On Sunday 17, Bolivia voted its presidential elections in the first round and, in doing so, opened a new stage in its political history. The workshop not only showed electoral surprises, with a close result that leads to a second round on October 19 between Rodrigo Paz and Tuto Quiroga, but also set the instructions for a change of cycle, with a disenchanted citizenry and a party system in mutation.

The general elections marked a turning point. On the one hand, because the hitherto hegemonic party, Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS), lost control of Parliament after two decades of dominance. But also, the popular vote expressed a resounding rejection of both the government of Luis Arce and the maneuvers of Evo Morales.

The referred change of political cycle in the Andean country takes place in the midst of a social unrest that reaches record levels. According to the consulting firm Ipsos-Ciesmori, 94 % of Bolivians believe that the country is on the wrong pathsurvey of the third quarter 2024).

This disenchantment was expressed in many ways at the polls, but one of them is particularly revealing: the cards were stacked against the enormous gap between citizen perception and the official narrative.

The same Ipsos survey showed that 84 % of Bolivians reject the recognition given by the Arce government to Nicolás Maduro as the winner of the Venezuelan elections. This political decision to align itself with Caracas, unpopular and increasingly perceived as a burden, contributed to undermine the ruling party. The attempt to shield itself in external alliances did not work in a context in which the majority of citizens demanded concrete solutions to internal problems such as inflation, economic stagnation or insecurity.

Sunday's electoral workshop mobilized almost eight million Bolivians. The result of this first round was surprising because Rodrigo Paz clearly won. The candidate, son of former president Jaime Paz Zamora and Spanish Carmen Pereira, did not even appear in preliminary polls and had no investment in digital advertising .

Paz managed to connect with social unrest and become a fresher messenger. His campaign knew how to read the signs of an inevitable change and, in a bold gesture, closed in El Alto, a traditional MAS stronghold. This symbolic act seems to have opened the doors to a good part of the indigenous vote, historically decisive in Bolivia.

The ruling party arrived divided to the contest. The anointed candidate , Andrónico Rodríguez, was not only burdened with the wear and tear of Arce's government, but also with the internal fracture of the MAS. Evo Morales, instead of supporting his former ally, called for a null vote. His bet was to show that he was still the true caudillo, even if it meant shooting against his own party. Almost one out of seven Bolivians listened to him, with the null vote reaching 18%, when historically it has been close to 5%, which sample that Evo retains some capacity of influence.

However, that short-sighted decision became a boomerang: it reduced the parliamentary representation of their movement to minuscule levels and called into question their real capacity to mobilize.

This outcome forces us to reread a story that began in 2016, when Evo Morales lost a popular referendum that sought to modify the Constitution to allow him a fourth term in office. He still had around 60% approval then, but many of his own supporters agreed that it was wrong to change the rules because of the desire of two leaders, Morales and Vice President Alvaro Garcia, to perpetuate themselves in power.

Bolivia said "no" aloud nine years ago, but Evo never resigned himself. Since then, he has sought every possible way to remain candidate, without accepting the popular verdict.

In last Sunday's election he made a strategic mistake of great magnitude: he could have maintained a strong parliamentary bloc with his loyalists, but he preferred to play against the system and bet on the null vote. Today he tries to present this defeat as a narrative victory, but the truth is that it is very difficult to politically capitalize a vote that denies the options in dispute.

Here arises an irony of history. In politics, it is as important how you get in as how you get out. Evo Morales had the opportunity to say goodbye as a successful leader and as a democrat who knew how to yield. Instead, he preferred the path of attrition and personalism.

Meanwhile, the outgoing president, Luis Arce, seems to have better understood the importance of the bequest: every time he insists that he "rescued democracy" he reinforces his own figure and sinks a little more that of Evo.

The parliamentary dimension of the result deserves further analysis. The MAS was reduced to a minimum expression, without senators and with a marginal representation in the leave chamber. Paradoxically, this does not strengthen governability. The social and trade union strength behind MAS continues to be greater than that reflected in Parliament, which could anticipate new tensions in the streets and in the capacity of social movements to resist or negotiate with the new Bolivian government.

Evo bet on playing outside the system, although success will not be easy: he is no longer the young and rebellious indigenous leader of three decades ago, but a worn-out bureaucrat, blinded by self-love and revenge against Arce.

What opens from now on is an unprecedented scenario. Paz, winner in the first round, faces the experienced Tuto Quiroga in the second round on October 19, 2025. Whoever wins will have to manage a mandate for change in an exhausted country. He will have to respond to an electorate that, in 94 %, asks for a different course, and will do so in a context in which the old leaderships have been weakened, but not disappeared.

Little or nothing remains of the ascendant figure that Evo Morales represented two decades ago, but he retains networks, symbolic capital and the possibility to agitate. MAS is no longer hegemonic, but its social muscle makes it a difficult actor to ignore.

Bolivia thus closes one political era and opens another fraught with uncertainty. It does so, however, with the citizens' conviction that democracy is worthwhile and deserves to be defended. And that, at the end of the day, is the best guarantee for the future.