Bolivian Judicial Elections are Unconstitutional

Abstract

This paper argues that the elections of Bolivia’s main judicial authorities violate fundamental guarantees of independence and impartiality, among others. While no system for appointing national judicial authorities is perfect, any model that is adopted must respect certain parameters and standards established both in the Bolivian Constitution and in the Inter-American Human Rights System. The research analyzes the regulations governing the current judicial model and its incompatibility with the constitutional guarantees enshrined in international conventions and treaties. It is striking, however, that the Constitution (Art. 182.II) simultaneously recognizes the holding of elections and absolutely prohibits electoral campaigning and soliciting votes, under penalty of disqualification, and that only the Electoral Body is authorized to publicize the candidates by disseminating their qualifications.The three electoral processes show the high degree of political interference by political parties, whose main protagonist has been the Movement for Socialism (MAS) and former President Evo Morales, who constantly campaigned (despite the ban) and confidently predicted a 70% victory for his candidates. However, the judicial elections not only eroded basic constitutional guarantees, but also constituted a political defeat for MAS and Morales, as widespread public rejection of the elected authorities prevailed, despite the fact that they were ultimately sworn in and exercised their mandates.