Judicial: vote valid, not null or blank

In the judicial elections of 2011 and 2017, the vast majority of Bolivians voted blank or spoiled to express their rejection of the MAS candidates for magistrates and councilors. On December 1, I believe that this majority should change its attitude and cast a valid vote. That is, they should choose candidates without political color to block the path to the MAS candidates. I will explain why.

I begin with a question: Did the blank and spoiled votes prevent the MAS from taking control of the judiciary and causing the worst crisis in its history? No, no and no. They won with the bare minimum, they demonstrated incapacity and submission, they were denounced, criticized with sarcasm and irony, but they achieved their objective: to take control of the judiciary and keep the MAS in power.

If the majority votes as in 2011 and 2017, the MAS will continue to control the country’s high courts, will continue to cover up its anti-democratic actions with legality, will continue to use justice to persecute its adversaries and will continue to maintain its power in an authoritarian manner. In short, it will continue to destroy democratic institutions.

If the MAS regains control of the justice system, even if it loses the 2025 national elections, it will have a fifth column in the courts to destroy the next government. If we want to stop the disaster and deinstitutionalization to which they have led us, Bolivians have to vote for candidates free of political subjugation.

We know that some candidates, such as Carlos Ortiz (Beni), passed the oral exam through a scam in collusion with assembly members such as the MAS member from Evo, Patricia Arce. We also know that the list includes candidates who failed the oral exam and were included for complying with the rules of the call.

We are aware that the multiple choice oral exam, in some cases, only proved how cheating they are, but not their reasoning ability, much less their ethical predisposition to do justice or their wealth of knowledge to solve complex cases. We are also aware that the crooks and those who have been postponed could be “elected” as magistrates if the majority votes blank or null.

The laws of dialectics say that where there is bad there is good. How can you recognize a good candidate? First clue: he has not been in public service. Therefore, it is very likely that he is independent because, as you well know and the antecedents say, to be a public servant you have to be a member of the state party.

A militant obeys the party even if he has to violate the Constitution to do so. He does not care about justice, but rather about the party in power. There is abundant evidence, from the human right to be a dictator to putting himself above the law to extend his term.

Second, he has critical thinking. He is able to discern even against the people who promoted him if it is about doing justice. Unlike a fanatic, he applies the doctrine of human rights not only to defend leftists, but people of all political, ideological, social and ethnic tendencies.

The blue fanatic has his soul ideologized and possessed by the will of a leader whom he worships as if he were a deity. His will and his soul are molded to the will of another by personal pretensions and group objectives. He conceals and is concealed. He renounces himself to the point of losing control of his own being because he believes that he serves a supernatural being. He is a destroyer of justice and democracy.

As in the past judicial elections, the MAS will instruct its fans to vote for its candidates and will induce the rest to vote blank or null. What can be done to avoid this? Build currents of opinion to scrutinize its candidates.

To this end, we have on our side the American Convention on Human Rights, which empowers us citizens to more rigorously scrutinize candidates for public office, such as those running for magistrates.

“Public officials and those who aspire to be such, in a democratic society, have a different threshold of protection, which exposes them to a greater degree to public scrutiny and criticism, which is justified by the public interest nature of the activities they carry out, because they have voluntarily exposed themselves to more demanding scrutiny and because they have an enormous capacity to challenge information through their power to convene the public,” says point 40 of the Inter-American Legal Framework on the Right to Freedom of Expression.

In this regard, the Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression indicates that The (Plurinational) State must refrain to a greater extent from imposing limitations on the formation of currents of public opinion in favor of or against candidates.

“Since the right to freedom of expression enables individuals and communities to engage in active, robust and challenging debates on all aspects of the functioning of society, this right covers debates that may be critical or even offensive to public officials, candidates for public office or persons involved in the formation of public policy,” it says.

National laws that contravene these provisions of the Convention, if they exist, must be disobeyed by citizens.

Do we want to stop the crisis of justice? Let us publicly identify the candidates whose will is subjugated and cast valid votes for the free candidates. If the blank and spoiled votes win again, justice will lose and “Madurism” will triumph in Bolivia.