Those Wacky August Bolivian Elections

When the good people of my home state, California, held a recall vote on the Governor a few years ago there were two nice things about it. The first is that it was truly great entertainment, with everyone from an action hero (he won) to a porno star jumping into the fray. The second is that the rules of the game were clear in terms of what it took to win or lose.

It is that second aspect that seems to be missing from Bolivia's planned recall vote for the President, Vice President, and the State Governors on August 10th. A month ahead of a vote that could reshape the nation's politics in historic ways the politicians involved are still debating how the vote should be conducted, what constitutes winning, and in one case whether he is willing to participate at all – national law aside.

"Dear Evo, Pretty Please Let Us Correct Our Error"

Yesterday opposition leaders in Bolivia's Senate and civic groups from six regions joined together in a call to change the formula by which the vote would be held. Under the law as it stands now – legislation approved two months ago with opposition support – the various elected leaders on the ballot can only be kicked out if the NO votes against them exceed both the percentage of the vote they were elected with in 2005 and also exceed the raw total of votes those politicians received in that election.

In other words, President Evo Morales, elected with just over 53% of the vote in 2005 could have a majority of voters cast their ballots NO on Evo and still win. Alternatively, poor José Luis Paredes, elected Governor of La Paz with just 37% of the vote in 2005, could have more than 60% of his constituents cast votes in his favor and still lose. Get it?

Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is a decidedly uneven playing field to Evo's advantage. The formulas were the Morales' government's idea, based on the argument that a smaller number of voters in August 2008 should not be able to undo what a larger number of voters did at the polls in December 2005.

So, why did the opposition leaders – those now so eager to switch to a straight formula of 50% plus one – approve the law in the first place? Let's put it this way. In some countries laws are preceded by a series of "whereas" clauses in which lawmakers pontificate about why the law involved is important. If such were the case with the law the opposition is seeking now it might read as follows:

Whereas we are a bunch of complete political incompetents who, on the heels of victory in the Santa Cruz autonomy referendum, got very cocky and decided to call Evo's bluff on a revocatoria vote. Whereas we passed the law with Evo's formula completely betting that he was bluffing and would veto it, giving us some political advantage. Whereas he called our bluff and agreed to have he and everyone else stand for a vote on August 10. Whereas we painted ourselves into a corner that anyone with a brain could have seen coming (but for us). We therefore resolve to ask Evo, pretty please, to give up the whopping political advantage we never actually intended to give him.

Now, personally I am guessing that they won't actually write it that way. And of course, Evo has responded to the request in the way that a Bolivian soccer team might, if asked to kindly move a championship match from 12,000-feet-high La Paz to sea-level Asuncion just because the Paraguayans forgot about high altitude. As one of my older kids might say, "Yeeah, right!"

I believe the phrase that Evo used in reaction to the request for a new law governing the vote was, "not one comma."

Manfred Reyes Villa 'Just Says No'

Of course, the really great act to watch is our own dear Governor here in Cochabamba, the well-coifed Manfred Ryes Villa (picutured above). If you blink for three seconds you might miss his latest change of position on the recall vote.

In January of 2007, when clashing protests for and against him threw the City of Cochabamba into a bloody street battle, Manfred proposed precisely such a vote as the solution to the nation's political stalemate. When Morales and the Congress actually approved the vote in May, unlevel formula included, Manfred took to CNN to tell those listening that if Bolivia had only listened to him and convened such a vote earlier that lives would have been saved. Then a couple of weeks ago Manfred joined with some of his fellow opposition governors to say that, regardless of it being set by national law, he wasn't going to participate.

Such things happen when you read unpleasant poll results.

Since then all of the other objecting opposition governors have basically taken the position that, even though the vote formula is unfair, a law is a law and they are gearing up their campaigns. We can only imagine the choice words they have had for PODEMOS Senators in private.

But not Manfred. Yesterday he announced that he will not participate in the vote and if the votes stack up against him on August 10th he will not leave office. Well, so much for bragging rights on CNN, I suppose.

So let us imagine a scenario. Manfred, who may or may not have won the 48% support he needed had he campaigned, does not campaign so as to add to his 'the election is not legitimate' argument later. As a result he loses, perhaps substantially given the glee with which MAS supporters would like to oust him.

Manfred's opponents, led by MAS, declare him to be Cochabamba's ex-Governor and Evo names a replacement to his liking (Evo gets to do this whether he wins or loses, since he remains President for 90 days pending new elections). Manfred, on the other hand, declares the vote invalid and himself the still-Governor of Cochabamba.

And if that happens don't doubt for a moment that the conflict will spread to the streets. In a heartbeat Cochabamba could look once again like what it did in the last street battle over Manfred, in January 2007, only this time it will be that battle on steroids. Keep that in mind if you have travel plans here in late August.