Bolivia, the only country where federal judges are elected by vote, how has it gone?

On November 28, 2019, the news was widely distributed on Bolivia: Judge Rafael Alcón had granted house arrest to Richard Choque Flores, a multiple feminicide sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Choque Flores was convicted in 2013 for the murder of a young woman. Six years later, thanks to Judge Alcón’s decision, he was already home. Not even two years passed before he killed again: Choque Flores kidnapped and murdered Lucy Ramírez, 17, in May 2021 and a few months later, in August, he did the same with Iris Villca, 15.

The case became the flag to signal the corruption of the Bolivian judiciary, which, paradoxically, had been reformed to avoid corruption a few years before, with the arrival of Evo Morales to the presidency. Subsequent investigations revealed that releasing the feminicide was part of the agreements of a corruption network in which judges exchanged favors and money in exchange for judicial decisions. The dismissal of Judge Alcón and other judges was insufficient to restore confidence in the judicial system that the Bolivian government structured.

The Judicial Reform to elect judges in Bolivia

In 2011, Bolivia implemented a judicial reform that sought to transform its justice system. Promoted by the government of then President Evo Morales, the reform aspired to democratize access to justice, improve transparency and combat corruption in the judiciary.

One of its main objectives was to allow the population to have an active role in the selection of its judges. The methodology was none other than the popular choice. The judges for the higher courts, including the Supreme Court of Justice, the Plurinational Constitutional Court, the Agro-Environmental Court and the Judicial Council were to represent the interests of the people. Corruption would be abated, according to the initial assumption.

Another key objective was to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. Although the intention was to reduce political influence in the selection of judges, that is where the problems began. Concerns were raised about the politicization of the electoral process and the possible interference of the Bolivian government in the selection of candidates.

Evo Morales and his party, the Movement towards Socialism (MAS), had maintained since they were campaigning that the Bolivian judicial system favored the powerful. “The judicial system in Bolivia is controlled by the elites who have always ruled the country, favoring the powerful and marginalizing the poor. We need a radical change so that justice is accessible to all Bolivians”, he declared while promoting his reform.

This was the election of judges in Bolivia

The implementation of the judicial reform in Bolivia in 2011 marked a milestone. There was no history of a popular election for high court judges. In some states in the United States and in Switzerland there are processes for state and local courts, but in general judicial systems in the world prefer the appointment of federal judges to maintain judicial independence and avoid politicization.

The first phase of process in Bolivia was the public call for candidates to present their candidacies. The call was open to all Bolivians who met the training and professional experience requirements in the field of law.

The candidacies were evaluated by the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, which had the task of preselecting the most suitable ones. Here the first criticisms began. The Assembly was dominated by the MAS. Critics pointed out that the ruling party had influence and was a way to maintain the power of the MAS over the judicial system, by filtering only related profiles.

One of the additional problems was the lack of public information about the candidates, which made it difficult for voters to make informed decisions. In fact, in the election, which was held together with the general elections, participation was low, but what stood out was the number of null and blank votes for the judges. This was interpreted as a sign of public discontent and distrust in the process. Approximately 53.75% of the votes were invalid and 12.9% were blank.

How Bolivia fared after it elected judges with popular vote

The case of the feminicide who benefited from house arrest in Bolivia was the most notorious, but it was part of a group where a complex network of cases of corruption of judges elected by the people was revealed. In 2022, Bolivia’s Judicial Council dismissed 11 judges and opened disciplinary proceedings against seven others with accusations of corruption and poor performance. The investigation revealed that at least 135 convicted people were illegally favored with house arrest, including feminicides and rapists.

The dismissals did not diminish criticism of the lack of independence of the Bolivian judicial system. Human Rights Watch and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) have issued detailed reports documenting how judges and prosecutors in Bolivia face political pressure and threats of dismissal if their decisions do not align with the government’s interests. Human Rights Watch noted that almost 50% of judges in Bolivia were “temporary,” making them vulnerable to retaliation and arbitrary dismissals.

In fact, what has most worried Human Rights Watch It is the indiscriminate use of the term “terrorist” with the purpose of persecuting the Government’s political rivals. With a subjugated judicial system, rulers can use the position indiscriminately:

“In December 2022, the governor of Santa Cruz, Luis Fernando Camacho, was arrested on charges of terrorism, a definition that in Bolivia has too broad a spectrum. Camacho was accused of plotting to secure the resignation of then-President Evo Morales in 2019. Human Rights Watch reviewed the charging documents and found no evidence to support the terrorism charge. “Camacho remains in preventive detention in October 2023”

The configuration of a Bolivian judiciary lacking independence has also had economic and even environmental consequences. In mining, for example, the project in Tipuani, left several questions. A politically connected mining company received permits to operate without adequately complying with current environmental regulations. Judicial authorities, under political pressure, ruled in favor of the company, allowing it to continue operations despite evidence of environmental damage.

These types of cases have affected Bolivia’s reputation as an investment destination. This is because foreign companies are reluctant to invest in environments where judicial decisions can be influenced by political interests. The perception of corruption and lack of judicial transparency generates a climate of legal insecurity, discouraging long-term investment.

The MAS and supporters of Evo Morales have defended his reform. They have argued that the numerous cases of corruption revealed are proof that the system is working and that steps are being taken to clean up corruption. They have also said that criticism of the lack of independence is part of an international campaign to discredit and destabilize the government, so that international groups take control of Bolivia’s natural resources.

A report of the World Justice Project of 2022 reveals that only 29% of Bolivians believe that high-ranking officials would be held responsible for breaking the law. That is to say, the vast majority of people believe that with judges in place, political decision makers enjoy impunity.