BOLIVIA TEETERS BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC LAW AND FRATRICIDAL WAR

By Guillermo Bedregal and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

LA PAZ, Jun 12 2008 (IPS) - Bolivia today is split as much by geography as by psychology. Radical groups on both sides are driving the country towards a solution that solves nothing but rather encourages a general conflagration of passions and hatred that eclipses reason and threatens to destroy the hard-won democratic peace, writes Guillermo Bedregal Gutierrez, an ex-parliamentarian and ex-foreign minister of Bolivia. In this analysis, the author writes that the logic of this polarisation could drag the country into an irrational battle of inflamed factions whose only method is \’\’resolution through disaster\’\’. President Evo Morales, an auto-didact mestizo union leader from Cochabamba who defeated the political establishment with over 50 percent of the popular vote, is inspired by a \’\’revolutionary\’\’ radical and iconoclastic idea and reads history through a lens of spite and resentment. On August 10 a recall referendum will be held to revoke or reaffirm the mandate of the current government and the Bolivian congress. This foolish vote will only further divide the country and fan radical passions, which could lead to the secessionist division of Bolivia. The country is passing through a moment -often unremarked- of confrontation and irrationality in which the valour of Democratic Peace is ever more absent.

A peculiar political figure emerged from the elections of December 2005: Evo Morales, an auto-didact mestizo (part Indian-part Spanish extraction) union leader from Cochabamba who in a surprising victory defeated the political establishment with over 50 percent of the popular vote. The rhetoric of the new president is redemptive and intermixes illusions and frustrations. He is inspired by a ”revolutionary” radical and iconoclastic idea and reads history through a lens of spite and resentment.

The electoral base of Morales is a party, the Movement towards Socialism (MAS), and a confederation of people and organisations drawn mostly from the traditional parties of the marxist left that never attained a high level of influence in Bolivia.

The language of these many parties is rooted in a romantic ‘neo-indigenism’ that repudiates the republican history and loathes the pre-Bolivian reality of Spanish colonialism and its western, ‘civilising’ mission.

These positions have a strong appeal for the Aymara-Quechua Indian population of the Bolivian Andes. It is different in the Amazonian lowlands, which are predominated by mestizos and a modern attitude towards life and work.

The indigenous or pre-hispanic element, however, is not dominant in Bolivia, which is mostly urbanised and generally mestizo, multi-cultural and multi-linguistic.

Representative democracy and political pluralism have not managed to resolve the problem of the distribution of wealth in Bolivia despite the drastic changes wrought by the 1952 revolution. Economic inequality is extreme. There is an excessive concentration of power and a pathology of poverty that can only be addressed through political agreements that build consensus and increase production and investment in order to produce jobs. Unemployment has ballooned to unacceptable levels in recent years

But the political debate has been polarised. In response to the erratic populist project of MAS, an alternative movement has emerged in the low-lying areas of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, and Tarija, causing a deep division in Bolivia. This regional grouping has formed around the desire for a decentralisation of power, reflected in the practice and slogans of departmental autonomy, which is growing in popular support as the central government spouts a rhetoric of radicalism while showing itself incapable of sound government.

This socio-political polarisation can lead to violence that could eventually erupt into civil, fratricidal war. It has already led to considerable bloodletting that casts doubt on the democratic skills of the MAS government.

This violence seems to be the perverse manifestation of the country’s divisions. Bolivia today is split as much by geography as by psychology. Radical groups on both sides are driving the country towards a solution that solves nothing but rather encourages a general conflagration of passions, rancour, and hatred that eclipses reason and threatens to destroy the hard-won democratic peace. The logic of this polarisation could drag the country into an irrational battle of inflamed factions whose only method is ”resolution through disaster”.

On August 10 a recall referendum will be held to revoke or reaffirm the mandate of the current government and the Bolivian congress (senators and deputies). This foolish vote will only further divide the country and fan radical passions, which could lead to the secessionist division of Bolivia. The country is passing through a moment -often unremarked- of confrontation and irrationality in which the valour of Democratic Peace is ever more absent. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Guillermo Bedregal is an ex-parliamentarian and ex-foreign minister of Bolivia. ======================================== A HISTORIC CROSSROADS FOR BOLIVIA AND EVO MORALES

By Jose Enrique Pinelo (741 words)

//NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, CZECH REPUBLIC, IRELAND, POLAND, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM//

IPS COLUMNIST SERVICE, JUNE 2008

Editor´s note:

The social movement of Bolivia remains integrated with President Morales as its symbol, but the government does not seem able to build a new collective identity and a new social order to accommodate it, writes Jose Enrique Pinelo, an activist in Bolivia’s social movements since 1970.

In this article, Pinelo writes that Morales’ project for change must be reflected in the new Political Constitution of the State. The task of government was to convene a Constituent Assembly, redact the constitution, and submit it to popular vote. However, for more than a year the government has lost its political initiative and the Assembly has ceased its work.

Morales was charged with safeguarding the strategic character of this process but because of the advance of the opposition, he used it as a tactical negotiating piece. He has called for a recall referendum on the mandate of the president, vice president, and the department prefects to be held on August 10. Thus far it doesn’t seem likely that the constitutional process will succeed. ———————————————————————- A HISTORIC CROSSROADS FOR BOLIVIA AND EVO MORALES

By Jose Enrique Pinelo (*)

LA PAZ, Jun (IPS) There is greater clarity regarding President Evo Morales’ plan to build an inclusive, decentralised Bolivia, that would be able to formulate public policy on the basis of consensus with a focus on fighting the poverty that afflicts 90 percent of the population.

The party system established in the 1980s and 90s failed to achieve these goals. Will Morales fail as well? If he does, he will go down in history as the last gasp of the party system of the 20th century.

If he succeeds, however, we will see Bolivia incorporated into the processes of globalisation on its own terms, with its diversity of cultures seen as the strength underlying its transformation, with a participatory political system and policies tooled to battle poverty and redistribute the wealth generated by its natural resources.

This would finally resolve one of the paradoxes of Latin America’s popular movements: “If in Cuba fighting against private property is revolutionary, in Bolivia, fighting to extend it is.” This statement clearly presents the logic of the slogan “economic inclusion”.

Bolivia’s current political opposition managed to keep its grip on power for 38 years by rotating its leaders through the presidency. In this period, the social movement was able to gradually accumulate enough political capital to win the presidency for Morales in December 2005.

This accumulation of support began at the local level. Those years saw the emergence of new political actors: the peasant farmer movement organised around the Unique Confederation of Rural Labourers of Bolivia, the indigenous movement of the Amazon region, and small producers, from mining cooperatives, artisans, to small and micro entrepreneurs. The above account for 83 percent of jobs in the country.

Morales is seen as the embodiment of the process of the empowerment of these groups, and his election is a mandate to build a new collective identity and assure the formation of a new social order.

This project for change must be reflected in the new Political Constitution of the State. The task of government was to convene a Constituent Assembly, redact the constitution, and submit it to popular vote. However, for more than a year the government has lost its political initiative and the Assembly has ceased its work.

Morales was charged with safeguarding the strategic character of this process but, because of the advance of the opposition, he has used it as a tactical negotiating piece.

He failed to impose his national agenda on regional agendas and allowed confrontation among the regions to gather strength, particularly in the south and east of the country, where the opposition appropriated the banners of decentralisation and autonomy and drafted what are known as ”autonomic statutes”.

Symptoms of territorial division have appeared, though they are not major.

If the government doesn’t regain the initiative, for the people -whose demands are still pressing- it would mean that the Morales government is not the body to advance their cause and carry forward the process of empowerment and ultimately passage of the new constitution. The loss of political initiative implies that the strategic plan is in jeopardy.

What is the importance of President Morales today? The social movement remains integrated with Morales as its symbol, but the government does not seem able to build a new collective identity and a new social order to accommodate it.

Morales has called for a recall referendum on the mandate of the president, vice president, and the prefects (of the nine departments of the country) which will determine whether they remain in office or leave. It will be held on August 10.

At the same time the government has proposed dialogue with the political parties and the opposing prefects and has chosen as mediators the Catholic Church and the group of countries friendly to Bolivia -Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia- with the goal of integrating regional proposals into the text drafted by the Constituent Assembly.

The opposition is threatening to block the establishment of new rules and new institutions that would guarantee the political and economic inclusion of its social allies and make the victory of the president possible. Therefore, Morales will have to decide whether dialogue or the referendum is the right instrument to safeguard in the long term the process of empowerment begun in the 1980s

Thus far it doesn’t seem likely that the constitutional process will succeed; its last chapter may well be the national referendum to approve or reject the content of the new draft constitution on August 10. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)