In a significant legal development, Bolivia’s Constitutional Tribunal has ruled that elected officials are limited to serving a maximum of two terms in office, regardless of whether the terms are continuous or discontinuous. This decision effectively ends former President Evo Morales’ aspirations for another presidential bid. The tribunal’s ruling highlighted the role of term limits in sustaining democratic alternation and preventing the consolidation of power.
The ruling, which was deliberated last week and announced recently, underscores the importance of these restrictions for democracy. The tribunal unambiguously rejected the notion of a third term through any means, arguing:
“It is not possible to return to running for office and less so to exercise these high-responsibility functions for a third time, because this would be equivalent to that authority taking over the state apparatus exclusively, resorting to a series of subterfuges and thus generating a dictatorship in power for years.” (translated from Spanish)
This ruling establishes rigid term limits across all government branches. Executive and legislative officials can now only serve two five-year terms, while judicial officials are limited to two six-year terms, and electoral officials can serve a single six-year term without re-election. Moreover, it precludes executives who have completed two terms from assuming roles such as the vice presidency or any legislative leadership position that could involve succession, as outlined in Articles 169-171 of Bolivia’s Constitution. This interpretation is applied retrospectively, with incomplete terms also counting towards the limit.
The resolution came in response to a request for clarification by opposition legislator José Carlos Gutiérrez, which sought clarity on whether officials could serve additional terms after leaving office for a time. The tribunal’s decision, as detailed in Auto Constitucional Plurinacional 0083/2024-ECA, confirms the applicability of these limitations across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
This decision has amplified political tensions and deepened a crisis within the ruling Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party. Morales’ supporters previously set up roadblocks nationwide in protest against his disqualification as a presidential candidate and a judicial probe for alleged misconduct during his tenure. These movements further developed into calls for President Arce’s resignation amidst worsening economic conditions. Morales, who initiated a hunger strike to demand dialogue with the government, has since suspended the strike.
Opposition leader Gutiérrez stated that the ruling underscores the impossibility for any authority in Bolivia to secure a third term, declaring that Evo Morales cannot again be a presidential candidate following his previous three terms. Conversely, Senator Lucy Escobar, a Morales ally, expressed her defiance towards what she termed “a tribunal that is not independent.”
Importantly, this ruling reverses the country’s previous constitutional interpretation under SCP 0084/2017, which had permitted indefinite reelection. The decision arrives as Bolivia battles its highest inflation rate in over a decade at 7.26% and severe dollar shortages, factors contributing to increasing social unrest.
The full details of this decision and its potential ramifications are discussed on JURIST – News.