For months, Evo Morales has argued that Bolivia’s Constituent Assembly (elected July 2006) is “plenipotentiary.” Now he’s arguing that the Assembly actually does have limitations, areas in which it doesn’t have “competence.” That area is the question of the republic’s capital. This is ironic for two sets of reasons.
First, the Assembly has made sweeping suggestions that go beyond merely restructuring the central state’s institutions (executive, legislative, judiciary, and constitutional courts). MAS supporters have introduced the subdivision of the country into new administrative units (even doing away w/ the current nine departments altogether). A host of other dramatic changes have been proposed, all under the banner of “refounding the nation.” All this is fine, I think the Assembly should have rather open-ended powers, even though I prefer minimalist constitutions (that is, short ones) to the kind of convoluted documents most frequently produced in Bolivia (the current constitution is more than 50 pages long; in contrast, the US constitution weighs in at less than 10 pages). The new Bolivian constitution will likely have articles recognizing coca, the right of Bolivians to play sport at any altitude, and similar issues. But it’s not empowered to discuss the location of the capital?
Second, technically, La Paz is not Bolivia’s capital. Each version of the constitution has recognized Sucre as the capital. While there is no mention of a capital in the current constitution, the city of Sucre is specifically recognized as the seat of the judicial branches (Articles 117, 119, 122, and 126); the only mention of La Paz in the document is at the signature (the articles dealing w/ the executive & legislative branches don’t mention their location). Any constitutional lawyer in Bolivia should recognize that Sucre is the “constitutional” capital of the republic; La Paz is merely the de facto capital (though only the presidency & legislature sit there).
Thus, it seems odd that Evo wishes to limit the competence of the Assembly on matters that are fundamental to the political constitution, even when trivial (or at least, more “symbolic”) matters are readily introduced into the document. Again, I don’t think the capital should be moved. But I also think it’s odd that the assembly is on the one hand plenipotentiary, but on the other limited in its scope.
