Was Bolivian President Evo Morales ousted in a coup?

Evo Morales' candidacy was unconstitutional

Question: Was Bolivian President Evo Morales ousted in a coup?
Position‹2 of 3›: The election was not fair
Argument‹2 of 2: Evo Morales' candidacy was unconstitutional

The argument

Evo Morales' run for re-election for his third term in the 2014 elections stood against constitutional term limits. Moreover, in February 2016 Morales put forward a referendum, asking Bolivians to abolish presidential term limits, therefore allowing him to run for a fourth term. The president lost the referendum in a split vote (51.3% against 48.7%) yet still chose to run for a fourth term in October 2019. Even if the election had been conducted legitimately, Morales was still an illegitimate candidate.

Context

The Bolivian constitution, approved under Morales' government in 2009, established a two-term limit to the presidency.

Premises

[P1]Evo Morales' 2014 run for a third term already stood against Bolivia's constitutional term limits. [P2] When he held a 2016 referendum to abolish those limits, voters rejected it 51.3% to 48.7%, yet he ran for a fourth term anyway in 2019. [P3] Even a perfectly conducted vote could not make a candidate who defied both the constitution and the referendum legitimate. [C] Therefore, because Evo Morales' candidacy was unconstitutional, the election was not fair.

Counter-arguments

Evo Morales has defended his right to run for the presidency on both occasions. The constitution approved in 2009 established a new state: the Plurinational State of Bolivia. When Morales run in 2014, it was the first time he was running to become the president of the newly-created state. In regards to the 2016 referendum, Morales argued that it was his human right to be an elected official. In both cases, Morales presented the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor both in regards to the 2014 and 2016 cases.

Rejecting the premises

1. In 2014, Evo Morales was running on his first term as president of the newly-constituted Plurinational State of Bolivia. 2. The Supreme Court further established that it was Morales' fundamental right to become an elected representative of the people. 3. Morales had, therefore, the right to his own candidacy under Bolivian law.