A Nation Holds its Breath
I am writing this from an Internet Cafe on the Plaza Principal of Cochabamba, where some 3,000 people are gathered after a march to the city center. The Congress session in Sucre has been delayed until this afternoon. Huge crowds have reportedly descended on the city to prevent Congress from going into session.
The chilling expression on the lips of my friends here is, a las puertas de la guerra civil, at the gates of civil war. Could the Congress be so stupid as to install a new President, when that action will surely spark violent confict. But the question on the other side is, What strategy does the US government and the Bolivian elite have left to protect the powers on which both feed here?
The Bolivian left has painted itself into a corner. The demand for Carlos Mesa to resign was a miscalculation of potentially bloody proportions. Mesa has been the thin blue line between Bolivia and military repression. The left here erased that line by calling on Mesa to leave without a guarantee that the leaders of Congress would pass the Presidency to the Supreme Court and to nw elections. Even that, I think, was a miscalculation. The left is unlikely to do any better in elections in August than it died in 2002 when Evo Morales peaked at 22%.
A chess player does not race across the board to capture a knight without checking to see what is going on with his king. Now all of Bolivia is left naked in the middle of a chessboard in which the forces here who would like to use the army to settle things are close to having a checkmate on their adversaries.
If that happens, if Vaca Diez becomes President and follows through with threats of military action, Bolivia will not be a chessboard. It will be a battlefield. Yesterday the US Embassy began offering US employees and their families paid air passage and paid vacations to leave the country. It would apear that my government, always such an active force behind the scenes here, is getting ready for battle.
The chilling expression on the lips of my friends here is, a las puertas de la guerra civil, at the gates of civil war. Could the Congress be so stupid as to install a new President, when that action will surely spark violent confict. But the question on the other side is, What strategy does the US government and the Bolivian elite have left to protect the powers on which both feed here?
The Bolivian left has painted itself into a corner. The demand for Carlos Mesa to resign was a miscalculation of potentially bloody proportions. Mesa has been the thin blue line between Bolivia and military repression. The left here erased that line by calling on Mesa to leave without a guarantee that the leaders of Congress would pass the Presidency to the Supreme Court and to nw elections. Even that, I think, was a miscalculation. The left is unlikely to do any better in elections in August than it died in 2002 when Evo Morales peaked at 22%.
A chess player does not race across the board to capture a knight without checking to see what is going on with his king. Now all of Bolivia is left naked in the middle of a chessboard in which the forces here who would like to use the army to settle things are close to having a checkmate on their adversaries.
If that happens, if Vaca Diez becomes President and follows through with threats of military action, Bolivia will not be a chessboard. It will be a battlefield. Yesterday the US Embassy began offering US employees and their families paid air passage and paid vacations to leave the country. It would apear that my government, always such an active force behind the scenes here, is getting ready for battle.
posted by The Democracy Center at 11:53 AM
73 Comments:
Thank you for your constant updates from Bolivia.
When the idea of "civil war" is being discussed in the media the past few days, I wonder what this term means in reality. I cannot imagine that the Indigenous movements have the means to stand up to the government military forces for any extended period of time.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to talk of another "Gas War" when the government ordered the military to strike out against protesters? Or could this really escalate into civil war?
OK, so you say that Evo would likely not poll much better than his last showing at 22% (a reasonable assumption).
At what point will you stop romanticising the "indigenous workers revolution" and call it what it is? Namely, a marginally large group of people who represent one segment of the population who is absolutely unwilling to work through the democratic process.
Sure it's an ugly process. It's partially corrupt. But god damn, it's a hell of a lot better than imposing your will by force. THe majority of Bolivians have said over and over again, election after election that they DON'T WANT EVO. Leftist parties poll crappy numbers election after election.
The radical left of Bolivia, who is instigating this, DO NOT represent the huge majority of people.
What the heck chessboard are you talking about? One where a guy who polls 22% has the right to impose his (and his supports) will on the 78% who didn't vote for him?
Screw chess, how about respecting elections? Or maybe referendums?
They fought tooth and nail for the gas referendum. The people voted. A result came in. Evo and his group don't like the result, so let's go blockade the country.
The people of Bolivia - not just the indigenous, not just coca growers, not just people from certain provinces - have spoken on the gas issue and on Evo.
The only problem is that Evo,et al don't like what the Bolivian people have to say.
The Bolivian people are NOT indigenous miners. They are indian and white, rich, poor and middle class, highlanders and lowlanders, Llama herders and bankers AND miners. They are not only Aymara, but Quechua and Guarani and Matacos and a million other things I don't know.
I can understand the anger and frustration that is brought on by poverty and marginalization. I know Bolivia is rife with racism and classism.
But Evo and Mallku have essentially said, they reject the democratic process. Neoliberalism hasn't worked all that well - but it's worked to some degree, some of the time. What do you propose? Socialism?
How about nationalizing the gas? That'll really help solve the poverty problem! The radical left's plan for Bolivia will basically let some people blow of steam, maybe kill a few people, and then set the clock back a few decades.
And you speak of the US and the "Bolivian elites." You've been hanging around the same political leanings too long. That's a dangerously simplistic view of Bolivia. What about Bolivia's middle class - small as it is? What about workers who would just like to move forward in a peaceful country? What about people in Tarija or Beni or the Chaco?
Are they not Bolivian enough for you?
Do you want to have a purity test?
The country cannot be held hostage by one segment of society that has radicalized to the point where many leaders are calling for open rebellion.
Mallku is essentially saying, let's go kill the white people.
What you've got is essentially a group of people who want a cultural revolution Chinese style. Do we need to have people getting hanged for being too white or looking too intellectual?
The "left" is playing with fire, playing on racism, faning the flames of frustration and offering NO reasonable solutions. Democracy is dead - they've killed it.
Until Bolivia accepts that it really is a multi cultural, multi province, multi ethnic society and really accepts that democracy is a long, tired road that has to be worked on then nothing will work.
Evo and and the COB isn't an expression of the people's will.
It's an expression of the failure of the people's will to matter in a country where democracy has died.
I second the words of gratitude to the author of this blog. I was in La Paz in February. I'm due to fly there on July 2nd for one month from London. I watch and listen carefully to events as they unfold daily.
"The radical left of Bolivia, who is instigating this, DO NOT represent the huge majority of people.. "
Out of curiosity, do those people supporting radical neo-liberal market fundamentalism represent the "huge majority of the people"? Or even a small majority?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't know. Ask the 70% or so who don't vote for leftist parties in national elections.
Or the majority who voted for selling gas.
Options exist. If Bolivia wants to go another direction, more power to them. But do it at the balot box. And if Bolivians overwhelmingly vote for traditional parties.
If there was a free and fair vote, I'd put money on Jorge Quiroga winning.
What does that tell you?
It tells me that you fail to understand the forces coming together in Latin America. How many other countries have to completely fall into ruin before you recognize that the masses of South America have rejected neo-liberalism.
Not because they are "indoctrinated" by the evil Communists. But becuase their lives were ruined by dictatorships and free-market fantisies (like Argentina). The "leftists" and Evo did not engineer this economic disaster....the US and these very "elites" did. And people are fed up.
"I can understand the anger and frustration that is brought on by poverty and marginalization. I know Bolivia is rife with racism and classism." For one, you don't seem to understand, cause you spend the whole article complaining that they are fighting back. Two, in your opinion, the racism seems to be coming from the non-white, indigenous majority (who IS the majority by the way).
The elites and people like you (Adam T.) will fail to understand the demands of people under extreme pressure to make a decent life and will justify military repression to quell the "communists" but you will be killing innocents and will only put off the struggle for another day.
When the lines are drawn, i stand with the people who demand control over their own lives and resources. This is the only democracy I recognize, not the sham democracy that lets one of the other rich, white, male decide the fate of millions of people.
The concept of the IMF ramming privatization down the Bolivan throat is ridiculous. When Goni campaigned in 1993, his Plan de Todos had 3 pillars: Education Reform, Popular Participation, and Capitalization. PP was an intent to empower the local communities to make their own decisions. ED reform was designed to raise standards so as to permit the possibility of escaping the cycle of poverty. Capitalization was no the wholesale selling of national interests, but a new way to remove the state from commerical activity and attract investors to expand operations and raise efficiency levels.
Goni crushed the opposition with 33% or so of the vote, an unheard of margin in Bolivian politics. Given the support to the traditional parties that had adopted neo-liberalism, it was clear that this approach had defeated the leftists.
These leftists still whine that Goni and the foreigners secretly sold the country. There was no surprise regarding what GONI was going to do: HE TOLD EVERYONE ABOUT IT!
Obviously, the left had lost at the ballot box and continues to do so. Since they cannot propose rational alternatives, they employ frenzy inducing rallying cries to mobilize their band of supporters. Even that is not enough as it is is becoming increasingly clear that a significant number of "protesters" are coerced and threatened to do so.
Goni's second government, a mistake he made accepting the presidency in the first place given such weak and incoeherent congressional support, was too feeble to force the rule of law. That emboldened the protesters. Mesa's categorical refusal to have the rule of law respected led us here. From the protesters point of view, why negotiate at all, if you have already forced out one elected government. Just because they were effective in mobilizing does not give any more legitimacy. Whatever happens, the governmment needs to act to re-establish order and let the protesters know that it will negotiate everything, but it cannot do so with a gun to its head.
Another thanks for keeping us up to date. I spoke with the knitters I work with in La Paz yesterday to see how they were feeling and was surprised how escalated the crisis had been the past 20 days - it reminded me of the Black October moments in El Alto.
Living in the USA and reading Los Tiempos online didn't really clue me into the extent of the bloqueos, etc.
I agree with your view and interpretation of events and the small Bolivian community I am in touch with here are rallying around the implementation of elections as is the Catholic Church there in Bolivia.
Please continue to keep us posted - estas muy valiente y dedicado al pais, las causas, y la gente...
-Tamara
Another thanks for keeping us up to date. I spoke with the knitters I work with in La Paz yesterday to see how they were feeling and was surprised how escalated the crisis had been the past 20 days - it reminded me of the Black October moments in El Alto.
Living in the USA and reading Los Tiempos online didn't really clue me into the extent of the bloqueos, etc.
I agree with your view and interpretation of events and the small Bolivian community I am in touch with here are rallying around the implementation of elections as is the Catholic Church there in Bolivia.
Please continue to keep us posted - estas muy valiente y dedicado al pais, las causas, y la gente...
Paul Irvie, from london, check please the pages of IK Foreign Office, because there is a message giving and advice to avoid a trip to Bolivia, specially to La Paz. Because La Paz' International Airport is in El Alto, which is affected by demonstrations, is hard difficult not to have some kind of problems.
Two days ago I wrote a comment, saying that the US is not so involved. Obviously, it has to be considered on historic terms. US agents in the 60's and 70's, as well as the French, worked as "teachers" against "subversive" movements. First of all, how to torture and kidnap people (desaparecidos).
The situation today has changed. The US has no free hands to do what americans like (at least, in South America). Mesa's call to Brazil and Argentina is a clear demonstration that the different interests playing on Bolivia make the situation more complex. Maybe, dramatically complex.
I have no problem with Bolivians deciding that they choose not to follow a neoliberal path. That's cool. You don't hear me complaining about Lula winning in Brazil.
You say you stand with the people.
What people? Only those who feel the way you do?
Bolivians have consistently voted for traditional parties.
You say I fail to understand what's going on in Latin America.
I'm just saying respect the process.
If the majority of Bolivians would vote for, say, Jorge Quiroga, then how is that not understanding what's happening in Latin America?
I'm not debating whether they should nationalize the gas or whether they should be neoliberal. That's another debate.
You say they are fighting back... sure, but to gain what, exactly? What is the outcome that they are proposing? Will it help anyone?
And more to the point, do most Bolivians want what they propose?
It's sexy to side with the revolutionaries. But are they right? Are they democratic? Do the propose workable solutions?
I don't give a damn if Bolivia becomes a communist country by popular demand - as long as it's popular demand by a majority of Bolivians not a vocal and violent minority.
I think it'd be a terrible mistake, but that's not for me to decide, just like it's not for Evo alone to decide for everyone else.
You say you stand with the people. So do I. The only difference between you and I, is that I interpret the people's will to be what they tell me it is when they vote.
Another thanks for keeping us up to date. I spoke with the knitters I work with in La Paz yesterday to see how they were feeling and was surprised how escalated the crisis had been the past 20 days - it reminded me of the Black October moments in El Alto.
Living in the USA and reading Los Tiempos online didn't really clue me into the extent of the bloqueos, etc.
I agree with your view and interpretation of events and the small Bolivian community I am in touch with here are rallying around the implementation of elections as is the Catholic Church there in Bolivia.
Please continue to keep us posted - estas muy valiente y dedicado al pais, las causas, y la gente...
Eduardo - well said, lucid, and exactly on point.
Actually, I believe 92% voted to nationalize gas. The main controversy over the referendum, though, was that the nationalization option presented on the ballots was deemed by many to be misleading, since it excluded essentially all of the actual known gas, as Mesa refused to reneg on the contracts by which that gas had already been sold. People had lost their lives fighting for nationalization at the end of Goni's presidency, and many felt that Mesa was patronizing them by then giving them a referendum, as they had demanded, but one in which the most crucial question was effectively meaningless.
Also, as I understand it, Evo is the most prominent politician leading a sector of protesters, but the situation is far to complex, with far too many factions and too many questions about how things are being organized, to paint him as "the leader" of "the protests" or "the social movements." He is not. He is, however, thus far, the leftist candidate with the best shot - long as it may be - at the presidency. That's a clarification of how I believe Jim and othes have discussed him - not an endorsement.
Don't forget that Goni barely got more votes than Evo, Mesa was elected VP but not president, and Vaca Diez would be constitutional, but that is not the same as "elected." Even a constitutional democracy does not always reflect the will of the people. Are street protests democratic in the "one person, one vote" sense? Clearly not. Is the ballot box the only and universally legitimate and appropriate way of addressing grievances? To say yes seems somewhat naive or small-minded. At this point, it may also be academic.
Stability - particularly short-term - is seductive, especially during scary times such as these, and especially to people for whom the pre-chaos status-quo was not particularly oppressive. I know there are manipulative leaders and corruption on the Left, but to paint the entire current surge of unrest as entirely the result of those two elements seems to me unrealistic. People are deeply dissatisfied, they have suffered and continue to suffer from racism, social disenfranchisement, and economic marginalization, and they are angry. This isn't going away. As the old chant goes, no justice, no peace. A militarily imposed "rule of law" would only mean a festering period until things boil over again. It is crucial that, as we strive for peace, we define it in positive terms, and not merely as the absence of chaos or street violence. Such a "negative peace" can be coerced in ways that are more violent to the powerless than the alternative.
We have to live in the tension, in the questions, in the frightening uncertainty of the moment. Bolivians know how to do this. Noody claimed to know exactly how to run Cochabamba's waterworks in2000, but they knew that didn't mean they had to accept Bechtel's plan. Now nobody can guarantee the outcome of new elections or a constitutional assemby. But no amount of repression is going to change the fact that the political system thus far - for whatever reasons, regardless of anyone's opinion about what ought to be - has become unsustainable.
And Bolivians are not of one mind. Not poor Bolivians, not Indigenous Bolivians, not protesting Bolivians, not those at home in their houses. There is nothing like a majority that thinks one way. And if there were, that would certainly not mean the majority would be right. It seems safe to say that the current constitution, along with the current global economic order, has failed to protect the most vulnerable in Bolivia.
So, anyway this goes, it's going to be messy, and ideological, and frustrating to everyone involved. Given the options, though, any attempt to avoid dictatorship or civil war seems worthwhile.
I blieve Dan is referring to the referendum. The question posed was not to nationalize, but rather something to the effect of: do you agree that the state should recover the gas reserves. That question, undoubtedly a mistake by Mesa because of its ambiguity, has many interpretations. The radicals say it means the people voted to nationalize, other say tht the government has recover a primary role in the gas production chain. I do not know what recovering means but I cannot accept is as an endorsement of nationalization, given all that would entail.
I can agree with most of that. Part of my point all along is frustration with the simple characterization of this as "the people vs. the elites" as if this were some sort of cowboys and indians, black hats and white hats issue.
I don't support Vaca Diez. I think that'd be a mistake.
As for electoral results, le me make my own dangerous simplification - while Goni and other "traditional" parties never poll more than 50%, in aggregate they certainly are over 50% and clearly more heavily supported than the "leftist block".
I also agree that it's not all about Evo. Forgive my own simplification - it's a lot easier to shorthand with Evo than to say, Evo, Mallku, the COB, the miners union, etc. When I say Evo I'm sort of shorthanding it to mean "the usual suspects on the radical left".
I would also agree that Bolivia and Bolivians have not done enough to help those who are on the margins.
Bolivia is, in the best of times, a terrible mess of poverty, racism, and disenfranchisement.
You won't find me shilling for the status quo.
But as you say, neither dictatorship nor civil war are the outcomes that will benefit Bolivia.
We can debate nationalization of gas - a horrible mistake in my mind.
But my main concern right now is the process. Which is what frustrates me about the radical left.
Yes, the process doesn't always produce good results. (see the United States cerca 2004).
But in the end, as we're seeing now, the danger of not working through a democratic process to bring about change leaves you with the only other otpions - dictorship or duking it out in the street.
Bolivia needs solutions. Evo et. al are not offering solutions. Let's say they get everything they ask for. Every last shred.
Does anyone thing the lives of ordinary miners and residents of El Alto will change a whit?
But the bigger point is that unless Bolivia can figure out how to channel discontent through a democratic process, the country will continue to be a mess.
And Evo et al are working against that process ever working.
(94%? Where'd you get that number from. Not what I've heard. And if true, disheartening -as you said, the majority doesn't always have it right...)
I was referring to exactly that question on the referendum. And it was confusing. Mesa did explain that he would not confiscate the gas from companies with whom Bolivia had signed contracts, and he outlined what buying out the contracts would mean (things like shutting down public universities -- it would break the government's bank, basically). That said, people were still confused, and many thought the question did mean nationalization. Nationalization was definitely the demand of protesters, and Mesa marketed the referendum as a response to their demands.
Obviously now, regardless of how well people understood the question on the referendum at the time, certain sectors (it's hard to say what percentage of the population they represent, but they are plainly significant) now believe that the result was unacceptable. And I think the Democracy Center and others have gone to great lenghts to explain the nuances of current demands, which do include ultimately selling the gas to foreign firms. This is, as I understand it, a struggle to find the most just way to do that.
And that's the point - we can argue forever about tactics and lawfullness and ideology. But ultimately, this is just a particularly heated moment in an ongoing, historic struggle for justice and basic human dignity. We will even disagree about how to recognize a just peace - one affording that dignity, through right relationships and the ability of each person and community to reach his/her/its potential. But I dare say we are far from achieving it in Bolivia (I say "we because even those of us in the U.S. share responsibility for this). I worry and opine about the different courses the Bolivian struggle may take, but I pray it is successful. It is also clear to me that Vaca Diez is not part of the answer.
Ninety two percent: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60424-2004Jul18.html
I would be very careful painting ruling coalitions as representing a majority in any real-world sense of the word. I don't have much experience with other parliamentary systems, but Bolivian coalition goverments are among the most cynical, disfunctional, ironically composed, ideologically self-contradictory, mismatched marriages I have ever witnessed. They illustrate beatifully the meaning of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, as they are formed by politicians so eager to taste power that, in order to do so, they will jump into bed with the very people most hell-bend on neutralizing whatever power they might nominally achieve (kind of like my own mixed metaphors). These are not left-blocs or right-blocs. They are blocs that include members who've tried to have one another killed. They are blocks including parties created to combat other parties in the same bloc. And "left" or "right" is meaningless even as applied to an individual party. Recall that Vaca Diez is a member of the "Leftist Revolutionary Party."
One of my favorite Bolivian jokes is about an election in the mid-1980s, before which Jaime Paz Zamora, Hugo Banzer, and Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada go to pray to the Virgin of Copacabana (or was it Urqupina?). Anyone who knows the history of these men and their parties knows how ugly a history they share. Jaime prays, "I want to be president." Banzer prays, "I want all the power." Goni prays, "I want to win the election." All three men get their wish. With all due respect to la Virgencita, I think that's a system worth questioning.
But wouldn't you agree that at some point (like now) tactics and lawfulness become the issue?
In a way, dictatorship, communisim, neoliberalism are just "tactics".
No one here wants anything but a peaceful, prosperous Bolivia for everyone.
But at some point the radical left has taken a turn such that they are no longer working in favor of a peaceful, prosperous Bolivia.
Their way of trying to create change is not only temporarily problematic (ie black protesters in the US during civil rights) but a fundamental threat to the entire poltical system, democracy, stability, and, in the end, any hope of a better future in the foreseeable future.
Bolivia is on the brink of crashing and burning and I can't see how the radical lefts actions are doing anything but hastening the crash.
Yeah, but the point I'm making is that no matter how screwed up the relationship is betweeen MIR, MNR, UCS, NFR, and ADN might be (and it is admittedly a sorry stew of politics there) they represent probably 70%+ of any given electoral vote and no matter how disfunctional they may be they aren't really that different - they are all free market, right of center (or at least populist)and no one would mistake any of them for being anything but middle of the road, traditional, non-leftist parties. If you voted MNR or MIR or NFR, or UCS or ADN you weren't voting for the kind of politics Evo and Mallku are talking about.
Now if you want to get into Bolivian's voting habits, rationality, and interest, that's a whole new debate...
According to a well-known "radical leftist":
"In October 2003, Bolivia's then-president, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, ignited massive protests with a plan to export the gas through Chile to California, a scheme that most people here believed would mainly enrich foreign oil companies and a handful of politicians with their fingers in the deal. When Sánchez de Lozada sent out the army to quell those protests, killing more than 50 people, public rage drove him from office.
His successor, President Carlos Mesa, turned the gas question over to public vote, sponsoring in July last year the country's first-ever national referendum.
Voters were presented with the question, "Are you in agreement with REGAINNG OWNERSHIP of the petroleum for the Bolivian state?" Ninety-two percent of the country voted a resounding "yes." "
And let's be honest: radical market fundamentalists support "democracy" only as long as the "elected" goverment backs that radical market fundamentalism (and if a authoritarian regime supports those policies, "democracy" is not demanded) -- but should a democratically elected governent reject such radical economic policies then de-stabilization economic strangulation, "regime change", military coups, etc. become the order of the day.
According to a well-known "radical leftist":
"In October 2003, Bolivia's then-president, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, ignited massive protests with a plan to export the gas through Chile to California, a scheme that most people here believed would mainly enrich foreign oil companies and a handful of politicians with their fingers in the deal. When Sánchez de Lozada sent out the army to quell those protests, killing more than 50 people, public rage drove him from office.
His successor, President Carlos Mesa, turned the gas question over to public vote, sponsoring in July last year the country's first-ever national referendum.
Voters were presented with the question, "Are you in agreement with REGAINNG OWNERSHIP of the petroleum for the Bolivian state?" Ninety-two percent of the country voted a resounding "yes." "
And let's be honest: radical market fundamentalists support "democracy" only as long as the "elected" goverment backs that radical market fundamentalism (and if a authoritarian regime supports those policies, "democracy" is not demanded) -- but should a democratically elected governent reject such radical economic policies then de-stabilization economic strangulation, "regime change", military coups, etc. become the order of the day.
I read this from an update on Narco News, quoting Invertir Online:
"Therefore, the mayors Edgar Bazan (Oruro), José Luis Paredes (El Alto), Miguel Becerra (Cobija), Moisés Shiriqui (Trinidad), René Joaquino (Potosí), Ayde Nava (Sucre), Gonzalo Terceros (Cochabamba) and Juan Del Granado (La Paz), call for the immediate resignation of the Senate President and Speaker of the House from the constitutional succession to clear the way for the election of the Supreme Court President, who will have to call general elections and make the Constituent Assembly and Autonomy Referendum happen."
Yes, tactics (maybe not so much lawfullness - an issue on which I take a cue from people like Thoreau and Martin Luther King) are a big question for me. I think there are problems with the approach of individuals on all sides in Bolivia and pretty much anywhere. I tend to agree with Camus:
It seems to me every one should think this over. For what strikes me, in the midst of polemics, threats and outbursts of violence, is the fundamental good will of every one. From Right to Left, every one, with the exception of a few swindlers, believes that this particular truth is the one to make men happy. And yet the combination of all these good intentions has produced the present infernal world, where men are killed, threatened and deported, where war is prepared, where one cannot speak freely without being insulted or betrayed. Thus if people like ourselves live in a state of contradiction, we are not the only ones, and those who accuse us of Utopianism are possibly themselves also living in a Utopia, a different one but perhaps a more costly one in the end.
I recommend that whole essay: http://www.ppu.org.uk/e_publications/camus1.html
But I am also challenged by the call to solidarity - not with those who make all the "right" decisions, but with those struggling for justice. I've written a bit about this in another context - that of the relationship of liberation theologians to armed movements - here: http://danmoriarty.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_danmoriarty_archive.html#111406461800611295
Sticky stuff, indeed.
When did I say I was supporting the radical free market end of things?
When did I say that if people do vote for nationalization that it should be ignored?
If Bolivians want that, more power to them.
I just believe that certain self-selected groups taking down the government by blockades and dynamite isn't a whole lot more productive for healthy democratic rule that a cabal of "elites" sending out the military.
It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
1) "Democracy" is not hard to define: it means "government OF, BY, and FOR the people".
2)Excerpt from: LEASING THE RAIN
by WILLIAM FINNEGAN RADICAL LEFTIST PUBLICATION "THE NEW YORKER"
" The World Bank warmly calls Bolivia an "early adjuster." Other poor, indebted countries have had to be forced to accept structural adjustment, but in Bolivia the World Bank and the I.M.F. have enjoyed a deep understanding with successive governments since 1985.
Public enterprises—the railways, the telephone system, the national airlines, the great tin mines of Oruro and Potosí—have been sold, mainly to foreign investors. (This fire sale goes on: a Bolivian government Web site lists dozens of factories, refineries, cement plants, paper mills, and municipal utilities that are still available.)
The tin mines, as it happens, had been nationalized after a popular revolution in 1952, which also destroyed the semi-feudal hacienda system that had been in place in Bolivia for centuries.
The United States played an unlikely role in that revolution. The Eisenhower Administration, already busy undermining left-wing governments in Guatemala and Guyana, accepted the new government's plea that it was not Communist (even if some of its allies were) while demanding, and getting, a new investment code that permitted American companies to start operating in Bolivia's eastern oil fields. The United States increased food aid to help the new government survive, and saw to it that "state capitalism" became the official economic model.
An Army coup overthrew the elected government in 1964, leading to the first in a long string of military regimes. (Many of the officers involved had received "counter-insurgency" training in the United States.) They were not, except during a period in the late nineteen-seventies, as violent as those in Chile, Argentina, and Brazil.
The unions and the left were repressed, but not so severely as to engender a guerrilla movement.
By 1982, however, when civilian rule was finally restored, the Bolivian economy, plundered by the generals, was in ruins, and hyperinflation soon took hold, hitting an annual rate of twenty-five thousand per cent in 1985.
Enter "the Boys," also known as "the Chicago Boys," after a group of economists, educated at the University of Chicago, who implemented free-market policies (known in Latin America as neoliberalism) in Pinochet's Chile.
In Bolivia they were led by Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, a wealthy mine owner who was then Minister of Planning (he was later President). Sánchez worked closely with Jeffrey Sachs, the Harvard economist who became famous for the "shock therapy" he designed for post-Communist Poland.
Bolivia's shock treatment was ferocious. The currency was devalued, all price and wage controls were abolished, government spending was cut, and the state-owned tin mines were effectively closed. The economy went into instant recession; unemployment soared. The inflationary spiral, however, was broken, and good relations between the government and the I.M.F. were restored, initiating a new flow of foreign investment and loans.
And for the past sixteen years Bolivia has dutifully followed the dictates of the World Bank and the I.M.F.
Most of its people, however, have nothing to show for it. Poverty was never significantly reduced. This is not unusual in Latin America, where the poverty rate is higher today than it was in 1980—after a full generation of nominal democracy and ever-increasing free trade.
But Bolivia, like Argentina, really put on what Thomas L. Friedman, the Times columnist, calls "the golden straitjacket" of liberalized economic policies. The predicted foreign investment materialized, but the prosperity did not. Landlocked, with a population of eight million and a wretched infrastructure, Bolivia remains the poorest country in South America.
Hugo Banzer, who was Bolivia's military dictator in the nineteen-seventies, became President again after the last election, before stepping down last August in favor of his Vice-President, Jorge Quiroga, because of illness. Quiroga now sits at the head of a "megacoalition."
The political class in Bolivia has always been small, rich, and overwhelmingly white, but rarely have the major parties, all business-aligned, shared a ruling philosophy so peaceably as in recent years. The consensus was that nothing and no one should be exempt from the discipline of the market..."
Dan... I don't know that I'd agree with all of your stances or politics... but I really respect your thoughtfulness and nuance in thinking about things.
I wish there was more of that to go around.
You also mention your desire to stand with those that stand for justice.
Forgive me for being cynical, but my experience has taught me that all to often people are people and the
I'm not so sure how much of this is really all about equal rights and protection and properity as it is about there being chum in the water and everyone wants a piece of the action.
While many people I'm sure are fighting for justice and a fair shake, there is a large question mark in my head about the "nobility" of the left (or the right for that matter).
I think it's attractive to see the left as fighting for justice and goodness, but the poor are no more noble for their poverty (ojo, fighting for the poor is very noble - I'm just saying BEING poor doesn't make you noble).
I happen to be a general believer in free-markets which brands me as a heathen, yet my belief in them is motivated at heart on my experience living in Bolivia and my desire for a just and free society.
I just happen to believe that if you want kids on the altiplano to have a brighter future, you'd be better off with Goni than with Evo (with some definite adjustments...).
That doesn't make me any less dedicated to the destruction of racism and poverty than anyone else.
If you feel that you are supporting justice by siding with the protesters.... I'd just be careful with that. I don't think it works out quite that cleanly.
Thanks for the tip Tilcarallajta Herald. I am paying avid attention to travel messages from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, as well as statements from friends at this time located in La Paz and C'bamba.
From Wikipedia.org...
Bolivian Demographics
Bolivia is one of three countries in Latin America where over half of the population is of Amerindian ancestry. The other two being Guatemala, and Peru. Bolivia's ethnic distribution is estimated to be 33% Quechua, 30% Aymara, 25% Mestizo (mixed indian and European) and 12% pure European. The largest of the approximately three-dozen indigenous groups are the Quechua (2.5 million), Aymara (2 million), Chiquitano (180,000), and Guarani (125,000).
Aren't elections free (and compulsory) in Bolivia? Why aren't the indigenous peoples of Bolivia already dominating Bolivian politics? If the indigenous people are as like-minded as people seem to imply, then this should be relatively easy to do.
From Wikipedia.org...
Evo Morales: Towards the 2007 elections
At a gathering of farmers celebrating the 10th anniversary of the founding of MAS in March 2005, Morales declared that "MAS is ready to rule Bolivia", having "consolidated its position as the first political force in the country". He acknowledged, however, that "the problem is not winning the elections anymore but knowing how to rule the country." http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B90EBE9EE-BA62-452D-9EEE-3A64CD0E2340%7D&language=EN
Jim, why don't you think Evo Morales can do better than 21%? Even if the overall size of the left does not grow (I suspect it is growing), Jaime Paz Zamora also took 16% and Felipe Quispe 6% in the last election. Combine them all and you have a formidable political party. Unfortunately, it does seem apparent that Morales has little understanding of how his government would run the country.
From Wikipedia.org...
Evo Morales: Ideology
Morales has articulated the driving force behind MAS:
The worst enemy of humanity is capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neoliberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that the national states are not providing even minimally for health, education and alimentation, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated.
Morales seems to equate "savage capitalism" with a "national state which is not providing even minimally for health, education, and sustenance". But where does Morales expect this health, education, and sustenance to come from? If the lowland states seceded today, and Morales headed the new government of Altiplano de Bolivia, how would the altiplano be better off? How much sustenance would the state be able to supply then? Would the state take ownership of the coca fields?
He has also stated:
the ideological principles of the organization, anti-imperialist and contrary to neoliberalism, are clear and firm but its members have yet to turn them into a programmatic reality. http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B90EBE9EE-BA62-452D-9EEE-3A64CD0E2340%7D&lang
He has articulated the goals of his his party and popular organizations as the need to achieve national unity, a constituent assembly to transform the country, and to develop a new hydrocarbon law which guarantees 50 percent of revenue to Bolivia.
No one has yet explained what this constituent assembly is supposed to achieve, besides nationalizing the oil and gas industry.
Yup... long on bombast, short on substantive proposals. That's Evo.
But don't package Jaime Paz in with Mallku and Evo. I think you can safely package Evo and Mallku in the same general political space, but Jaime and MIR are not even close. Isn't Vaca Diez MIR??
But Mallku and Evo don't really get along, partly because the represent different ethnic constituencies - Quecuas and Aymaras.
Which is why I get so frustrated with the black and white portrail of all of this mess.
Reports are that Vaca Diez showed up on Sucre on the same plane as Goni's son and law.
How stupid can you get?
The anti-american conspiracy theorists seem to be out in full force on this blog. Its one thing to claim that the US has a unique ability to shape economic and political policy around the world, but to believe that the US is in the shadows behind every attempt against the indigenous population is ridiculous and paranoid.
first, Eduardo ... excellent commentary second Aren't Santa Cruz, Tarija, and the Beni allowed to have a future? Most of these commentaries seem to say that Santa Cruz, etc. should just meekly bow to the " will of the people " and accept control of their future by Evo and gang. Vaca Diez lawfully is the next line. In my experience Santa Cruz is interested in moving forward and the Altiplano, etc. is going backwards.
Agree - War is not good for anyone, the extreme right or the extreme left
Agree - War should try to be avoided by all reasonable methods
Agree - True and Fair Democracy is the key to a fair and just society (Bolivia). This means all the points of view get equal access to the media, newspapers, etc. methods of reaching the masses
Basically, I believe the poor and disenfranchised in Bolivia have reached their "Tipping Point," the point at which the Gov't must change, or Revolution begin. So if you were poor, uneducated, lack medicine, and have little hope for things ever improving, why would you really care if you went to war. You may die in a war, but in a way you are already dead, because you accepted the world around you and you accepted the will of evil men, instead of trying to fix things.
So if you accept that either the gov't must change or war is next, then what do you hope for after the war?
I personally believe in a form of Democratic gov't that has "Limited Capitalism." This is a cross between Pure Socialism and Pure Capitalism. It says that you can make as much money as you want or can, but not at the expense of the least forturnate in society. One example would be to cap the amount of income any single person can make in a year, to the average or median income per capita multiplied by 5 (median or average, whichever is lower).
In the end, after all revolutions, the military comes into power, then the intellectuals, then the special interest; the special interest bring about a collaps of society, and the process begins again. It has been this way for thousands of years, and unfortunatley it doesn't look like the special interest have learned their lesson, so it begins again.
foster,
Confession of an Economic Hit Man explains how the US expands its imperial agenda.
Basically, US gets World Bank to give loans to poor contries to build their infrastructure (electricity, water, etc.) which is suppossed to increase their GDP and give then the money to repay back the loan, but with the stipulation that the money must be used to hire US engineering firms to do the job. The loans are usually larger then the country needs, and they are also overpaying the the services of the US companies, and the great GDP growth never materializes, so the borrowing country defaults, once they default, the US/World Bank come in and force the countries to privatize all their industries, give the UN votes to the US, incease taxes, destroy union, etc. the list goes on and on.
So who benefits: the crooked gov't officals of the borrowing country, the us gov't (at least those that run the gov't), international corporations, and the international banks.
Who suffers: the country borrowing the money, the poor of that country, the US taxpayers who subsidize this process
I do not view so much as a conspiracy, but of just "the way things work" from the point of view of those in power.
The truth is out there, you just got to have an open-mind.
Andrew wrote: " But at some point the radical left has taken a turn such that they are no longer working in favor of a peaceful, prosperous Bolivia."
I think it's with that kind of statement that you undermine your claim to objectivity and goodwill.
How is it that those those who relentlessly, fanatically, and now again with threats of repression and bloodshed, push a radical market-fundamentalist ideology that has been wreaking havoc around the world (deserving the label "evil" as much as anything else in human history), are for "peace and prosperity" while those who oppose that radical market fundamentalist ideology somehow not not for peace and prosperity?
The so-called "radical leftists" no doubt are "human, all too human" and surely have many misguided ideas and perhaps more than a few terrible ideas-- but given the history of Bolivia, given the history of this market-fundamentalist madness--THEY certainly don't seem top be the ones who have promoted dictatorship, bloody repression, corrupt government, fake-democracy, and the maintenance of a grotesquely unjust and evil social system.
I could understand it if you took a "pox on all their houses" position--yes, that could be an intellectually honest stance, for sure!-- but to so unreasonably SINGLE OUT "radical leftists" ( a blatantly demagogic epithet) discredits completely any claim of yours to fairness, objectivity and genuine goodwill.
That kind of utterly one-sided condemnation is precisely the kind "black and white" ideology-driven rhetoric you purport to condemn.
I think the point Anonymous (by the way, using some sort handle makes the dialogue flow a little easier) makes about tipping points misguidedly attributes some sort of nobility to the protesters.
This crisis is not about the poor attaining some level of dignity. It is about grabbing power in a vaccuum, and exploiting grudges and racism to moblize people.
Have Evo and crew talked about jobs for the poor, education for their children, due process and justice? The answer is a very cynical NO. When Cardinal Terrazas invited Evo to Santa Cruz for a dialogue, Evo responded the Cardinal should go to La Paz so he could be with the people. What about the "people" in Santa Cruz? Is he not fighting for them? Again, NO.
When Evo rails against the oil and gas companies, he neglects their roles in sustainable job creation. When he talks about oligarchic elites in Santa Cruz, ne does not mention that the business groups in Santa Cruz invest and generate jobs and growth. He talks about a strong super state that control resources, but neglects to mention that we had that for decades and never shook off endemic poverty.
Please, spare us the romantic delusions about this crisis and what it means. I remember Dennis Miller once commenting on the obscenity backlash of some 2 Live Crew song by saying: If we are going up against the wall, couldn't we find something better than As Nasty as they Wanna Be?
The point is that the left would be better served by finding a better channel for their ideals. Evo is simply attempting a naked power grab.
Eduardo is correct again.
Anynomous - I'm not supporting the radical right.
Bolivia is (was?!) a democratic country with a system in place to make change.
Imperfect? Yes. Problematic? Yes.
At least marginally workable? Yes.
Evo's ascent to his current position of power is in no small part due to the political process itself and his showing in the elections.
Until he nailed the 22% in the last election, he was just another rabble-rouser in the minds of most people. The elections gave him wider credibility - as elections should.
My point in chastising the radical left is that they are the ones who are currently pushing the country into chaos.
Bolivia is a country with a lot of racism and classism and a caste of ruling elite.
So let's agree that Bolivia has issues. Big issues.
However, it is a country with a democratic system that has progressively brought more and more indigenous voices to the table. Goni's own Popular Participation law was, warts and all, a revolutionarily good law.
My point is that with all of it's defects, Bolivian democracy was slowly working, slowly bringing new voices to the table - it was doing for Bolivia what democracy has done for the US - slowly but surely bring the disenfrachised into the system.
I'm not saying the radical right are a bunch of good guys. I pretty much detest the bunch.
But they aren't the ones who are, at this point, pushing Bolivian democracy off a cliff.
Bolivian democracy is at risk BECAUSE of Evo and gang.
If, for instance, Evo had won the last election adn then the radical right had sent out the troops to take him out - I'd be bitching just as loudly about them.
But that's not what happened.
Bolivian democracy, like all democracy, is slow. But it's better than just about anything else we've come up with.
And right now the hands around the throat of Bolivian democracy are Evo and gang's.
And if Vaca Diez is successful in instituting some sort of authoritarian state, does anyone in their right mind think that would have happened, or been accepted by anyone had this whole mess not been brought to this point by the radical left.
For crying out loud, Mallku is calling for civil war and the killing to begin.
eduardo,
I agree with you, but I believe this has more to do with a lack of education than indifference on Evo's part (honestly, I do not know how educated Evo is). I think that he doesn't really know how to fix the system, he just knows that the current system isn't working. I believe he is part of the poor, hungry class in this country and doesn't have the education necessary to start a new country.
The US for example, was not founded by poor, hungry men, on the contrary, most were upper-middle class to rich, educated men. Together, they were able to create a country that has lasted over 200 years. Just reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you realize just how much forethought and insight these men had, it's amazing. Unfortunately, in the US, those in power only seem to follow the Constitution when it is in their best interest.
What does this mean for Bolivia, it means that if they want to create a fair and just society, they are going to need more than just the poor and hungry on their side, they are going to need some of the upper middle-class (what little there is) and rich, educated citizens on their side. Only then, can they plant the seeds for a just society.
---
Someone of goodwill wrote: "so the borrowing country defaults, once they default, the US/World Bank come in and force the countries to privatize all their industries, give the UN votes to the US, incease taxes, destroy union, etc. the list goes on and on."
Consider this case-- Market-Fundamentalism at work. And please note, these are the actions of an "elected" democratic government. Iraq, like Bolivia, is a sovereign "democratic" nation.
IRAQIS LOOK TO CUTS IN PAYROLL
Many fear that a plan to slash government jobs...could swell ranks of the insurgency.
By Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 6, 2005
EXCERPTS:
BAGHDAD — Iraqis, who are already dealing with food shortages, daily power blackouts and a deadly insurgency, on Sunday received another dose of bad news: Their newly leaders may slash budgets and government jobs.
Many fear that the move could cause impoverished Iraqis to sympathize with rebel forces...
Government spokesman Laith Kubba said that ministries were overstaffed and that a new agency could soon try to cut budgets and subsidies.
As many as half of Iraq's 6.5 million-strong workforce is employed by the state, thanks in part to ousted President Saddam Hussein, who increased the public payroll to mask unemployment and shore up a altering economy.
Kubba did not say how many jobs could be eliminated, but he warned that budget cuts "will be a bit painful."
...Observers worry that any attempt to dismantle the patronage networks could alienate more Sunni Arabs, believed to be leading the insurgency.
... Many Iraqis blame the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, for laying the groundwork for the insurgency by summarily dismissing the old Iraqi army's tens of thousands of soldiers, a move that may have swelled the ranks of militant groups.
Humam Shamaa, an economist with the Iraqi Institute for Future Studies, a think tank, said that each Iraqi without a paycheck is a potential recruit for well-funded militant groups.
Salaries account for only 20% of public expenses, Shamaa said. Iraqi ministry employees earn about $130 a month on average. He warned that with increasing food prices, 30% unemployment and 9 million Iraqis living below the poverty line, any budget cuts could push more Iraqis toward violence.
"We have to find jobs for people, not throw them out of work," he said. "I think that reducing the public sector will only encourage the insurgency."
Kubba, who last week had discussed slashing popular subsidies for electricity and oil products, said that shrinking the government and allowing the private sector to expand would solve many of Iraq's FINANCIAL troubles.
He said the nation was obligated to reduce public spending under a DEBT-REDUCTION SCHEME sponsored by the INTERNTIONAL MONETAYR FUND [IMF].
----------------
Yes, surprise, surprise. The IMF again. Solving "financial" problems -- with no interest in HUMAN problems.
Hey, what would that radical leftist capitalist ruling-class fellow F.D. Roosevelt have done in such a situation? How about keeping as many Iraqi's as possible on the payroll and putting them to work rebuilding the country! But THAT is anathema to the radical-market-fundamentalist because it would impede privatization, require moderate taxation (outlawed by Bremer's famous ramrodded "laws"), etc. which in turn would limit corporate profits.
Sorry for the digression to another part of the globe-- but, it's ALL INTERCONNECTED.
Anonymous: I believe Evo has a 10th grade education.
I just think Evo is trying to fix the system. I think he is exploiting whatever opportunities he finds to grab power. Keep in mind his ever shifting demans: First 50% tax and royalties on oil and gas, then 50% royalties + 18% tax, nationalization, then expropriation, blocking parliament, Mesa resignation, now elections. It keeps changing and I think its to keep his supporters on the march.
Creating a just society requires consensus. Evo has one way to negotiate, my way or we block the roads. Regrettably, it has worked so far and he thinks he can stick with it.
I think there are a lot of middle class and rich folks on the side of the poor and disenfranchised in Bolivia. Mesa, for all of his hubris, is a good example.
It's just that it's hard to get cuddly with guys like Mallku who are out whipping up the troops to hate whites.
Andrew,
I believe that war is not the answer. Just look at the recent Russian revolution (okay there was a breakup and still some fighting), but on the whole, it was a fairly seemless transition of power. How did this occur, basically, the Russian military refused to fire on its own citizens, so a compromise was forced and Yeltzin came into power.
In Bolivia, the people are protesting, they are not starting a war. If the new president declares martial law, and the Bolivian military fires on its own citizens, then it is the new Pres. who started the war, not Evo and the poor. They were merely following their god-given right to protest and disagree with other people, and if necessary, defend themselves.
So if war breaks out, who started it will depend on who fired the first shots. If the military doesn't take sides, there will be no war, I believe it is that simple.
Correction: I don't think Evo is trying to fix the system, for the record.
Yeah, what Eduardo said.
And the closer Evo gets to power, the stronger his incentive to keep pushing it.
I think it also needs to be said that the legislature just passed a law adding a 32% tax on top of the 18% royalties on hydrocarbons. Vaca Diez even signed it into law! Maybe this was not a perfect law, but it would seem a step in the right direction as far as the left is concerned. It seems like the government responded to the wishes of the people. Did Evo and gang even give it a chance to be implemented? No. They just increased their demands. This all just a cover for a grab for power by Evo and gang.
The difference is that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship!
That's the point - there are ways, imperfect ways, but ways, for things to be worked out
When Evo et al are tossing around dynamite, talking about revolution, wearing ski masks and carrying around mock rifles, blocking the roads and generally saying they'll do whatever they want to do... well, that's not really the way you work things out in a democracy, even a lousy one.
I mean come on - in the US we call out the nation guard in that situation.
To say the war is started by whoever fires the first shot? Does that include sticks of dynamite and handing out homemade bomb making instructions?
Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, that is another story, but I agree, it is all related...
I must be honest, growing up I had a fascination with Revolutionary heroes: Jefferson, Che, Zapata, etc.
But as I have gotten older, I have come to the conclusion that change can best be achieved peacefully, the best examples being Ghandi and Martin Luther King. The only problem is that men like this are very rare, so unfortunately, war is the all too common answer for change.
Agree - Power does corrupt,
but not all the time
---
If we are going to compare the development of the stable, lasting democracy of the United States to any possible future for Bolivia, we must remember what U.S. "Creoles" did to Indigenous North Americans in order to establish their empire. In a word, genocide.
This is precisely the problem with so much "development" and "aid" work (of which the policies that most immediately led to the current crisis constitute a part). It assumes 1) that materially wealthy countries are "developed" and poor ones are not, 2) that such development is desireable, and 3) that the wealthy countries, particularly the U.S., are therefore qualified to show the way to said development. Among the many problems with such an approach is that it rests on a selective and distorted understanding of our own history.
With regard to waiting for the established system in Bolivia to work its progressive magic, I must echo Jim in citing Martin Luther King, Jr's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." I don't pretend to equate Evo or Felipe Quispe with MLK. I wish MLK's 4 steps for nonviolent direct action were the rule, and they are not. But when I read Andrew T's words, King's response rings in my head:
Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
Again, not romanticizing the individual actors here, nor denying the mixed motives at play, I do believe there is a popular struggle for justice underway in the middle of it all. To tell them "the old way was working" seems at least irrelevant now, if not simply inacurate.
... but MLK and the black rights movement DID, in the end, work through the system didn't they?
They forced the issue onto the agenda. They demanded that justice be done ACCORDING THE RULES OF LAW.
They refused to wait any longer.
But MLK and the huge majority of blacks did not throw dynamite nor threaten to try and overthrow the government. They used every means at their disposal to push a lethargic system to do what it had to do.
And it worked.
I can't think of a case where a democratic government has been essentially overthrown to the benefit of society. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
If 250,000 miners marched into La Paz with a coherent demand and sat down in Plaza Murillo or on the Prado and said, "we're not budging till our coherent demand is met" I'd be moved.
I'm not moved by what's going on now.
BTW, I agree with you 100% about development work.
"... increased the public payroll to mask unemployment and shore up a faltering economy."
That statement certainly caught my eye! Ponder it for a moment.
Employing someone "masks unemployment". This is the Orwellian logic at the heart of market-fundamentalism.
Using a nation's wealth to increase a nation's wealth (wealth being defined not simply as "economic growth")-- is this "radical leftist" totalitarianism? Or is it simply democracy ("government OF, BY, and FOR the people" ) of the sort Franklin Roosevelt promoted as the best alternative to the twin evils of "capitalist" /"communist" extremism (which indeed were not separate systems but different realizations of ONE system)??
Published on Monday, May 30, 2005 by the Guardian (UK)
Chávez Leads the Way
In using oil wealth to help the poor, Venezuela's leader is an example to Latin America
EXCERPTS:
"...Hundreds of similar shanty towns surround Caracas, and many have already begun to turn the corner. In some places, the doctors brought in from Cuba are working in newly built premises, providing eye treatment and dentistry as well as medicines. Nearly 20,000 doctors are now spread around this country of 25 million people. New supermarkets have sprung up where food, much of it home-produced, is available at subsidized prices. Classrooms have been built where school dropouts are corralled back into study.
"...The Chávez government...has forged ahead with various spectacular social projects, assisted by the huge jump in oil prices, from $10 to $50 a barrel over the past six years. Instead of gushing into the coffers of the already wealthy, the oil pipelines have been picked up and directed into the shanty towns, funding health, education and cheap food.
"...So, what does his Bolivarian revolution consist of? He is friendly with Castro - indeed, they are close allies - yet he is no out-of-fashion state socialist. Capitalism is alive and well in Venezuela - and secure. There have been NO illegal land seizures, no nationalizations of private companies.
Chávez seeks to curb the excesses of what he terms "savage neo-liberalism", and he wants the state to play an intelligent and enabling role in the economy, but he has no desire to crush small businesses, as has happened in Cuba."
And so on and so forth-- yes, Chavez is the devil --responsible for the great crime of New Deal style public works undertaken by a democratically government. The great crime of gently moderating the "free market" (sic) system.
Andrew,
Yes, in the US we do call out the national guard; But, I do not agree with this, especially when they tear gas a peaceful crowd, just to get rid of them. I believe that free-speech and the right to protest are protected by the constitution, and I also believe in the right to bear arms. The US founding fathers put that in the constitution, not only because of Britian, but also because they were worried about the US gov't itself becomming to powerful, and they wanted the people to be able to protect themselves.
And yes, I agree that using dynamite to kill people is considered firing the first shot (but only if it is a sign of aggression on the part of the protesters and not just an isolated incident; you can also have an isolated incident where military personal fire upon people, but if it is isolated, that should not be considered the start of a war), it is like the difference between manslaughter and murder. It is like when the Russians shot down a US spy plane over Cuba, we shouldn't have been there in the first place, which is why I believe we were still able to avoid nuclear war.
War, fighting, it is bad for everyone, so I hope the Bolivian's are able to find a peaceful solution to their problems.
---
Problems with the left? What's the deal with Evo's stance on coca. He wants to be able to grow more for cultural reasons. Why? Is there a scarcity of coca in Bolivian markets? Hell no. I buy coca every week and I have no problem finding a bag. It's a blatant attempt to make his constituants richer. If he were honest he would come out and do the correct thing and advocate complete lagelization of drugs. Why doesn't he do this? Because in a legal market coca leaves would not yield any more money than the other products coming out of the Chapare and thus, he loses his constituancy. But then hey, why discuss coca anymore because Evo has transcended himslef and coopted the extreme left. All of a sudden he wants to nationalize just about everything. He said so hiumself just a few days ago in his own paid for advertisement. He is a blatant oportunist.
That said, I am sympathetic with goals of the left. Unfortunately, their goals are not realistically worked out and in the frenzy of these social movements they are beiung hastily altered. The regular folk I have talked to in the valle bajo think nationalizing gas means keeping it all for themselves. That is certainly one version floating around but not even universally accepted on the left. Another friend says that when Evo comes into power all the cocaleros will get rich. Now where is he learning this propoganda? Only if they blatantly go against U.S. demands and thus risk retaliation. That may not be just and fair but it is reality and average Bolivians don't necessarily take that into account.
These are mob times and Bolivia will be extremely lucky if a coherent, long term solution is generated. They will be lucky if a short term solution gets them by until the next wave of bloqueos.
I'd agree with not impeding free speech and a peaceful crowd - that's not what these are.
I spent a few years in the late 70's working in both in rural Santa Cruz and the altiplano. Best people I ever met. But it seems things are just a repeat of the past fifty years--elites, leftists, COB, blah blah. Somebody needs to get up and say "lets do something different" I talk to enough people to they are out there.
EL BOLIVIANO
As a person of Bolivian descent and living in America, I have seen the great things that capitalism can accomplish. It is certainly a powerful system which motivates people to be creative in producing wealth.In America capitalism is part of the culture. However, when it comes to Bolivia,capitalism is not part of the culture. There is no history of an effective fair system of capitalism with checks and balances. People dont't undertand what the Dow Jones, equity,etc., are. When people do not understand something fully well, they mistrust its originality. Bolivians are more statists not communists, but a culture that believes in the strong participation of the state in industry especially, while allowing private companies as well.
In the state, they feel an identification with their country. Under neoliberalism, Bolivians feel their national identity and culture is being destroyed by foreing capital. A mixed economy is what Bolivians want, capitalism, but not the extremes.Because after all people who go into business are after all to make money and profit, and the more the better.
They will only
will full open capitalism when they learn how it can be fairly and justly be practiced and managed by Bolivians themselves.
Deja vu
Having been born, rared and lived in Northern Ireland in the time of "the Troubles" the representations of the social, political or tri