I was just reading that trade unions supported the ouster of Evo Morales. You might think that trade unions would support a progressive candidate, but just think of the role that trade unions play - they're a middle-man between management and workers. Ultimately, the organizations that persist are ones that act in ways that persist their organization, not the ones that are the most effective at obtaining their 'stated' goals. Consider that you can make more money from treating the symptoms of a disease that from curing it. So, trade unions persist where there's ongoing conflict or tension between workers and management, and if those problems get solved then the union isn't needed any more. Hence, quite a few unions are anti-progressive: a lot of them have pacts or understandings with the management class. They have a role to play in a well regulated machine.
Evo is a good guy. You can tell that because of
how he left office. There were unsubstantiated rumors of electoral irregularities following his election victory. But, just about everywhere has those and they're an easy claim for the opposition to make. Then there were three weeks of protests, and they demanded Evo resign. The critical point is: he did resign, even though he probably had no reason to. He didn't dig his heels in or use law enforcement to crack down on the protests or rally his supporters. Basically, he stood down to avoid violence and chaos from the other guys.
On 4 December 2019, the OAS released its final report related to 20 October election, detailing what they called "deliberate" and "malicious" tactics to rig that election in favor of President Evo Morales.[21][22] Two subsequent independent non-peer-reviewed analyses of election data from different sources disagreed with the statistical analysis of election data presented by the OAS, with CEPR accusing OAS of doing a "basic coding error" resulting in what appeared to be inexplicable changes in trend.[23] OAS's counter-response stated that doing statistical exercises on what they described as falsified data does not prove the data is not false, and said that the counter-analyses do not address or discount other alleged evidence of fraud in the report.
The OAS is basically a tool of Washington. They had election data, and used bogus math to make it look like the data was rigged. However, when other academics pointed out their glaring math flaws and that there was no smoking gun, they moved the goalposts and said that of course there was no "smoking gun" since the data itself was false to start with. So, the data was supposed to be fake because of telltale signs, but when those telltale signs were debunked, they moved to the idea that
since the data was fake, then they could rig things
without telltale signs, so not having any signs of false data is in fact now a trait of false data. See the logic here?
So they rigged a report and then branded that with their 'authority', then when their own rigging was exposed, they resorted to sheer rumor mongering without any evidential basis. As for the 'other alleged evidence' - I'm guessing that this was rumors from right-wing groups in the nation. Basically a form of the
Gish Gallop- present a million unconnected bits of 'evidence' then when any one of them is debunked you merely state that they didn't debunk all the bits of evidence. This works because disproving rumors takes more effort than just stating and accepting the rumors without any critical analysis.