The crisis that toppled Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, last month has – for now, at least – settled into a political conflict rather than a struggle on the streets. But Bolivia’s prospects depend upon the rightwing interim government’s swift delivery of free and fair elections and its willingness to reach out to all communities.

Though the government has now pulled back to some degree, its initial actions instead made its leading figures and supporters look vindictive, ruthless and bigoted. Interim president Jeanine Áñez vowed to unify the country when she took power – but packed the cabinet with members of the conservative elites and boasted that “God has allowed the Bible back into the palace” of a secular country. She exempted the military from criminal prosecution when maintaining public order; at least 17 indigenous protesters died after security forces opened fire. Police cut the indigenous Wiphala flag from their uniforms and anti-Morales demonstrators set fire to it. The interior minister has vowed to jail Mr Morales, in exile in Mexico, for 30 years for terrorism and sedition.

These events have been a political Rorschach test. Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba and Argentina opposed the ousting of Mr Morales: to the left, this is yet another rightwing coup against an elected Latin American leader. Brazil and the US welcomed his departure: to the right, this is the triumph of democracy against an increasingly autocratic leftist.

Under Mr Morales, the poverty rate fell from almost 60% to 35%. Extreme poverty more than halved, to 15%. The economy grew at just under 5% a year. The global commodity boom was key – but he nationalised oil and gas, and spent on health, education and infrastructure. Women’s political participation rose. For indigenous communities, the election of Bolivia’s first indigenous leader was seismic after centuries of discrimination. A new constitution guaranteed them comprehensive rights.

But he went back on environmental pledges. The trappings of power became increasingly grandiose. His decision to run for a fourth term, defying the result of a referendum on axing term limits, exhausted supporters’ patience; union and indigenous allies peeled away. Then came the warning from the Organisation of American States – since challenged – of “clear manipulation” in October’s elections, triggering his departure. His failure to nurture potential successors has left his party, Mas, struggling to find a replacement. Carlos Mesa, his main opponent in October, plans to run again; alarmingly, the ultra-conservative Catholic activist Luis Fernando Camacho is also expected to stand.

The job of the interim government is to arrange the contest fairly. It has no mandate to take major foreign policy decisions such as breaking off diplomatic ties with Venezuela, or make provocative pronouncements. Those who back it have a duty to insist it makes good on its purported commitment to democracy and to the unity of the country.