Bolivia – The Wrong Sort of Democracy?

BACKGROUND TO THE REFERENDUM

Evo Morales was elected as the country’s first indigenous President in December 2005. His MAS (“movement towards socialism”) party was particularly popular among the poor indigenous Bolivians but was seen as a threat to a system where a huge percentage of this very poor country’s mineral wealth was siphoned off into the hands of a privileged few, including shareholders in countries like Spain, the US and the UK.

Since his election, the governors of certain energy-rich states, mainly to the east of the country and centred on Santa Cruz, have been busy trying to destabilise his government and his plans to spread more evenly the wealth of the nation. They have been seeking more autonomy from the central government based in the capital La Paz but, for these relatively wealthy descendants of the original Spanish colonialists, autonomy means mainly the right to choose how to distribute the wealth gained from the states’ mineral resources. For example, there is opposition to the proposed Direct Hydrocarbons Tax. The tax would result in a relatively small decrease in each states’ percentage of the ever-increasing profits from the energy industries. The revenue raised would fund an improved state pension provision (of about £15 a month). It appears to be a clear choice between profit and social justice.

The opposition has used legitimate protests and strikes as well as alleged violence and intimidation against government supporters. It has also ignored the law by refusing to recognise constitutional changes and by making various spurious declarations of independence. A healthy opposition is a sign of a healthy democracy but in Bolivia it is tainted by undemocratic tactics and financial support from the world’s only remaining superpower.

Many commentators talk about Bolivia being a divided country but it’s a different sort of division to that found in countries like the US and the UK. Republicans and Democrats may enter a bitter war of words in the current US Presidential Election but many believe that both parties represent just differing shades of the same interests – world domination (military and economic), big business and ‘free’ trade. Similarly in the UK, there’s relatively little to choose between the Conservatives and Labour with neither seeming to represent the poorest in our society. In Bolivia, however, the country is split clearly between those who want to reduce the huge gap between the rich and the poor, and those who’d like to maintain the status quo as it is to their financial advantage.

the country is split clearly between those who want to reduce the huge gap between the rich and the poor, and those who’d like to maintain the status quo as it is to their financial advantage

ON THE DAY

The vote took place on 10 August and there was a turnout of over 83%. Voters were asked whether the president, vice-president and prefects (state governors) should carry on in their posts. There were over 4,000 observers from around the world and those from the Organisation of American States (OAS) said that the referendum had been “a process with very elevated standards”. Despite the hype, there were few incidents of violence or disorder.

Morales and Vice-President García Linera were ratified with over 67% of the vote, the highest percentage ever recorded in a democratic election in Bolivia and a 13% increase on their share of the vote in the 2005 election. In only one department did Morales and Linera’s percentage of the vote decrease and that was by a mere 0.29% in Chuquisaca/Sucre. In other departments, their share of the vote increased by as much as almost 30%. There was also increased support for several of the opposition prefects but two were voted out and one government prefect survived by the smallest of margins. 

Despite his victory, Morales was very conciliatory in his comments after the referendum. He may want to progress with a radical programme of social reform but he doesn’t want his country torn apart. In stark comparison, Rubén Costas, the opposition governor of Santa Cruz, was divisive in his tone and promised to press ahead with illegal autonomy.

COMPARISONS

I was trying to think of ways to compare what’s happening in Bolivia with hypothetical situations in the UK. I came up with two which are far from perfect but will hopefully make a point.

Firstly, remember the days when large revenues were flowing in from North Sea oil and there were heated debates about how much of the benefit, for simple reasons of geography, should accrue directly to Scotland rather than the whole of the UK. Debate was fine but illegal declarations of independence by the Scots and other unlawful activity would have been deemed unacceptable by the governments of other developed countries. Why? Because the power sat in London and power speaks. Unlike the opposition in Bolivia, however, the Scots would have had a valid economic argument as Scotland was much less affluent than much of the rest of the UK. A higher proportion of the oil revenues going to Scotland may well have reduced the poverty gap.

the idea of barricades made up of burning SUVs and manned by stockbrokers armed with garden rakes still appeals in some strange way....... 

Or even more ludicrous, imagine the Daily Mail-reading citizens of the fine county of Surrey (sorry if that spoiled your breakfast). Realising that their houses were bigger, their cars better, their schools posher and the ratio of ponies to young girls higher than in the rest of the nation, they suddenly decide to declare themselves an autonomous republic and stop paying taxes to central government. Ok, the idea of revolution bubbling in places like Purley is quite intriguing but it’s still ridiculous. Apart from being illegal, it would clearly be motivated by greed. The desire to keep all of the wealth to themselves and not let any of it get into the hands of those irresponsible oiks living in inner city council estates in ghastly places up north. Still, the idea of barricades made up of burning SUVs and manned by stockbrokers armed with garden rakes still appeals in some strange way.......

In a reverse of its usual tactics, the press has portrayed the police – because they are the police of a ‘leftist’ government – as the bad guys when they break up violent protests and painted those breaking the law as freedom fighters. Not mentioning that they are those fighting for the freedom to cream off even larger private profits from public resources

OUR DISDAIN FOR TRUE DEMOCRACY

Depressingly – but unsurprisingly - western mainstream media has followed the party line, describing Morales as ‘leftist’ and ‘friend of the Venezuelan regime’ rather than more accurately as a man who loves the poor and hates inequality. In a reverse of its usual tactics, the press has portrayed the police – because they are the police of a ‘leftist’ government – as the bad guys when they break up violent protests and painted those breaking the law as freedom fighters. Not mentioning that they are those fighting for the freedom to cream off even larger private profits from public resources.

It is no secret that the US has a large budget to support ‘pro-democracy’ movements in countries like Venezuela and Bolivia. The world bully is happy to use its economic power to destabilise democratically elected governments which won’t do as they’re told by Washington*. Their silence following Morales huge victory speaks volumes about their true stance on democracy. The silence is then broken by the clanking of US dollars into opposition coffers and muted applause for undemocratic activity. The fact that so many are duped by our supposed love of democracy – while the really poor continue to suffer – is enough to make me physically sick. I’d like to think that an Obama administration might change all that but his aggressive stance against Hugo Chávez in Venezuela suggests that his foreign policy might be just a milder form of bullying.

Take the Red Pill salutes Evo Morales, the MAS and, most especially, the ordinary people of Bolivia who have turned out in great numbers to overwhelmingly support true democracy and a fairer share of the nation’s wealth.

UPDATE ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2008

Today the US commemorates the seventh anniversary of what has become known as 9/11*. So it's heavily ironic that on the same day, following increased violence in the east of the country, Bolivia has expelled US ambassador Philip Goldberg for undemocratic activities. Goldberg and several US congressmen have been visiting Santa Cruz, the centre of the opposition to the democratically elected government of Evo Morales. In particular, Mr Goldberg spent time with Rubén Costas, the prefect who has led the opposition in a most confrontational manner and had illegally declared autonomy for the state of Santa Cruz. The US State Department has called the expulsion "an error" but has failed to condemn the sabotage of Bolivia's infrastructure by violent opposition (gas exports to Brazil have been cut by 10% following one act of sabotage which has been condemned by the Bolivian and Brazilian governments). 

The Bolivian government has also rightly criticised USAID funding of the eastern prefectures. The US doesn't have cash for universal healthcare but it has funds to undermine democracy. All of this seems, once again, to support our belief that the US is only interested in democracy which supports its favoured economic system and benefits the rich and the powerful. It makes you think which nations lead the real axis of evil and which nation is their leader..

UPDATE ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2008

While Morales and opposition leaders have agreed to meet to investigate a hopefully peaceful - but still just - way forward for the country, the US has once again shown where its real interests lie. US citizens have been advised to leave Bolivia and special flights have been laid on. After all, they wouldn't want US citizens getting hit by 'friendly fire' when their troops go into a sovereign state (remember Ecuador** a few months ago and Pakistan last week) or when arms provided or funded by USAID accidentally fall into the hands of the undemocratic opposition. 

Opposition leader Ruben Costas is quoted as saying that talks will end if even one opposition supporter dies. He had little to say about the dozen (at least) pro-government poor peasant farmers who have been murdered by opposition death squads or about the many others who are missing. They were on their way to a democratic protest rally but never made it.

At a meeting in Chile this week, no fewer than nine South American presidents gave their wholehearted support to Morales, condemned the violence and called on the opposition to stop the violent protests. Argentinian President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner said, "If we don't act now, in 30 years we may be watching documentaries (about Morales) like those that we see today about Allende." So it's not just a couple of so-called maverick leaders who are opposed to trouble stirred up by the US, there's a whole continent saying, 'yankees, go home!'   

Also, lame duck President Dubya has blacklisted Bolivia as one of the countries which failed to meet obligations to limit drug production in the last year. We assume that Evo Morales or, more likely, Hugo Chavez, will get the blame for the failure of Lehman Brothers because the boys in suits took their eyes off the ball as they snorted Bolivian cocaine. NORTH AMERICANS - WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COCA! Your government is rotten to the core, don't let it spread the disease!

*The first 9/11 happened on 11 September 1973 when the US backed an illegal coup by Pinochet against the democratically elected socialist leader, Salvador Allende in Chile. There followed years of harsh repression, torture and the disappearance of many who dared oppose the illegal regime. For UK readers, it should not be forgotten that Margaret Thatcher became a great supporter of Pinochet when he was being threatened with accountability for his vile actions. She famously had tea with him. On a par with Gordon Brown saying, “would you like milk and sugar with that, Mr Mugabe?”

**although the troops were Columbian, only the very gullible would believe that they acted without full US support, consent, cash and arms

LINKS

Bolivia Information Forum

LINKED ARTICLES

Evo Sticks to His Principles

Good News for the Poor

South American Hopes