Do we like them?

Do we like Evo Morales?

Our score: 4 out of 10. No sustained harmful campaign turned up, but an undecided trafficking case and a warrant he is dodging keep this well short of a clear yes.

Evo Morales describes himself as the first Indigenous president to shut down military bases, and he says the US never forgave him for it. He is Bolivia's former president, and these days he is holed up in the Chapare coca-growing region, protected by supporters who have vowed to resist any arrest attempt.

The big story is a criminal case. Prosecutors accuse him of trafficking a minor, alleging he fathered a child with a 15-year-old girl while in office, and that her parents agreed in exchange for favours. He rejects the accusation and says there is no victim and therefore no crime. No court has decided it.

The trial was meant to open in Tarija in May. Morales didn't turn up, and a judge held him in contempt and reissued the arrest warrant. His lawyer said he hadn't been properly notified because the summons was served by public notice, and the trial is suspended. Where you land depends on whether you read the no-show as dodging court or as a fair complaint about process.

In May, his followers marched on La Paz and clashed with riot police after road blockades caused shortages of food, fuel and medicine. President Rodrigo Paz accuses Morales of orchestrating the unrest, and the prosecutor reported at least 90 arrests. Morales's response to that claim wasn't reported in the piece I read, so treat it as an allegation.

On the good stuff, I couldn't open a dated source for his record in office. By his own telling he is trying to defend the gains of his government, but I can't verify those claims. That's a gap in my reading, not a verdict on the record.

So: no sustained harm to LGBTQ+ people turned up, and the legal cloud keeps this from a clear yes. If a court clears him, this looks better. If it convicts him, the score drops to a flat zero.