That's just your opinion. If that was what was written in the constitution he had no right to change it himself. Something of that magnitude should have gone before the voters and/or whatever congressional route was allowed in the constitution. Just like here I think it's two thirds of the states must approve a constitutional amendment.
January 2009: Bolivians approve new constitution in a referendum
The old constitution stated: 1967 constitution: States that presidents can serve a maximum of two terms in office, but not back to back
December 2009: Mr Morales wins second term by a landslide in early presidential election
April 2013: Constitutional court rules Mr Morales can stand in the 2014 election despite the 2009 constitution limiting presidents to two consecutive terms. The court argues that his first term should not count because it took place before the constitution came into force
October 2014: Morales wins third term in office
February 2016: Bolivians vote in a referendum against lifting presidential term limits
November 2017: Constitutional court scraps term limits
It was during his third term that election observers started noticing irregularities in voting, such as during the what would be their mid term elections in 2015 that found candidates left off the ballot and replacement names printed instead which allowed Morales to stack the deck in his favor so to speak as all the candidates were those who favored Morales and his party. What that amounts to equivalent wise would in our mid term election leaving all candidates who oppose Trump off the ballots and only substituting ones who do so they could gain influence and control over the house. In Bolivia's case it would be some of these people who'd determine the will of the people's referendum not to drop term limits as unconstitutional.
So it's rather apparent that in 2013 he found a way to finagle his way into running for a third term. In 2016 he ask for referendum be put forth to the voters to decide if term limits should be lifted, they voted no. Obviously that wasn't the answer he wanted so he went to the deck I mentioned above that he stacked questionably in his favor to change the constitution and they did.
This isn't conspiratorial narcissistic nonsense, this is the facts....he made a move against the will of his people and they weren't going for it.
That's just your opinion. If that was what was written in the constitution he had no right to change it himself. Something of that magnitude should have gone before the voters and/or whatever congressional route was allowed in the constitution. Just like here I think it's two thirds of the states must approve a constitutional amendment.
He didn't change anything "himself". The supreme court allowed it and he won re-election.
You're an idiot and conspiracy theorist. Hop off your narcissistic nonsense and pay attention to facts.
Here's your facts:
January 2006: Starts first term as president
January 2009: Bolivians approve new constitution in a referendum
December 2009: Mr Morales wins second term by a landslide in early presidential election
April 2013: Constitutional court rules Mr Morales can stand in the 2014 election despite the 2009 constitution limiting presidents to two consecutive terms. The court argues that his first term should not count because it took place before the constitution came into force
October 2014: Morales wins third term in office
February 2016: Bolivians vote in a referendum against lifting presidential term limits
November 2017: Constitutional court scraps term limits
It was during his third term that election observers started noticing irregularities in voting, such as during the what would be their mid term elections in 2015 that found candidates left off the ballot and replacement names printed instead which allowed Morales to stack the deck in his favor so to speak as all the candidates were those who favored Morales and his party. What that amounts to equivalent wise would in our mid term election leaving all candidates who oppose Trump off the ballots and only substituting ones who do so they could gain influence and control over the house. In Bolivia's case it would be some of these people who'd determine the will of the people's referendum not to drop term limits as unconstitutional.
So it's rather apparent that in 2013 he found a way to finagle his way into running for a third term. In 2016 he ask for referendum be put forth to the voters to decide if term limits should be lifted, they voted no. Obviously that wasn't the answer he wanted so he went to the deck I mentioned above that he stacked questionably in his favor to change the constitution and they did.
This isn't conspiratorial narcissistic nonsense, this is the facts....he made a move against the will of his people and they weren't going for it.