Evo Morales Becomes Bolivia's Next Presiden, Now His Real Challenge Begin

[Lidia]

by Gretchen Gordon

 

This past Sunday, the people of Bolivia elected indigenous leader Evo Morales as their next president. In elections that have captured international attention, Morales' Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) won over 50 percent of the popular vote, with a 20 percent lead over conservative opponent Jorge Quiroga. MAS' win represents a significant increase over pre-election polls, which placed Morales at a maximum of 30-34 percent, and within a few points of Quiroga. The surprisingly large victory achieved by Morales at the polls, however, belies the great challenge ahead for a MAS government when it actually takes power next year.

 

Last week, in a packed soccer stadium in Cochabamba, Bolivia, Marcello Guzman carried a large billowing multicolored checkered indigenous flag against a strong wind. Among 60,000 fellow Bolivians, Guzman stood beneath a darkening sky, holding out despite an impending thunderstorm for the chance to cheer on Morales in his final campaign rally before elections.

 

Guzman describes himself as a member of Bolivia's two largest indigenous groups, a "Quechua and Aymaran brother of Evo," and his proud sentiment represents the intense feeling of expectation alive in Bolivia as it stands poised to usher in South America's first indigenous president. "Evo! Evo!

 

Evo!" chants the crowd as Morales's hoarse voice implores the audience to be part of "the struggle for the liberation of the people of Bolivia."

 

"We're very close to recovering the land and all the natural resources... to nationalizing all of the natural resources," shouts Evo. "The natural resources can't be given away, can't be privatized, they belong in the hands of the Bolivian state!"

 

After centuries of rule by criollos, often foreign-educated upper class, Bolivia remains the poorest country in South America despite a rich supply of natural gas and other resources. The prospect of Morales' Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party taking power has had many in Bolivia, the region, and beyond watching attentively the unfolding events in this small, often overlooked, country. As Morales tells the crowd, the change currently taking place in Bolivia "is not only the hope of Bolivia but the hope of Latin America."

 

In the last three years, exacerbated by free-market or "neo-liberal"

 

reforms, Bolivia's historic disparity of wealth and power has come to a boiling point. Bolivians have repeatedly taken to the streets, and amid violent clashes with security forces, two successive governments have prematurely resigned. Among the critical issues in play are who will control the country's rich natural gas reserves, and whether or not Bolivia's disenfranchised indigenous majority will finally have a share in the nation's wealth and power.

 

The hope resting on Morales' shoulders is that with a MAS government, Bolivia's vast resources will be exploited for the country's own development, and the privatization, deregulation, and other neo-liberal economic policies put in place in the last twenty years will be reformed.

 

"Now we're going to industrialize our prime materials," says Guzman excitedly, right before the bamboo stick holding up his flag breaks in half from the wind. "We're no longer going to be tenants in our own home. Now we're going to be owners of our own house." But just as many in Bolivia look to Morales as a lifeline to a country drowning in poverty and conflict, Morales'

 

same proposals of change inspire an almost similar degree of fear from certain sectors within the country (both left and right), as well as from financial interests abroad.

 

Election radio spots by business groups warned that if Morales is elected, he will do away with private property as the spots allege has occurred under President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Others predict that Morales' plan to decriminalize the cultivation of coca, traditionally grown for medicine, tea, and religious uses but also utilized in cocaine production, will cause the country to be isolated internationally. U.S. officials have added to these fears with various public statements of concern over a Morales presidency.

 

But Morales and running mate Alvaro Garcia Linera are the first to temper both the over-ambitious hopes of the left as well as the exaggerated fears on the right. "We should admit that Bolivia will still be capitalist in the next 50 to 100 years," Linera said in recent interviews.

 

An examination of MAS' platform on gas, for example, reveals that Morales'

 

proposal of nationalization is anything but a Cuba-style expropriation. In fact, before massive protests last May, MAS didn't support the call for nationalization. Now their platform calls for a "nationalization without confiscation," with proposals geared toward renegotiation of contracts on terms more favorable to Bolivia, while candidates further to the left called for a more forceful "nationalization without indemnization."

 

Before the election, Morales told La Gaceta, "If I'm elected president, unfortunately it will be my duty to respect those neo-liberal laws. Some changes we will be able to make by decree, others through the legislature, but immediately there aren't going to be great changes because these are 20 years of neo-liberal laws- that can't be erased in one swipe."

 

But this moderate talk is exactly what many of the social movements in Bolivia fear. Many of the indigenous, campesino, miner, and other sectors who have created the public debate and environment for a possible MAS victory feel like Morales is not going far enough to represent their interests.

 

"They are advancing a presidential campaign, but they don't have 100 percent backing of the social movements," says Giselle Gonzalez, a member of the Coordinadora in Defense of Water, the leading group in Cochabamba's 2000 fight against water privatization.

 

"You can feel in the air a certain sense of hope, but still I don't believe that they'll part ways with the multinational corporations," says Gonzalez.

 

"There are people within MAS who are going to look for their personal interest instead of that of the population."

 

Abraham Delgado, a water activist from the city of El Alto echoes this doubt. "They talk about nationalization, but in reality it's not nationalization- 80 percent stays in the hands of the corporations... we stay in the same system, the same model."

 

Various social groups and leaders, including a recent politically-embarrassing public announcement by a MAS Senator, have given a MAS government varying time periods of three to six months to comply with the demands of the Bolivian people, specifically on the issues of gas and the constituent assembly. Failure to make significant progress, they promise, will bring renewed social protest from MAS' own current supporters.

 

While Morales surprised voters with his substantial electoral victory Sunday, the greater test for MAS is only beginning. Once in power, MAS will face the monumental challenge of balancing diverse social movement demands for radical change, with investor fears and U.S. pressures. MAS, while winning a majority in the House of Representatives, will also have to struggle with a minority presence in the Senate. For the many Bolivians who have waited so long and sacrificed so much in order to finally grab hold of a place at the negotiating table, putting too much hope into another government carries significant risk.

 

"It's dangerous because the majority of the people believe that MAS is going to solve things," says Delgado. "There's going to be a significant sense of frustration, because after the elections nothing is going to happen. Those who are going to be frustrated aren't going to be MAS, it will be the people, who have so much hope for MAS."

 

What others in the social movements point to, is that the radical change being sought in Bolivia is not something Evo Morales, or any one president can do himself. What Morales can do, is to help create a favorable environment for the change that the social movements have already set in motion.

 

A major component of that is the convening of a constituent assembly, set for July of 2006, which would put ordinary Bolivians, rather than the president or congress, in charge of deciding major issues such as gas nationalization, land reform, and regional autonomy.

 

"All these issues need real solutions, not band-aid solutions," says Gonzalez. "The solutions need to come from the bottom, and this is going to happen with the constituent assembly, with the participation of everyone."

 

Morales, himself, points to the power of the constituent assembly as a key mandate of the MAS party. "It's the constituent assembly with unlimited powers, that will create a power based in the people to construct this new Bolivia that we're looking for."

 

Proposals for what a constituent assembly would actually look like, who would participate, and what power it would have, however, vary drastically among different interests within Bolivia. From all accounts, the work of constructing a successful constituent assembly invested with sufficient power to be able to tackle the profound issues in play will be an onerous endeavor, laden with potential pitfalls.

 

As Morales finishes his speech in the stadium, now in a full rain, Marcello Guzman stands attentive with the several thousand viewers who remain. He's rigged his bamboo pole back together and holds his flag high against the dark evening sky.

 

While Evo Morales has succeeded in taking power, giving that power back to the people may be his hardest challenge yet.

[Muhammad]

Castro 3

 

King George 0

[Castro]

Wondering where the next US invasion will occur? Well wonder no more.

 

Venezuela gives Exxon ultimatum

 

 

Venezuela has given the world's biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, until the end of this year to enter a joint venture with the state.

 

Failure to do so will almost certainly result in Exxon losing its oil field concessions in the country.

 

Venezuela's socialist government has now signed new agreements with almost all foreign petroleum companies.

 

After months of pressure from left- wing leader Hugo Chavez most foreign oil firms working there have caved in.

 

They have agreed to hand over a controlling stake of their oil interests to the Venezuelan state.

 

This means that Venezuela, which has the world's largest petroleum reserves, now calls the shots in what the foreign guests can and cannot do.

 

In addition, the companies which have signed the new contracts - such as Chevron, BP, Shell and Total - will in future be presented with much higher tax bills by the government.

 

Foreign unease

 

But Venezuela says it is only fair that the foreigners are made to pay up as they have got away lightly in the past.

 

Much of the oil revenue in Venezuela goes into social projects in shanty towns and poor rural areas.

 

But the US oil giant, ExxonMobil, is digging in its heels and is so far refusing to agree to the terms of the new deal.

 

Exxon risks losing Venezuelan operations if it fails to comply.

 

There is growing unease among foreign energy companies based Latin America that they may be forced to become junior partners by a string of left wing governments.

 

In the case of Bolivia and the apparent shift to the left there following elections on Sunday, it is possible that the new government will decide to follow Venezuela's example and renegotiate oil and gas contracts with foreign investors.

 

 

Source

[Castro]

One of the interesting side effects of the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror is the buildup of ill will towards US hegemony. This buildup is transpiring, and conspiring, to topple the empire from its own back yard. What irony.

[ElPunto]

Evo Morales is a grandstander with, I think, little substance behind his sweeping rhetoric. And Bolivia is not as rich as Venezuela so he needs foriegn investors to stay. But if his people elected him in a free and fair election, Washington should butt out. I wish Cuba/Venezuela/Bolivia could learn something from China - Transition your economies slowly and steadily - Communism and extreme Socialism is a deadend

[LANDER]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Evo Morales is a grandstander with, I think, little substance behind his sweeping rhetoric. And Bolivia is not as rich as Venezuela so he needs foriegn investors to stay. But if his people elected him in a free and fair election, Washington should butt out. I wish Cuba/Venezuela/Bolivia could learn something from China - Transition your economies slowly and steadily - Communism and extreme Socialism is a deadend

There is nothing "extreme" about the policies suggested by Morales, having a mixed economy with government regulating some aspects is perfectly legitimate and widely accepted in IR. If one would compare the government regulations and Crown Corporations in canada to those found currently in bolivia, it be assued canada is an extremely socialist country by comparison. What partly makes China a succesful economic story is its control of capital flow, hopefully morales will do something along those lines. Historically "cowboy capitalism" has prooved desastrous in latin america due to the very fact that Capital flows and foreign direct investments came in and out too easily out of countries like Argentina. Any foreign investor panic could result in launching the country in a serious recession and an uncontrolable spiral that could ensue in the region. Part of the reason I think the region is fed up with American interventionism in their economic/national matters. Anybody seen the documentary titled

OUR BRAND IS CRISIS it aired on the CBC a while back, it told the story of how U.S. and Israeli strategist (James Carville amongst them) got the ex-president GONI of bolivia re-elected in a very close race. How the utilized smear campaigns against the opponents and used tremendous resources to basicly look after the interest of the united states in the region. It also talks about how inneficient of a president he was with his neo-liberal policies where he and his immediate entourage got very rich and the unemployment level rose despite the promises of thousands of new jobs from the gas industry. Interesting doc to say the least, because the makers of the doc do not directly comment themselve, all of the opinions and messages come straight from either the Bolivian government members of the time or their employees from the US consulting firm. I won't ruin it for those whom haven't seen it yet, but needless to say things end badly for 'GONI' and his 20 something % (of popular vote)victory.

More on Bolivia: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article333457.ece

[Yeniceri]

Currently, the U.S. doesn't have the military backbone and manpower needed to open yet another offensive theater of war on a different continent. For now, the likes of Chavez and president-elect Morales will be allowed to yap their lips off. Perhaps an assassination, in the old tradition of Gen. Omar Torrijos (nationalist Panamanian president) - a plane crash in 1981 screaming CIA assassination. But not a full-out military assault on Bolivia or Venezuela.

 

I think its too early to judge Morales. Although he speaks, he has yet to meet the Jackals - the giant oil firms who function as neo-colonial governments in his country and others. How he speaks after direct talks with the Jackals will determine his leadership.

 

Interesting though, despite America's best efforts, more populist leaders rise in South America. Oppression breeds resistance - historical and undeniable truth, ain't it?

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by LANDER:

quote:Originally posted by ThePoint:

Evo Morales is a grandstander with, I think, little substance behind his sweeping rhetoric. And Bolivia is not as rich as Venezuela so he needs foriegn investors to stay. But if his people elected him in a free and fair election, Washington should butt out. I wish Cuba/Venezuela/Bolivia could learn something from China - Transition your economies slowly and steadily - Communism and extreme Socialism is a deadend

There is nothing "extreme" about the policies suggested by Morales, having a mixed economy with government regulating some aspects is perfectly legitimate and widely accepted in IR. If one would compare the government regulations and Crown Corporations in canada to those found currently in bolivia, it be assued canada is an extremely socialist country by comparison. What partly makes China a succesful economic story is its control of capital flow, hopefully morales will do something along those lines. Historically "cowboy capitalism" has prooved desastrous in latin america due to the very fact that Capital flows and foreign direct investments came in and out too easily out of countries like Argentina. Any foreign investor panic could result in launching the country in a serious recession and an uncontrolable spiral that could ensue in the region. Part of the reason I think the region is fed up with American interventionism in their economic/national matters. Anybody seen the documentary titled

OUR BRAND IS CRISIS

it aired on the CBC a while back, it told the story of how U.S. and Israeli strategist (James Carville amongst them) got the ex-president GONI of bolivia re-elected in a very close race. How the utilized smear campaigns against the opponents and used tremendous resources to basicly look after the interest of the united states in the region. It also talks about how inneficient of a president he was with his neo-liberal policies where he and his immediate entourage got very rich and the unemployment level rose despite the promises of thousands of new jobs from the gas industry. Interesting doc to say the least, because the makers of the doc do not directly comment themselve, all of the opinions and messages come straight from either the Bolivian government members of the time or their employees from the US consulting firm. I won't ruin it for those whom haven't seen it yet, but needless to say things end badly for 'GONI' and his 20 something % (of popular vote)victory.

More on Bolivia:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article333457.ece

Well, I didn't use the term extreme if you will notice above. But in some ways it fits. Morales wants to free up the planting/harvesting of coca - notwithstanding its traditional medicinal uses - that has an adverse effect on countries around the region through increased availability of cocaine. Morales brought down or helped to bring down the previous several presidents - 2 of them in a matter of months. Does anything change drastically for the better in a matter of months? No. Is that the course of action a wise leader would take? I doubt it. Morales also has publicly said that Cuba is an example for him - Notwithstanding the good healthcare - Cuba has little going for it economically. Communism and state ownership of large chunks of the economy are not a recipe for economic development - that has been pretty much established.

 

The comparison with Canada is incorrect. Canada is a socialistic country in terms of trying to equalize income disparity and the associated ills thereof(ie. access to decent healthcare/education etc) Canada does not actively manage its economy and dicker with the ability of people to own productive assets through corporations.

 

In general, I don't like rabble-rousers and extreme populists as leaders. That sort of style is not conducive to rational, well-thought out policies and recommendations that will make a real dent in poverty and despair in the long-term.

[Castro]

Morales does not have to stand alone and face the US. There's enough discontent across South America (both leaderships and populations) to make even the most leftist statements he makes seem mainstream. We really are witnessing major historical events unfold here. The trio of Chavez-Morales-Castro along with the left leaning Lula (of Brazil) could bring about enormous changes to Latin America. Being the empire in decline that it is, the US might change this into a bloody conflict, however. It will be interesting to see how a shameful exit from Iraq coupled with an increasingly defiant Latinos would affect the soft as a baby's bum ego of the Americans. A great time to be alive indeed.

[ElPunto]

Additionally, Crown Corporations are a negligible part of the economy of this country. The vast majority of economic activity results from small business and private corporations.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Castro:

The trio of Chavez-Morales-Castro along with the left leaning Lula (of Brazil) could bring about enormous changes to Latin America.

Erm, Lula de Silva, er, no longer left? He is now center-right .

 

Originally posted by ThePoint:

Communism and state ownership of large chunks of the economy are not a recipe for economic development - that has been pretty much established.

No. Actually, in the study of development economics, illuminating neo-statist assertions claim that pricisely (in Johnson Chalmers) the 'developmental state' can be attributed to the economic miracle of East Asia (read for example, the 'guided market' of Robert Wade in the case of Taiwan, Amsden's 'governed' market in Korea). So yes, while state-ownership could have detrimental effects, state direction of the market, as opposed to 'market-led' (yet not precisely Laissez Faire as we know it), is key to economic development. You see market led economies lead to conglomorates (such as pre-war Zaibatsu of Japan, which was later dissolved and replaced by the Keiretsu) and interest groups that dominate the market itself by inducing into it economic factors that limit economic growth, while at the same time forcing the weak state to their own benefits.

 

Thus there needs to be a strong state in the developmental process, a state that can protect itself from such interest groups pressures. A strong Communist state, especially that type of China doesn't necessarilly distort economic development, in fact if you ask some Asian Model economists, it appropriates suitable policy of resource allocation for industries (there is broad literature on this) that work towards the national developmental goal of the nation. But where state let go of their markets and indulge in all out liberalizations, such as in the mid-1990s, what happens is indeed financially catastrophic (think: the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the Malaysian remedy to the crisis). In East Asian social and economic rights rather than civil and political rights matter most. So as long as the state guarantees, the peoples' economic welfare, it can adapt whatever political approaches it so wishes. The same applies to Morales' case: to recover from economic disaster and poverty that had been resulted by rampant capitalism.

 

The comparison with Canada is incorrect. Canada is a socialistic country in terms of trying to equalize income disparity and the associated ills thereof(ie. access to decent healthcare/education etc) Canada does not actively manage its economy and dicker with the ability of people to own productive assets through corporations.

OK. I won't say much about the quote above, but I will give you four economic categories in which all states of the world fall in: market ideological, plan ideological, market rational, and plan rational economies. USA falls in the first category, Japan falls in the fourth category. Try to get hold of Johnson Chalmers' writings and try to figure out the rest of the countries and the categories in which they fall .

 

Pardon me folks, I might have used far-fetched examples in regards to the Bolivian case.

[Castro]

^ Yeah really. This is the image I have of the whole US vs. South America unfolding saga: there's a massive Goliath busy beating the crap out of a David in the Middle East with his back turned towards South America. Every once in a while, Goliath turns around to see what all the noise behind him is about and he sees Fidel, Evo, Hugo and Lula frozen in jest with kid-smiles on their faces and accusing each other saying: "he did it".

 

What they are doing, in reality, is making the blade that will be used to stab Goliath in the back. And Goliath won't even know what hit him.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ Yeah really. This is the image I have of the whole US vs. South America unfolding saga: there's a massive Goliath busy beating the crap out of a David in the Middle East with his back turned towards South America. Every once in a while, Goliath turns around to see what all the noise behind him is about and he sees Fidel, Evo, Hugo and Lula frozen in jest with kid-smiles on their faces and accusing each other saying: "he did it".

 

What they are doing, in reality, is making the blade that will be used to stab Goliath in the back. And Goliath won't even know what hit him.

Interesting picture. While I am not sure they are sharpening their blades per se - I definitely see Goliath sinking slowly in the sand under his own enormous wieght while busy fighting David.

[S.O.S]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Castro:

The trio of Chavez-Morales-Castro along with the left leaning Lula (of Brazil) could bring about enormous changes to Latin America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Erm, Lula de Silva, er, no longer left? He is now center-right .

You're right about Lula de Silve, even some voices in Brazil are predicting that Morales will end up much tha same way as Lula.... starting fresh off the blocks with the familiar rhetorics, but we've seen that too many times!

 

Yahoo Brazil reported the interview in which Morales is quoted as saying:

 

"O único terrorista do mundo que eu tenho conhecimento é o Bush. As intervenções militares dele, como a do Iraque, são terrorismo de Estado", disse Morales à Al Jazeera.

 

lets wait and see!

[Paragon]

Castro, true. There is no doubt that South Americans (US' own backyard - the Latinos resent this phrase), are up to something UnAmerican . It seems leftist sentiments are becoming fashionable not only in South American, but all over the T.World. Interesting times to live, eh?