The story of democratic erosion in Bolivia is not a normal case of democratic erosion. Often in analyzing democratic erosion, there is a clear cause and effect. The Bolivia case is not black and white. Though democracy has eroded in Bolivia, it is not to an extreme extent yet. Several factors are aiding democratic erosion in Bolivia specifically, the leadership of Evo Morales, Jeanine Anez, and Luis Arce. These three leaders, or “political elites” have largely contributed to the political unrest within the country and can be blamed for the erosion of Bolivia’s democracy.

Democracy in Bolivia began in 1982 from the success of citizen protest. No one has ever won more than fifty percent of the popular vote for president since the Nationalist Revolutionary Movement’s 1952 overthrow. The top three candidates for president were selected by Congress. This was until 2005 when Evo Morales of the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) Party was elected with 55 percent of the vote. He ran on the idea to “make strides towards social and economic equality for the indigenous people, increase the rights of coca growers, protect the environment, and effectively capitalize on the country’s natural resources among other things” (Bramblett). Morales fulfilled his promises by passing a new constitution to end discrimination against the indigenous population of the country in 2009. This constitution also weakened the judiciary and extended the term limits for Morales. These two acts are big indicators of democratic erosion and the birth of an authoritarian regime.

In analyzing democracy and its depletion, certain indicators point to an erosion of the system. These indicators include the undermining of checks and balances, election irregularities, weakening of the rule of law, and restriction of civil liberties. Although Bolivia does not check all of these boxes, it checks enough for a closer analysis of its democracy. Morales immediately attacked the judiciary and the checks and balances of Bolivia’s democracy; however, these new ideas were voted on by the public in a referendum. The judiciary’s independence was virtually eliminated under Morales. After the Bolivian people first rejected this proposal in a referendum, MAS-friendly judicial appointments removed the presidential terms constraints, and Morales was given the authority to directly appoint interim judges. A partisan council likewise started to fire judges without cause. It is very clear that Morales and the MAS party undermined Bolivia’s democratic institutions in an effort to consolidate power. These are key characteristics of an authoritarian regime, but Bolivia is still considered a democracy. It is interesting to note that no case of democratic backsliding is the same, but they often have rhyming stories.

         Many will say democracy relies on the will of the people, which it does, however, what people do democratic decision-making fall on? The initial idea of democracy is that everyone’s voices matter. In a modern democracy, in any country, political elites are the people that decision-making falls on. Looking at the Bolivia case, MAS can be considered political elites. Bolivia is divided along basic social and cultural lines between an extensive Indigenous and Mestizo population and the non-Indigenous urban elite, who are primarily from the eastern regions of the nation. MAS is the party in charge and will likely be in power for a while. Both Morales and Luis Arce (Bolivia’s current president) belong to the party, and though they have different leadership styles, MAS’s agenda will always get through. This is why an independent judiciary is so important in a democracy because the judiciary remains impartial and bipartisan when not controlled by a possibly corrupt government.

Bolivia’s case is interesting because although political freedoms are being restricted, Morales increased civil liberties in the country. Morales made significant strides toward resolving long-standing socioeconomic injustices in Bolivia and significantly raised the standard of living for millions of people there. Over the Morales administration, the rate of extreme poverty decreased by over 50%. Bolivia saw an average annual GDP growth of about 5% and a fall in economic inequality. As evidenced by his choice to appoint women to half of his cabinet positions and by his administration’s passing of a law-making Bolivia the fourth Latin American nation to permit legal gender identity changes, Morales has also made progress toward gender equality in the nation. The MAS government also established financial assistance programs to safeguard vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and pregnant women, in addition to a cash transfer program that has expanded enrollment in basic and secondary education.

        In 2019 a controversial election was held, and it highlighted how much democracy had slipped in the country. The night of the election no clear results had been announced, it looked like there would be a runoff election. In the morning Morales emerged as the winner miraculously, sparking outrage. Many believed Morales had fixed the vote in his favor. This set off alarms of election fraud. The foundation of democracy is one person one vote, and that voting matters. This election furthered the idea that Bolivia’s democracy is on the way out. In response to the massive outrage, Morales fled Bolivia leaving behind an interim government for the country. Janine Anez was left in charge of the country, and she vowed to hold new elections. The idea of democracy still lives. Anez’s idea of an election was pushed back due to COVID-19 and resulted in a 2020 election where it was found that Anez committed egregious civil rights violations in response to Morales’ exit. It was found that she called for the torture and killing of opposition to the interim government. This was Bolivia’s weakest point of democracy.

Bolivia’s story is reminiscent of none. It reminds us that democratic erosion does not have a cookie-cutter model. There are often similarities, but no case is the same. The story of Bolivia shows social programs improving in a democracy that is crumbling, which is not the initial idea of somewhere lacking democratic stabilizers. It becomes an example of the diverse characteristics of democratic erosion showing how different historical, cultural, and political situations can affect it. It brings forth the idea that there is no specifically tailored approach to studying democratic erosion, rather key indicators such as political elites, a weakened judiciary, controversial elections etc. that can suggest the backsliding of democracy.