Multiparty summit, primaries and La Cañada

The outcome of the multiparty summit, even if only on paper, will bring a certain degree of certainty to the next two major electoral processes. In the agreement, the political forces and representatives of the country’s public power committed to guaranteeing the judicial and general elections in 2025, while maintaining the status quo in the primary elections.
However, politically, these agreements, on the one hand, set transparency parameters and lead to a redistribution of seats based on new data from the 2024 census, and on the other hand, there are winners and losers depending on the results. In this sense, the biggest loser is Evo Morales, who wants to breathe life into his hopeless Lacaña Congress.
To better understand the latter, we will generally observe the political, economic, and social context surrounding the event.
Politically, the government, lacking a parliamentary majority, is gradually weakening and faces many upheavals, from judicial elections to “coups”. However, the main upheaval is the fierce and violent dispute within the Socialist Movement (MAS) for control of the acronym and the qualifications of official candidates for the 2025 presidential elections, which threatens social unrest. However, this is a war with many battles and a time limit. In 2024, if everything goes well, as it has so far, without any amendments, we can attend the funeral of the largest party in Bolivian history.
Economically, the situation is extremely delicate and complex. The fiscal deficit is unsustainable. The government “does not have the money” to continue providing subsidies, bonuses and support for a large number of unproductive state-owned enterprises. It is increasingly unlikely that resources will be obtained to cover the deficit, as they have exhausted all of them. The latest data on risk indicators have classified Bolivia as an insolvent country. Therefore, unless we first negotiate with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), we will lose our credit status. On the other hand, the inflationary spiral is a specter with a terrible threat.
Socially, in recent weeks, before the “coup”, conflicts have escalated due to gasoline shortages, lack of dollars, and sudden price increases. Protests and blockades continue. In addition, the traditional polarization between “popularism” and “anti-popularism” has undergone a qualitative change. On the contrary, the polarization between “evistas” and “antievistas” has tended to consolidate. This has been clearly seen in the multilateral meetings.

In this context, a multiparty summit was held at the initiative of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), which faced the threat of electoral conflict as three elections were held simultaneously: those for magistrates, primaries and general elections.
The TSE proposed to suspend this year’s primaries at the outset, citing the priority of holding judicial elections. The “evista” faction, in turn, advocated for holding closed primaries before the event. The “arcista” faction, in turn, paradoxically advocated for holding open primaries and eventually suspending them, since their implementation requires a millionaire budget. Before the event, the traditional opposition bloc did not make any proposals.
In a development of events – see changes – Evo Morales intends to negotiate the suspension of primaries in exchange for “respect for the Laúcaña Congress”, his re-election as president of the MAS in October 2023 and his declaration as the sole candidate for the presidency, or, finally, not to hold any party congress until the adoption of national elections in 2025, an activity he abandons given the unanimous rejection by his opponents.
On the one hand, the agreement, called the “Democratic Manifesto,” has important promises—let’s know if they are fulfilled—to strengthen democracy, such as audits of voter rolls, the “mandatory” implementation of the Transmission of Results Preliminary Elections (TREP) and new districting and the corresponding redistribution of seats.
On the other hand, we observe new failures for Morales in his attempts to prove his credentials as a candidate, with the agreement that the “new right” will unite against him.
The suspended primaries in the agreement would have prohibited him from being a candidate, which is why he is now its main defender. He recently said he would do “whatever it takes” to become a presidential candidate, but ignored the situation. Now he warns to “defend the primaries in the streets.” He changed his rhetoric, but not his threats.
From this perspective, Morales – and he admits this – is the one who has the most to lose from the outcome of summit politics. If the “primary suspension law” proposed by the Tokyo Stock Exchange is approved, then the only option left is to “take to the streets.”