victory and deny accusations that any fraud occurred or that he is simply trying to keep himself in power, arguing that his continued elections are the will of the Bolivian people.
He has also claimed that there is a coup attempt underway led by right-wing groups and foreign powers. But at the same time, he has invited the Organization of American States (OAS) to audit the vote, and he said that if the OAS finds evidence of fraud, he will agree to a second round of voting.
In the meantime, the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia have refused to formally recognize Morales as the rightful president of Bolivia following the election. In a joint statement, the four countries said they will not recognize him if the OAS “is not able to verify results of the first round.”
Bolivia’s Foreign Minister announced Wednesday that the OAS audit was set to start the following day and that the results will be binding.
The OAS has called the 24-hour gap in election reporting “surprising” and “worrying,” also saying Bolivian authorities did not have a legitimate explanation for it. The OAS director of electoral observation and cooperation has also said the election should still go to a second round regardless of the audit’s findings.
Meanwhile, Mesa stated on Tuesday that “new elections would be ideal” but that the opposition is “open to all options.”
Morales and Maduro
With the recent allegations against Morales, many have drawn parallels between the Bolivian leader and his close ally and counterpart, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Maduro similarly declared himself victorious in elections last year that were widely considered fraudulent. Like with Bolivia, the U.S. and many other countries refused to recognize Maduro as the rightful president, instead supporting opposition leader Juan Guaidó.
Maduro himself has also spoken out, condemning the protestors and supporting Maduro.
“The Bolivian people will overcome the violence of this attempt by sectors of the right, which want to destroy Bolivian democracy, destroy President Evo Morales and violate the reality of the constitution and laws,” he said in a televised statement last week.
Many of the thousands of protestors who have taken to the streets in Bolivia over the last week or so have reportedly been heard chanting slogans such as “No, and no, I don’t want to live in a dictatorship like the one in Venezuela.”
But the difference between Maduro and Morales is that Morales is still quite popular.
While Maduro is widely blamed for Venezuela’s economic crisis, Morales is credited with bringing massive economic growth to Bolivia, and significantly reducing poverty and inequality in one of the region’s poorest countries.
At the same time, Morales’ once very strong popularity has slipped recently, as more people have accused him of weakening democracy and concentrating power.
Morales had served as the president of Bolivia for more than 13 years since 2006, making him one of the longest-serving leaders in Latin America. But that long tenure has essentially been defined by controversy.
In 2013, Bolivia’s highest court ruled that he could run for a third term, even though the constitution limited the president to two five-year terms.
Then in 2016, Morales proposed a change to the constitution that would end term limits altogether. However, in a national referendum, a majority of Bolivian voters voted against his plan to scrap the term limits, thus preventing him from running again in 2019.
Morales originally said he would accept that outcome, but then in 2017, his party asked the highest court to overrule the referendum.
They argued that preventing elected officials from running indefinitely violated human rights and that the referendum only passed in the first place because of a smear campaign led by the U.S.
Again the court gave Morales a huge win by scrapping the limits entirely, officially allowing him to run for a fourth term. That decision upset a lot of people, who argued that this was a clear tactic for Morales to solidify his hold on power and again compared him to Maduro. Now, those allegations have resurfaced.
See what others are saying: (Reuters) (The Washington Post) (The Wall Street Journal)
Israel Relaxes Abortion Restrictions in Response to U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
The reforms follow similar moves by France and Germany as leaders across the political spectrum denounce the court’s decision.
Health Minister Makes Announcement
Israel is easing access to abortion in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s repeal of Roe v. Wade, Nitzan Horowitz, the country’s health minister and head of the small left-wing Meretz party, announced Monday.
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s move to deny a woman the right to abortion is a dark move,” he said in the announcement, “oppressing women and returning the leader of the free and liberal world a hundred years backward.”
The new rules, approved by a majority in the parliamentary committee, grant women access to abortion pills through the universal health system. Women will be able to obtain the pills at local health centers rather than only hospitals and surgical clinics.
The new policy also removes the decades-old requirement for women to physically appear before a special committee that must grant approval to terminate a pregnancy.
While women will still need to get approval, the process will become digitized, the application form will be simplified, and the requirement to meet a social worker will become optional.
The committee will only conduct hearings in the rare case it initially denies the abortion procedure.
Israel’s 1977 abortion law stipulates four criteria for termination of pregnancy: If the woman is under 18 or over 40, if the fetus is in danger, if the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or an “illicit union,” including extramarital affairs, and if the woman’s mental or physical health is at risk.
All of the changes will take effect over the next three months.
The World Reacts
Politicians across the political spectrum from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson have denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision since it was announced Friday.
On Saturday, French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne expressed support for a bill proposed by parliament that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the country’s constitution.
“For all women, for human rights, we must set this gain in stone,” she wrote on Twitter. “Parliament must be able to unite overwhelmingly over this text.”
Germany scrapped a Nazi-era law prohibiting the promotion of abortion Friday, just hours before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
In Israel, abortion is a far less controversial issue than it is for Americans. Around 98% of people who apply for an abortion get one, according to the country’s Central Bureau of Statistics.
Part of the reason for Israel’s relatively easy access to abortion is that many residents interpret Jewish law to condone, or at least not prohibit, the procedure.
In the United States, several Jewish organizations including the American Jewish Committee, Hillel International, and the Women’s Rabbinic Network have expressed opposition to the court ruling, and some Jews have protested it as a violation of their religious freedom.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (ABC News) (The Guardian)
Flight Deporting Refugees From U.K. to Rwanda Canceled at Last Hour
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the U.K.’s asylum policy sets a “catastrophic” precedent.
Saved By The Bell
The inaugural flight in the U.K. government’s plan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda was canceled about an hour and a half before it was supposed to take off Tuesday evening.
A last-minute legal intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) halted the flight. Tuesday’s flight originally included 37 people, but after a string of legal challenges that number dwindled to just seven.
In its ruling for one of the seven passengers, a 54-year-old Iraqi man, the court said he cannot be deported until three weeks after the delivery of the final domestic decision in his ongoing judicial review proceedings.
Another asylum seeker, a 26-year-old Albanian man, told The Guardian he was in a “very bad mental state” and did not want to go to Rwanda, a country he knows nothing about.
“I was exploited by traffickers in Albania for six months,” he said. “They trafficked me to France. I did not know which country I was being taken to.”
A final domestic effort to block the flight in the Court of Appeals failed on Monday. The High Court will make a ruling on the asylum policy next month.
Britains Divided by Controversial Policy
U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel spoke to lawmakers after the flight was canceled, defending the asylum policy and saying preparations for the next flight will begin immediately.
“We cannot keep on spending nearly £5 million a day on accommodation including that of hotels,” she said. “We cannot accept this intolerable pressure on public services and local communities.”
“It makes us less safe as a nation because those who come here illegally do not have the regularized checks or even the regularized status, and because evil people-smuggling gangs use the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains to fund other appalling crimes that undermine the security of our country,” she continued.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Filippo Grandi, told CBC the policy sets a “catastrophic” precedent.
“We believe that this is all wrong,” he said. “This is all wrong. I mean, saving people from dangerous journeys is great, is absolutely great. But is that the right way to do it? Is that the right, is that the real motivation for this deal to happen? I don’t think so. I think it’s… I don’t know what it is.”
An Iranian asylum seeker in a British detention center who was told to prepare for deportation before being granted a late reprieve was asked by ABC whether he ever thought the U.K. would send him to Africa.
“I thought in the U.K. there were human rights,” he said. “But so far I haven’t seen any evidence.”
The Conservative government’s plan was announced in April, when it said it would resettle some asylum seekers 4,000 miles away in Rwanda, where they can seek permanent refugee status, apply to settle there on other grounds, or seek asylum in a safe third country.
The scheme was meant to deter migrants from illegally smuggling themselves into the country by boat or truck.
Migrants have long made the dangerous journey from Northern France across the English Channel, with over 28,000 entering the U.K. in boats last year, up from around 8,500 the year prior. Dozens of people have died making the trek, including 27 who drowned last November when a single boat capsized.
See what others are saying: (BBC) (The Guardian) (CNN)
Ryanair Draws Outrage, Accusations of Racism After Making South Africans Take Test in Afrikaans
Afrikaans, which is only spoken as a first language by around 13% of South Africa, has not been the country’s national language since apartheid came to an end in 1994.
Airline Won’t Explain Discrimination
Ryanair, Europe’s largest airline, has received widespread criticism and accusations of racism after it began requiring South African nationals to complete a test in Afrikaans to prove their passport isn’t fraudulent.
The airline told BBC the new policy was implemented because of “substantially increased cases of fraudulent South African passports being used to enter the U.K.”
Among other questions, the test asks passengers to name South Africa’s president, its capital city, and one national public holiday.
Ryanair has not said why it chose Afrikaans, the Dutch colonial language that many associate with white minority rule, for the test.
There are 11 official languages in South Africa, and Afrikaans ranks third for usage below Zulu and IsiXhosa. Only around 13% of South Africans speak Afrikaans as their first language.
“They’re using this in a manner that is utterly absurd,” Conrad Steenkamp, CEO of the Afrikaans Language Council, told reporters. “Afrikaans, you have roughly 20% of the population of South Africa understand Afrikaans. But the rest don’t, so you’re sitting with roughly 50 million people who do not understand Afrikaans.”
“Ryanair should be careful,” he continued. “Language is a sensitive issue. They may well end up in front of the Human Rights Commission with this.”
Ryanair’s policy only applies to South African passengers flying to the United Kingdom from within Europe, since it does not fly out of South Africa.
The British government has said in a statement that it does not require the test.
Anyone who cannot complete the test will be blocked from traveling and given a refund.
Memories of Apartheid Resurface
“The question requiring a person to name a public holiday is particularly on the nose given that SA has a whole public holiday NEXT WEEK commemorating an historic protest that started in response to language-based discrimination,” one person tweeted.
South African citizen Dinesh Joseph told the BBC that he was “seething” with anger when asked to take the test.
“It was the language of apartheid,” he said, adding that it was a trigger for him.
Officials in the country were also surprised by Ryanair’s decision.
“We are taken aback by the decision of this airline because the Department regularly communicates with all airlines to update them on how to validate South African passports, including the look and feel,” South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs said in a statement.
Any airline found to have flown a passenger with a fake passport to the U.K. faces a fine of £2,000 from authorities there. Ryanair has also not said whether it requires similar tests for any other nationalities.
Many people expressed outrage at Ryanair’s policy and some told stories of being declined service because they did not pass the test.