In Bolivia President Morales tried to falsify the elections, after which mass protests began (1). But, unlike Venezuela and Chile (today's), the police and army took the side of the demonstrators. They refused
protect the President and he escaped. The coup? What about Mubarak who was overthrown by a popular uprising, then the army in Egypt did not protect him and he left? Was it the coup? It can hardly be called a coup. These protests were massive and covered a number of cities in the country.
However, there is a famous game. If a mass uprising overthrows a left-wing President, the left-wing statists are outraged and call it a coup (and the right, on the contrary, call it a revolution). If a popular uprising overthrows a right-wing President, the left-wing statists call it a popular uprising (and the right-wing use the word "coup").
Moreover, all these "left-right" shit of statists is very questionable. For example, it is unclear why the Allende regime, which nationalized half of Chile's economy, is "left", or the Maduro regime, which nationalized half of Venezuela's economy, is "left", and the Kremlin regime, which did exactly the same thing in the economy ,is "right"? All these words of left and right about coups and revolutions in such situations are just propaganda in the interests of politicians, parties, clans fighting for power. If somebody overthrows their guy, they are dissatisfied, and if on the contrary you overthrow their opponent - they are happy, that's all.
As always, there will be room for exaggeration. The lef-wing will find photographs or other evidence of 3 fascists who participated in the uprising, as it was in Hungary in 1956, and the right-wing will find 5 Marxist-Leninists in the ranks of the demonstrators, as Pinochet's propaganda constantly did, criticizing the democratic opposition movement.
Personally, these events inspired me with a certain optimism. It's not because the political scum who replaces the scum-of- Morales in the government is better. It is because the voice of even peaceful protests can mean something.
As for the games of nationalization and privatization, this music will be eternal unless a third way is found - socialization: then factories and agricultural enterprises become an Association of self-governing communes.
I'm not sure if it is as simple an analysis as you offer, Meerov, despite the truth of much of your post
Constitutionally, Morales was President until the end of January regardless of whether he lost the election or not. There were right-wing mob attacks upon Morales supporters and the police/military stood aside.
As always, without the support of the forces of the State no politician can prevail when that legitimacy of government rule is challenged successfully.
There is no doubt a wealthy elite in Bolivia (as in Venezuela) will manipulate any discontent to its advantage and they will maneuver into political office if they can. Foreign powers will align themselves with those it perceives will serve to their interests if there is no risk of blow-back. As you say, America did not engineer a coup against Morales. The lithium contract conspiracy is a red herring. The deal benefited Germany, not the US unless the fact that the cancellation once more put China in the running to get the contract influenced US foreign policy.
Morales was already losing the support and sympathy of his previous base. Protests against his rule were widespread and growing. He no longer could rely on the people unlike Chavez in the aborted coup against him and nor like Maduro could he retain the loyalty of the military.
You can't run chase with the hounds and run with the fox. Morales tried to serve two masters...the working people and Bolivia's businessmen. As we always try to point out, they are irreconcilable.
A summary of my blog posts on Morales
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-ousting-of-evo...