I've been in a Facebook argument with someone who basically argues that Evo brought the coup on himself because he stood for another term after losing the referendum, that Evo should instead have had someone else from his party run and should have been cultivating successors.
Believe me, I KNOW that that's a bogus argument, but it would help me to refute it-this is also an argument with a family member who takes my disagreement with their view on this as a personal attack-if any of you would be willing or able to provide me with answers to the following questions:
1) Does anyone know why Evo chose to run for another term himself rather than having someone else from his party run? Has he been cultivating any successors for the day when he inevitably would leave office? T
2) Is it true that the judges who ruled in Evo's favor on his challenge to the referendum results were elected, and that therefore the claim that Evo "packed the court" is simply false?
3) Is there any actual evidence that Evo has been, in any sense at all, personally corrupt-that he, in any meaningful way, has profited financially from his office? I assume that he hasn't in the slightest, but am looking for proof to show to the person who won't let this go with me.
4) In that first round of elections, minor party candidates took about 14% of the vote. Does anybody know where most of those minor-pary candidates would be placed on a left-right spectrum?
I have started threads like this in other situations in the past and some on this board have assumed I was acting from some sort of suspicious intent, but please know that the questions I'm asking here are about gathering information to make a more effective set of arguments against the coup. I'm always against Latin American military coups.
