Talk:Jeanine Áñez

Interim or full term?

Hi Is Jeanine Áñez constitutionaly and officially an interim or a full-term president? --Panam2014 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Áñez is the constitutional interim president. In Bolivia, interim presidents are not classified as carrying out a full term and, unlike vice presidents, are not completing the term of the previous president. While they have all the powers of president, their main task is to excersize a mandate until new elections can be held and a new president is elected. There is some debate whether Áñez is the constitutional (came to power through legal constitutional means: usually public elections or elected by the assembly) or de facto (came to power through unconstitutional means: usually a coup). In the case of Áñez, the official take is that she was briefly de facto interim president when she declared herself so without a vote by the Constitutent Assembly. However, the Supreme Court ruled her presidency to be Constitutional briefly after the 2019 crisis making her interim presidency constitutional. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh, NoonIcarus, and Kingsif: but Áñez's original term was to end on 22 January 2020? According to the Constitution. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Her mandate was extended because the elections were delayed ostensibly due to concerns around COVID. That doesn't change the constitutionallity of her presidency. The only way she would have gone from constitutional to de facto would be if she cancelled elections outright. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh:Article 169 In the event of an impediment or definitive absence of the President, he or she shall be replaced by the Vice President and, in the absence of the latter, by the President of the Senate, and in his or her absence by the President of the Chamber of Deputies. In this last case, new elections shall be called within a maximum period of ninety days. Anez was Head of the Senate. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes this is true and does not change the constitutionally of Áñez's mandate. Regardless of when they were actually held, she did call elections within the first 90 days of her presidency on 3 January 2020. (Initially they were set for 3 May, 7 monhths after her taking office on 12 November). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh: calling elections within 90 days is for president of Chamber of Deputies, not President of the Senate. Anez called for elections only because her term (she had to complete Morales's term) ended on January 2020. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I see where the confusion comes from. Usually, should a president resign, die, etc, his vice president and then down the line of succession becomes president to complete the previous president's term. For example, lets say Morales died suddenly in 2012 and his vice president Álvaro García Linera then became president. Linera would fulfill the remainder of Morales's term and then upon the end of said term would hand the presidency to the winner of the 2014 general election.

Interim presidents are different and they come to be in the case of an issue with elections. In 2019, the election results were annulled and Morales resigned meaning there was nobody set to take the office at the end of Morales's term in January 2020. In the case of this, ordinarily the Assembly will vote to elect an interim president who rather than complete the previous president's term, excersizes their own mandate for however long it takes for new elections to be held and a new president elected. That is what Áñez is. She is not completing Morales's term because nobody had been elected to take office at the end of it. Rather, she was excersizing her own mandate until new elections could be held and a president chosen.

The confusion arises with the fact that Áñez declared herself interim president on the basis of the line of succession rather than be voted in by the Assembly. This was something she wasn't really allowed to do but it was allowed by the Supreme Court which ruled in her favor allowing her to stay the interim president for however long it took to hold the 2020 general elections.

I hope that explains the difference between a president completing the term of the previous one and an interim president excersizing a mandate until a new president is chosen. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

All sides agree that Áñez was serving an interim term rather than a full one. The legality and constitutionality of Áñez's assumption of power is currently the subject of a criminal investigation and is vigorously disputed by the current government and by a number of politicians (largely members of the Movement towards Socialism party). Numerous external reliable sources (e.g., Hines, Young, Shesko here, Farthing, ) have also termed the transfer of power either illegal or illegitimate, though this too is a highly contested position (e.g., Laserna, Archondo).

An important detail re @Krisgabwoosh:'s summary: The Constitutional Court did not in fact rule on Áñez succession, but issued a supportive communique, later affirmed by one of its magistrates as having "no legal value." ([1])--Carwil (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Why then is she counted as the 66th president? GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless Bolivia has a tradition to make an official counting of its presidents, as the US does, then the numbers should have to go... here and in all articles about Bolivian presidents. There is a similar thing resurfacing every now and then with the presidents of Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We do. She is the sixty-sixth. We have official sources that call her that, as well as some that call Luis Arce the sixty-seventh. Carlos Mesa's book Presidentes de Bolivia: Entre Urnas y Fusiles has a pretty definitive list of those who are considered to have been "officially president" (many brief presidents and members of juntas aren't counted). The article list of presidents of Bolivia is about as detailed as I could make it on the subject. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

"Bolivia's interim government tortured opponents"

In The Guardian
I haven't read this article yet, but the snippet directly names Áñez and from headline alone it seems eminently relevant. Kingsif (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

At least read the article before deeming it "eminently relevant" Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope you're being unreadably sarcastic because sure, we can't trust headlines and snippets, but *eye roll* they tell us what will be discussed in the article, and in this case it names Áñez and new revelations. Is an article about her not relevant to her. Spare me. Kingsif (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Krisgabwoosh is keeping this article from being unbiased and fact based. They delete anything they dislike and soften language wherever possible to tell half truths and equivocate. they should be disallowed from editing this article. Olfbir (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Bolivia’s recent interim government came to power by sidestepping constitutional rules for presidential succession and persecuted opponents with “systematic torture” and “summary executions” by security forces in the tumultuous aftermath of Evo Morales’s resignation in 2019, according to a new report by independent human rights experts.

That's what the article says. It does not openly say that there were such things, only that a report says so. But, as The Guardian is a known leftist outlet, I'm a bit sceptical, specially when the article is so clearly biased towards one side as this one. “systematic torture” and “summary executions”, they say? The quotation marks seem to imply that those words are taken straight from the report. Is that, by any chance, this report? Because I have searched the words "torture" and "execution" at all the subpages and, except for some false positives (such as "execution" meaning to carry out an action) I have not found them anywhere. Some pages are in Spanish, so I searched for "tortura" and "ejecución" as well, but nothing, nada. Cambalachero (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• "But, as The Guardian is a known leftist outlet, I'm a bit sceptical". That is irrelevant as the Guardian is an accepted source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and is a newspaper of record. Jon698 (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Good for them. I was not making a case about the Guardian as a whole, but specifically about this article. Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Nothing like that comes to mind from what I remember. Based on the quote, the closest I can think of is the massacres in Sacaba and Senkata, which are already covered in the article. It is known (and warrants mentioning) that many MAS officials were arrested during the interim government on trumped up charges. Bolivia's prison system is known for being pretty horrendous to live through, so it wouldn't surprise me if they underwent bad conditions during their time in detention. However, the quote implies government-mandated executions and torture, which didn't occur. At least not in the "firing squad" type of situation. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Krisgabwoosh should be disallowed from editing this article

There is clearly bias in their edits.

They delete "citation needed" inserts for unverified claims and have a clear agenda of painting Anes in a positive rather than neutral light.

Language about the alleged coup d'etat has been removed by them despite the events being comparable to other things we label as "alleged coup d'etats" is a prime example of their softening of language.

The best thing ever happening to this article was it getting to the main page because now other editors can see the misuse of editing that is happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olfbir (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As this pertains rather directly to me, I suppose I should reply. Firstly, as mentioned above, the "citation needed" tag was removed and a corresponding citation was added to the body of the article. I do believe that the point of the tag is quite precisely for it to be removed once the "needed citation" is added. Secondly, on the topic of adding "de facto" as a prefix to "president of Bolivia". In my view, that would violate NPOV as in Bolivia, "de facto" directly means the government was unconstitutional and/or illegal (See: List of presidents of Bolivia). As this is an active topic of dispute, "de facto" should be omitted. As should "constitutional" for that matter, though no user has tried to add that as of yet.

Aside from that, I do take accusations of partiality quite seriously. I do my best to keep my personal convictions—of which none are vehemently pro or anti-Áñez—out of my writing. You'll find that the sources I use are predominantly from Bolivian outlets, where the Áñez topic is noticeably more nuanced. For this reason, I do understand that people with a more American-centric understanding of Áñez may view a lack of open hostility towards the individual as bias in her favor. I am also not incapable of self-reflection, and am perfectly willing to consider changes to phrasing if they are deemed to be anti-NPOV. However, given that I have written nearly every word in this article, I do ask that you specify the issues you take with it so that they can be analyzed individually by fellow editors. Cheers! Krisgabwoosh (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

sorry if that came off harsher than i intended but all the recent edits i noticed you make seemed to me to be softening the language.

often countries which are within the US political interest or landscape are talked about differently and so what seems to many in the west as "unbiased" in is fact perpetuating existing biases.

If there were a democratically elected government which was ousted, protested the senate meeting, and then the senate used that to their advantage (below legal quorum) to appoint a new president, we would not talk about it in the same terms we are talking about Bolivia.

The article in my eyes seemed to have a history of "lying by omission". I am not someone who believes that there is such a thing as "all the facts" or "unbiased" since what facts are important or relevant is something our ideology tells us. the use of language for political events should be consistent in tone and term with what is generally decided for the site. To me and many others it seems that Anes and her allies are getting unusually apologetic or softer language. Olfbir (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Totally understand, no offense taken. I would, however, appreciate if you were more specific with the issues you take with the article. I'd actually be happy to address any concerns (see if phrasing can be changed, information added, etc.), but I cannot address "softened language" and "lies by omission" on their own. I'd be willing to take the time to address each issue individually if a point-by-point list were provided. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any glaring problems with the article from what I have looked at for the section on her presidency. Could you list examples of problems with the wording and language? Jon698 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If you think you can make an argument for this, it should go to WP:ANI, not here. Otherwise, I have no opinion, except to say that use of "coup d'etat" is quite restricted on Wikipedia and arguing for its inclusion based on interpretation of events is never going to work. Keeping it out of the article is correct. Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, there was a big overhaul, so it would need a closer look at the whole article and more expertise to judge. On a first look it seems indeed like for example reliable sources (like this article from NYT that was in before were deleted and exchanged for a more positive light with also indirect commentary (sentences like "Immediately on 14 November 2019, Áñez, in compliance with her earlier commitment, outlined the government's intent.." are worded with a direction). I will just look more into the changed intro for now (before after), I see pov problems there. Criticism from The Washington Post and The New York Times was deleted from the intro, discussable (relevant sources, but reception not necessarily also relevant for intro). Added were "Her transitional government focused on pacifying the country, calling for new elections, and, later, combating the COVID-19 pandemic" and "Though Áñez succeeded in conducting free and fair elections, her decision to launch her own unsuccessful presidential campaign led to criticism that she was not a neutral actor in the transition, and caused her to bear the brunt of the blame for the electoral victory of Luis Arce and the return to power of the MAS". That's pov in selection and wording (like pacifying and combating), it also leaves out that the elections happened after protests (after elections being delayed again) and The United Nations, the European Union, and the Catholic Church mediating between the government and leaders of social movements for elections to finally happen (source). Instead it presents and highlights the elections as an achievement of the government Áñez without proper context. Then it continues with a selective opinion statement why Arce won to save face, it's not a consensus opinion that Arce won because Áñez temporarily ran as a candidate. That's not ok, the intro before these changes seems more in line with npov, I will reverse to the old wording about the election and add the delays for context. --Casra (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the comments. A couple of my own. Indeed, NYT and TWP mentioned in the lead were removed from the lead in the initial overhaul of the article. This is because they no longer appeared in the article body at the time and I prefer not to place citations in the lead.

In terms of "pacifying the country", I can see how that can be construed as POV in her favor without the proper context. In Bolivia, the response to protests was characterized by the government as a "pacification of the country". For this reason, and following the massacres in Senkata and Sacaba, "pacification" and "pacifying" actually have quite negative connotations when speaking of the protests following her assumption to office. However, that clearly doesn't translate to most people, which is understandable.

There is actually one thing I wanted to point out as incorrect here. The UN, EU, and Catholic Church did not mediate talks regarding the holding of new elections. The article doesn't even claim that: "The United Nations, the European Union, and the Catholic Church mediated the talks between the government and leaders of social movements", which states nothing about elections. It's more likely referring to the 2019 crisis, during which time the UN, EU, and Church mediated talks between opposition and government figures before and after Morales' resignation. The bill for new elections was agreed between the transitional government and the MAS-controlled legislature and promulgated in November. I will, however, admit that perhaps information regarding the election should be expanded in this section to speak more of the delays and protests. When writing the article, I thought mention of that would be more suited to the actual 2020 Bolivian general election article. However, as it's unlikely that it will be updated any time soon, perhaps it can be mentioned here.

As for her candidacy resulting in the election lose. I agree that there isn't consensus that she was the cause, which is why I put that she bore the brunt of the blame. That was meant more to imply that she was largely blamed by the opposition rather than imply that she actually was the main cause. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I think that the opposition blamed her for the election loss can be stated in the article, but is too selective of an opinion for the intro. The mediation of UN, EU, and Catholic Church just happened for 2019, not 2020? I did read the Al Jazeera different, but seems I interpreted the article wrong. I will change that. --Casra (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I also saw that "officially" was added to the mention of elections being delayed. This seems to have a rather negative implication, as though COVID-19 was only the official reason but there were actually ulterior motives. I assume that this is due to this quote in the Al Jazeera article: "[she has] been accused of seeking to delay the vote to salvage her own election prospects". However, the delay in the elections was actually approved by the majority-MAS legislature, after the Electoral Tribunal reached an agreement with contending parties to hold elections on that date. In fact, Áñez's minority caucus abstained from delaying the election, though Áñez did ultimately sanction the delay. (Source). Similarly, the second delay to October was done unilaterally by the Electoral Tribunal, without the need for the legislature or Áñez to approve it. That second delay is what prompted protests. (Source) Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I was unsure how to word that too, I decided for "officially" since it was controversial as a single reason (also in the Reuters headline displayed as controversial), but wasn't sure about the relevancy of details and it's not a great solution. The source about MAS approving the election for September is from June, so the election (set for May before) was already delayed there and from what I understand it was more of a question how far it will be delayed. Anyway, I will add the electoral tribunal reasoning instead of "officially", their statement is also stated in the Reuters source. --Casra (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The removal of NYT and Washington Post sourcing was odd, especially considering that I was the one who put it into the article and lead months ago, but I don't think it warrants a prohibition of editing. Jon698 (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fully added in all the delays, reasoning for them, and how they occurred, to the article. In the future, maybe this section can be shortened again and placed in the information added to the actual article for the 2020 election but for now hopefully it'll do. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm away for a bit and will just look at the intro now, I see aspects of the change critical. "Though Áñez fulfilled her promise.." is an emphasis and I think it's a controversial emphasis, since the elections happened quite later and the government changed some politics of the country. It's not up to us to evaluate (esp. in the lead) if that's still under the circumstances a fulfilled promise or not, we can just state the elections happened (also don't think "snap elections" is the right term from the wiki definition). Criticism on if she's a neutral actor not just started once she launched her own presidential campaign (controversies around political background, clashes, changed politics), maybe it can be worded better as "contributed to criticism". It's relevant that she retreated her candidacy before the election following low polling numbers, that's a biographical information and it gives a wrong impression if her candidacy campaign is mentioned, but not that she wasn't a candidate in the end, to support others against MAS instead (the reader may think she was a candidate). --Casra (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Your points seem fair enough. I adjusted some wording for flow but nothing too major. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Quick Portrait Discussion

Hi! Seeing as quite a few eyes are on this article at the moment, I want to take the opportunity to see if some consensus could be found on her portrait.

Up until recently, Portrait I (her Senate portrait) has been the main image on the infobox. In my opinion, it is the highest quality and best composed of the images available on Commons, largely because it's the only studio portrait available. However, as @TDKR Chicago 101 pointed out, it is slightly out of date (from 2018).

Currently, Portrait I is in use. I'm partial towards it, as it features all the presidential regalia (the medal, the sash, etc.). However, the composition seems to be lacking in some areas, particularly the face (Someone on WP:Main Page/Errors pointed out that it looks "a bit sinister").

Finally, there is Portrait III which is her official presidential portrait. This would probably be the best of both worlds, featuring both regalia and better composition. That is, if it were a higher resolution. If someone could find a higher resolution version of the image, it'd probably be the best to use. I've added it for consideration anyway. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Portrait I
  Pros: Studio portrait, best composition.
  Cons: Taken nearly two years before presidency.
• 
  Portrait II
  Pros: Current to presidency, features presidential regalia.
  Cons: Not as good composition, seems "a bit sinister".
• 
  Portrait III
  Pros: Official presidential portrait.
  Cons: A higher resolution image should be found.
• 
  Portrait IV
  Pros: High resolution, happy median between I, II, and III.
  Cons: No medal.

• Support 2nd option The first picture is very outdated and doesn't demonstrate her during her presidency (her most recent and notable office) and the 3rd option which is an official portrait is not the best quality. I feel that the 2nd option is the best of both worlds, good in quality and is during her time as president. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Quick correction. Portrait I was taken in January 2018 as stated in the original source on Flickr. 2015 seems to have been an error on my part when I uploaded it. Thusly, it's only about two years away from her presidency. This is a courtesy message; feel free to maintain your original choice if you still think it's better. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification! Although I still prefer to use an image when she was president since that's her most recent and notable office that she's held. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Support 4th option as well 4th option looks pretty damn good. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 2nd option The official presidential portrait looks pretty bad while the second image looks far better. In terms of quality I would go with the first image, but since the second one is from her presidency and isn't low quality it is good. I don't see anything sinister about it. Jon698 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Switching to Support 4th option since it is larger and has a better background. Jon698 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support 1st option I think the 2nd option is perfectly suitable and the 3rd option would be best if a higher resolution could be found. However, I'm personally partial towards official portraits over photographs as a general rule. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Switching to Support 4th option but only if it is deemed necessary to use a picture taken during her presidency. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Notes