More photos at my Flickr page

About

  • I’m a political science professor who posts regularly on Bolivian politics. I also occasionally discuss interesting books, pop culture, and daily life with a toddler. I’ve recently moved to Oxford, Mississippi.
  • Here’s my current vita. You can also view some of my recent publications.
  • You can also find me on Twitter & Facebook.
  • Send questions & comments by email.

The Basics

The Coffee Table

The Reference Desk

Noticias de Bolivia

  • A selected list of Bolivian news media:

Bolivia's new electoral law: A brief analysis

April 16, 2009
Tags:

On Wednesday, Bolivia’s legislature passed the final version (en detalle) of the country’s new, “transitional” electoral law. There were a number of interesting compromises in the bill, which changed it not only from the original MAS proposal, but also from the version passed (en grande) a few days earlier in plenary session. Overall, the new law is an interesting compromise—and one that mostly benefits the opposition, not MAS.

The law outlines rules for two upcoming elections:

December 9, 2009
On this date, voters will cast ballots for president & vice president, the new “Plurinational Legislative Assembly,” an autonomy referendum in Andean departments, and a regional autonomy referendum in the Chaco municipalities of Tarija.

This will be the first presidential (and vice presidential) election to use a two-round runoff system. Additionally, a presidential candidate can win w/o a simple majority in the first round if he/she wins at least 40% of the vote and places at least 10 points ahead of the second runner-up. Also, this will be the first time that presidential reelection is permitted (limited to two consecutive terms), making Evo eligible to run again.

In addition, the new legislature is somewhat modified. Despite the name change, the legislature will remain essentially the same, and it will continue to be a bicameral body (the original MAS proposal called for a unicameral legislature). Additionally, the Senate has been enlarged, giving each department four seats (up from the previous three seats). This will most likely benefit the opposition in two ways: 1) it will make winning additional seats in the Andean departments easier; 2) it will over-represent the eastern lowland departments (for example, Tarija has only about 5% of the national population but 11% of the Senate seats). Currently, the opposition has a slim (one seat) lead in seats in the Senate, which gives it control of the chamber. That likely won’t change w/ this system.

The lower house has a few minor changes as well. The new law reserves 7 “indigenous” seats (down from the 14 in the original MAS proposal, and 8 in the law passed a few days ago). Additionally, Chuquisaca & Potosí won’t receive any indigenous seats, despite the fact that they have significant indigenous (mostly Quechua) populations according to the 2001 census (66% in Chuquisaca, 84% in Potosí). Each of the remaining departments will have one reserved seat for indigenous candidates, which will be subtracted from the department’s “plurinominal” (list candidate) total. Otherwise, Bolivia retains its mixed-member proportional electoral system, which now will tilt further towards majoritarianism.

The two autonomy referendums are interesting. First, because no such referendum will take place in the “Media Luna” departments (Santa Cruz, Beni, Pano, Tarija). This means that the government is accepting the 2006 (and/or 2008) autonomy referendums. It will then extend the same option to the remaining departments. But the “regional” referendum for Tarija’s Chaco municipalities is also interesting. This is a new mid-level regional autonomy provision stipulated in the new constitution, making Tarija’s Chaco a test case. It’s also a compromise, because the original MAS proposal would have allowed Santa Cruz & Chuquisaca’s Chaco municipalities to also have autonomy referendums & allow them to join together to form an autonomous region that crossed department borders. But the provision also opens the door to other regions that have long sought some level of autonomy from their department, such as Potosí’s Tupiza region.

April 4, 2010
On this date, Bolivia’s will go to the polls again. This time they will elect “governors” (the law now recognizes them by that title) in the Media Luna and any other departments that approve of autonomy in December 2009. Departments that reject autonomy will still get to elect their prefects. (I’m unclear what the legal/constitutional consequences of the difference between a “governor” and a “prefect.”)

Voters in the Media Luna will also elect their departmental assembly, using the formulas in the autonomy statutes approved in 2008 (this is a major concession by MAS that retroactively legitimizes the wildcat referendums). The sizes of the assemblies are: Santa Cruz 28, Beni 28, Pando 16, and Tarija 30. In addition, the other departments will elect their department councils: Chuquisaca 21, La Paz 45, Cochabamba 34, Oruro 33, and Potosí 32.

Finally, on this date voters will also elect municipal mayors & councils. The last municipal elections were in December 2004, and are long overdue (they are supposed to be held every five years).

What does this mean?
Nothing is ever certain, of course. Evo claims that he will win reelection (he probably will) & that MAS will win 70% of the seats (rather unlikely). But the changes do not tilt the game sufficiently in his favor. The reduction of indigenous seats has pushed the lowland indigenous confederation (CIDOB) away from its alliance w/ MAS. If that break sticks, it’s possible that 3-4 of the indigenous seats could be held by opposition indigenous candidates. On the other hand, it’s unclear if the addition of 3-4 “safe” indigenous seats will compensate for potential losses from declining middle class support in the cities (particularly La Paz & Cochabamba), which can tip the balance, depending on the specific vote-to-seat formula used to hand out the plurinominal list seats.

In the end, I suspect that MAS will win a majority of the lower house (though there could be an upset), but the opposition will manage to hold on to the Senate. Additionally, the prefects/governors will have incentives to run against the central state & could become thorns in Evo’s side. The final result is likely to be a continuation of the kind of bipolarization we’ve seen since 2005, w/ the opposition winning significant bastions of power w/ new constitutional protections.

Once again, Evo negotiated away much of the MAS platform in exchange for a guarantee that he can run for reelection—which he’s likely to win. But the tensions w/in his own coalition (which is now more CONALCAM than MAS) plus the tactical victories of the opposition will make his next term even more difficult. Especially if the global economy continues to slump.

Post this to: Digg del.icio.us Facebook Newsvine reddit Technorati Google


Comments

Thanks for the analysis. Myself have been terribly busy and did not take the time to look at it. I'm glad congress is bicameral with one trying to represent population and the chamber representing territories. Like you said, not so long ago, Evo was adamant against this and I was worried. A bicameral adds a layer of transparency and debate just as is a good solution to balance population vs regions.

I am a bit concerned about the run off. I believe that the way things were, political alliances were necessary and created an atmosphere for debate and compromise...aka un empate productivo. Now we are going to see a lot more hardened positions and more radicalism since they no longer have an incentive to not alianate rivals much less form an alliance.

What I think is clear, however, is that Evo is willing to compromise "unnegotiables" in exchange for staying in power. At this point, I have zero hopes that he'll be the statesman Bolivia needs. His business is politics and not policy.

Posted by chasqui April 16, 2009 10:54 AM

    Miguel,

    Thanks for the update. In the context of this push towards autonomy and federalism in Bolivia, what is your opinion on the resolutions being passed in multiple state legislatures here in the U.S. demanding enforcement and respect for the 10th amendment? I see this as a very similar reaction to centralizing fiscal power in the U.S. It is very interesting to me that these countries who are so very different in many ways are undergoing questions of constitutional federalism in such similar ways.

    Posted by Mike W. April 17, 2009 9:18 AM

      @Chasqui: I, too, liked the previous "parliamentarized presidential" system in Bolivia. Despite its flaws, it provided a level of democratic stability not seen in Peru or Ecuador during the 1980s-1990s.

      @Mike W: I'm not familiar w/ the US cases you refer to. But I am also interested in the idea that democratization (the transition from authoritarianism to democracy) seems to give impulse to local/regional/ethnic autonomy movements that call into question the very nature of the existing nation-state structure.

      Posted by mcentellas April 18, 2009 10:09 AM

        Miguel,

        Here is a link discussing the state resolutions.

        http://www.causeofliberty.com/2009/03/oklahoma-tenth-amendment-resolution-joined-by-19-other-states/

        Sorry about the long link. Regarding your comment, I think that the nation-state has run its course and smaller governmental entities for smaller geographic regions are the future. If only it can be done without the Balkanization of the entire world.

        Posted by Mike W. April 19, 2009 9:08 PM


          Twitter Updates

          • My 5 most recent tweets:
              Follow along on Twitter

            Search


            Categories

            Archives

            Posta Classico