Corbyn’s response to Bolivia shows how the left continues to fetishise socialism in Latin America

The hard left often seem satisfied with conditions in Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia that they would abhor in their own countries. There’s more than hypocrisy in that – there’s an inherent arrogance and Western superiority

Bad left-wing takes on Latin America are like an injection: you know it’s coming but there’s still a prick. And so it was last night when, after weeks of unrest and violent protests following the disputed October elections, Bolivia’s president Evo Morales finally resigned.

The almost immediate response from Labour’s Momentum was as follows: “The imperialist coup against him must be condemned. Full solidarity with the Bolivian people in their struggle for sovereignty, justice and democracy.” And from Jeremy Corbyn? “To see @evoespueblo who, along with a powerful movement, has brought so much social progress forced from office by the military is appalling. I condemn this coup against the Bolivian people and stand with them for democracy, social justice and independence.”

It’s certainly true that since Morales first came to power in 2006, the former coca leaf grower and Bolivia’s first indigenous leader presided over a period of unmatched social and economic progress – not least for the Aymara and the working classes. (His base then began to turn on him due to his rapid expansion of agribusiness and his approval of a highway through the protected Tipnis national park, which many saw as a betrayal.)

It’s also true that in 2016, Morales decided to bypass the constitution to run for an unprecedented fourth term in office, calling a referendum for his population’s approval – which he lost by 52 per cent. His party elected him as their candidate anyway, and in the run-up to the elections this summer, unrest began to grow.

Then came the devastating wildfires all over the country and in the Amazon, which many environmentalists blamed on Morales’ approval of “slash-and-burn” practices to clear land. This, plus his performative refusal of international aid, provided the spark for a revolt.

And on Sunday, the Organisation of American States (OAS) reported “serious irregularities” and “clear manipulation” in last month’s vote, which Morales declared that he had won against opposition leader Carlos Mesa before the results of the round. There have been reports of electoral fraud, destruction of ballots and votes in the names of the dead. Hardly ideal if you’re arguing for democracy.

Military involvement in politics should always be feared, particularly in Latin America where it has such a bloodied history. And in this case, the role that the military played in forcing Morales’ hand cannot be overstated. Nor is the OAS strictly a neutral player.

But trying to frame this as a “right-wing imperialist coup” simply doesn’t cut it. Not only that, but this narrative adds fuel to the fire in Bolivia – and most of all, Venezuela – where it is used to keep a leader in power beyond the limits of democracy.

I can only assume Corbyn doesn’t speak Spanish, because if he had taken a few moments to educate himself before tweeting, he might have seen the irony of tagging Morales’ Twitter handle: ”Morales es pueblo” – Evo is the people. And the people want him gone.

Imagine, for a second, that Boris Johnson – who has yet to respond – had played fast and loose with the constitution for the sake of his own power, gambled his reputation on a referendum and involved himself with a movement accused of illegal activity. (Unthinkable, I know.) Corbyn would be the first to condemn him.

Let’s not forget that Bolivia’s trade union federation union, the COB, also called for Morales to step down. Last time I checked, trade unions carried a fair bit of weight with Labour.

For sure, deliberate misinterpretation or twisting of the facts and exploitation of ignorance to suit propaganda purposes is nothing new in politics. But there’s a particular tendency on the left to fetishise socialism in Latin America that goes all the way back to Che Guevara and the Seventies – a time when Corbyn’s world view appears to have ossified.

The hard left often seems satisfied with conditions in Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia that they would abhor in their own countries. There’s more than hypocrisy in that – there’s an inherent arrogance and western superiority, a sense of: ‘Well if it’s good enough for them over there in the jungle.’ Marxism meets magical realism, if you will.

But Latin America knows all too well the price of a populist left fallen apart, just as it knows the price of an authoritarian right which often takes its place. Bolivia is bordered to the south by Argentina, which remains haunted by ghosts of those disappeared under Peron. More than most places, Latin America can smell a US-backed military coup a mile off. Bolivians do not need Corbyn or his ilk lecturing them on this.

That said, we shouldn’t disregard Labour’s takes on Latin America. For all that they are propagandist, hypocritical and ignorant, they are illuminating. Of course, you’ll learn much more about Momentum than you will about Morales.

And as for the speed with which Corbyn fires out foreign policy analyses on a subject he either does not – or feigns not – to understand, and his eagerness to publicly ally himself with a leader who ran roughshod over universal tenets of democracy just to keep himself in power? That should tell you a great deal about the man who would be king.