🇺🇸🇧🇴 Bolivia 2019: When “Democracy” Looked Like Regime Change

In October 2019, Bolivian President Evo Morales won a controversial fourth term in office. Almost immediately, the Organization of American States (OAS) raised alarms about irregularities in the vote count—despite a lack of clear statistical evidence. These fraud allegations, echoed by international media and strongly backed by the United States, ignited mass protests and unrest across Bolivia.

Soon after, the military "suggested" Morales step down. He resigned and fled the country, calling it a coup. The U.S. government, instead of condemning the military’s involvement in political affairs, praised the transition as a victory for democratic values.

But the narrative quickly began to fall apart.

In early 2020, independent research—including studies from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)—concluded there was no solid evidence of electoral fraud. The OAS's claims were deeply flawed and statistically questionable. What had been framed as a democratic correction increasingly looked like a pretext for a military-backed ouster.

In the aftermath, a right-wing interim government led by Jeanine Áñez took power. Her administration violently suppressed protests, particularly targeting Indigenous communities—many of whom had been strong supporters of Morales. Human rights organizations documented excessive force and political persecution under her rule.

A Deeper Motive?

While electoral integrity was the public justification, many observers pointed to another factor hiding in plain sight: lithium. Bolivia sits atop the world’s largest lithium reserves—a crucial component for electric vehicle batteries and tech infrastructure. Morales had long planned to nationalize lithium production and keep profits within Bolivia, resisting foreign corporate exploitation.

His removal cleared the way for a policy reversal that favored multinational corporations.

---

Implication:

The U.S. backed a military-influenced power shift under the banner of democracy—fueling long-standing suspicions of selective support for “freedom” in Latin America, especially when natural resources are at stake.

Underrated Angle:

This wasn’t just about election irregularities. It was about who controls Bolivia’s future—and its lithium. Morales wanted public ownership. His ouster opened the door to privatization.