Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBolivia Gets the Change It Asked For
Evo Morales changed the history of Bolivia when he was elected in December 2005 as the country's first indigenous president, and the first to get a majority of 54 percent. On Sunday he expanded his mandate considerably in a referendum, with 68 percent of voters opting to keep him in office.
The conventional wisdom in Washington--where the foreign policy establishment is decidedly not sympathetic to Morales's populist agenda--has been that the referendum would settle nothing. Bolivia remains divided, say the pundits, along geographic (eastern lowland states versus the west), ethnic (indigenous versus non-indigenous) and class (rich versus poor) lines. Maybe so, but apparently it is less divided than when Morales was first elected, an event that was widely celebrated as a milestone akin to the end of apartheid in South Africa. Was that election also meaningless? Bolivia's indigenous majority had previously been excluded from the corridors of power, and the results can be seen in their lower living standards: indigenous Bolivians have less than half the labor income and 40 percent less schooling than non-indigenous.
Morales had promised to regain control over the country's hydrocarbon resources--mostly natural gas. This was accomplished and has brought in an extra $1.5 billion of revenue to the public treasury. (For comparison, imagine an extra $1.6 trillion, or four times the current US federal budget deficit, in the United States.)
Morales and his party had also promised a new constitution, and that is where things got bogged down. The main stumbling blocks revolve around the distribution of the country's most important natural resources. These are the hydrocarbon revenue and also Bolivia's arable land.
In developing countries throughout the world that are dependent on hydrocarbons, these revenues generally belong to the central government, not the place where they are located. Bolivia is unusual, in that half of the hydrocarbon revenue goes to the provinces and local governments.
But the four eastern lowland provinces--sometimes called the "Media Luna" or "half-moon" because they form a crescent along the eastern half of the country--wanted even more control over these revenues.
These provinces produce about 82 percent of Bolivia's natural gas, and get nearly three times the gas revenue per person as do the other five provinces. The Media Luna states have a per capita income that is about 40 percent higher than the other five states. Their population is also much less indigenous: ranging from 16 percent in Pando to 38 percent in Santa Cruz, as compared to 66 percent to 84 percent in the other states.
The Media Luna states also have the big landholdings that give Bolivia one of the most concentrated land distributions in the entire world. Well under one percent of landowners control two-thirds of the country's farm land. These include the big soybean producers of Santa Cruz, Bolivia's largest province and bulwark of the Media Luna alliance. Some of the big landowners are leaders of the political opposition.
Land reform is understandably a central political and economic issue. With 40 percent of the labor force in agriculture and more than three-quarters of rural Bolivians in poverty, a redistribution of arable land is not only a central demand of the voters but an important part of an economic development strategy that can boost employment and income in the countryside.
The recent referendum shows that the Morales government has increased its mandate to a landslide margin, by delivering on some of the changes that the electorate had voted for, and offering the majority of Bolivians a realistic hope for a better future. It casts doubt on the claim that this government has simply pursued its own, polarizing, leftist agenda, without regard to the concerns of the broad electorate. Its victory is all the more impressive in that it has been handicapped by an overwhelmingly hostile Bolivian media.
Bolivia is South America's poorest country, with 60 percent of the population living below the poverty line, and 38 percent in extreme poverty. The voters have overwhelmingly decided that they want their government to do something about that. This should be possible, even if it means redistributing some of the country's most important natural resources.
Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC, is co-author of The Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress (Center for Economic and Policy Research).
© 2008 The Nation
20 Comments so far
Show AllJack Canuck are you insane? Columbia is one of the few countries where CIA intervention has actually played a positive role. Were it not for the CIA the Medellin cartel would still be running rampant. The damage they did to opposition political freedom far outweighs any CIA damage imaginary or otherwise. Before the CIA came in Pablo Escobar was king and hired an entire mercenary army to storm and kill the entire justice department of Columbia. His car bomb campaign in Bogota killed thousands and he murdered numerous political and labor leaders who got in his way. Thanks to american intervention the medellin cartel was destroyed, as was the cali cartel years later. Left-wing groups such as FARC have killed far more people then even the worst right wing paramilitaries and continue to do so to this day.Since the current government (Uribe) has taken power deaths of labor unionists have declined by 80 percent. Paramilitaries are turning in their arms and left wing narcoterrorists are on the run with FARC's total numbers down by half. I don't disagree that the US has a lot to answer for in south america and the CIA has not by any means earned redemption, but to say their actions are harming columbia is misplaced to say the least.
The mess that is Bolivia economically did not get that way in one presidential term and it won't be fixed in that time. The best thing Evo can do in addition to champion the changes he has is to mentor future leaders for the democracy movement in Bolivia.
Nationalization is not confiscation. The owners are paid a fair price for their assets. The greatest problem with, for instance, land redistribution is that giving it to those who are not prepared to either farm, ranch or develope the land creates more problems than it solves.
Any government instituting such a policy should budget for the training and follow-up for those to whom the repatriated land is given.
Cuba greatest liability and asset are one and the same-- Fidel. Without Fidel the CIA/Mafia/big business imperialists would have crushed the revolution. Alas, with Fidel the emphasis for the last 49 years was on long winded speeches and ponderous screed over the proper application of Marxist-Leninist doctrine.
Raul, on the other hand, is a nuts and bolts administrator who was formerly head of the military and who has begun civil rights and economic reforms. I wish Fidel well and hope he lives long enough to wave bye-bye to the 10th. US president who has not been able to unseat him.
MICHAEL C: Good comments.
YOURS TRULY: The thing is, how many wars/front can the US sustain with its bankrupt economy? Sure, it would love to continue its self-proclaimed role as "landlord" to the world, collecting rent, in the form of resources it lays claim to wherever it places its footprint... in a sense, the other nations are growing up, and the yoke placed around their "necks" can no longer be held tight. AMEN to that! It still seems like a flip of the great axis, that the worlds down under are going liberal/progressive while nations of the north are embracing the authoritarian fight-terrorism by checking rights of citizens models. Makes me glad I can speak Spanish.
Realist,
People leave Cuba for the same reason people leave capitalist Mexico--to leave the "Third World" for the "First." Many of Cuba's so-called political prisoners are mercenaries who were paid thousands of dollars by the US Interest Section in Havana to set up "libraries" with pro-imperialist propaganda. As long as the US blockade continues to strain Cuba's independent economy, Cubans see themselves accurately as the targets of economic war. Political freedom non-existent? Cubans elect their representatives without the corrupting influence of corporate donations. Look, in reality Cuba is neither heaven nor hell, but the US is giving Cuba hell for its defiance against yankee hegemony.
AuntEm
I'm not going to deny Cuba has great healthcare as well as other benefits, but it's still an awful place to live in. Why do you think people are willing to turn make shift taxi cabs into boats and risk their lives over ninety miles of treacherous water? Cuba is still full of political prisons that make Guantanamo Bay look like a joke and let's not forget that political freedom is non-existant.
So in Bolivia one percent of landowners own two thirds of arable land in the country. Hmmm. What percent of Bolivians own land? What percent of Americans can be considered to own any wealth at all? What percent of Americans own two thirds of the wealth here? It is obvious that the super wealthy here, who control our government, support the super wealthy of Bolivia, who used to control that government. It scares our super rich to think any other country might break the hold of the wealthy. Of course, our super rich have a weapon the Bolivians do not have. Our super rich control the most overwhelmingly effective propaganda tool ever devised by humankind: television. If the super wealthy in Bolivia had the brains of a louse, they would do exactly as has been done here: make sure every family has a television set and the electricity to run it. They could then control the thinking [or what passes for that] of a majority of the population, as is done here.
Thank you auntEm and yourstruly.
One qualifier to yourstruly however... "Express solidarity how? By way of our electing someone president who'll get America out of the business of Empire plus turning things around here at home." Also, by electing a Congress that will dismantle our Imperial Presidency and restore the power of the legislative branch. And increase respect for The Commons.
-30-
The good news from S. America is that democratic elections are putting revolutionary governments into power. The bad news is that by whatever means are necessary the U.S. will try to take these governments down, just as it did in Guatamala (1954) and Chile (1973) and only narrowly missed doing six years ago in Venezueala. Will it be 'successful' again? Not if we express out solidarity with the revolutionary people of S. America. Express solidarity how? By way of our electing someone president who'll get America out of the business of Empire plus turning things around here at home. And then what sort of world? It'll be up to us.
The Realist August 16th, 9:12 pm: "its called nationalization and it doesnt work well with economies (just look at Cuba!)"
Perhaps you should look at Cuba yourself. Cuba stands almost as a miracle in spite of 40-odd years of sanctions, blockades, you name it. North Americans were brain-washed for years about how awful Castro's Cuba and Communism were and what an evil man Fidel was.
How many more generations of ex-pat Cubans are going to continue this demonizing and disinformation?
In the past, the US has been able to turn back popular movements and democratic development in Latin America by installing their own puppets when possible, or overthrow democratically elected governments, as they did in Guatemala in 1954, and in the 60's and 70's in Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina and of course Chili.
In the '80 and into the 90's their chief victims were El Salvador and Nicaragua. These days, the suffering is probably greatest in Columbia, where the US has successfully proped up a repressive regime that murders its opposition remorselessly.
But on most of the continent, the tide appears to be turning.
They have been able turn back the tide in the past, but it looks to me as though those days are over. I certainly hope so.
Morales should issue Kalashnikovs to everyone who can prove they can't afford their own.
Plus five hundred rounds of ammunition.
And maps to the wealthy landowners haciendas.
guess bolivia didn't get the memo about this prosperity, at least three provinces have voted to enter autonomy since Morales was elected and his re-election bid is already being hit hard. This part is my favorite "a redistribution of arable land is not only a central demand of the voter"...
its called nationalization and it doesnt work well with economies (just look at Cuba!)
Weisbrot: "It casts doubt on the claim that this government has simply pursued its own, polarizing, leftist agenda, without regard to the concerns of the broad electorate."
Leftist agendas are always pursued with regard to the concerns of the broad electorate. It's only right wing agendas that are not. Does the author believe that some leftists polarize for the joy of polarizing, without regard for the well-being of the majority? Not true.
When Americans begin to look beyond their shores, and realize what is happening in Latin America, and in other parts of the world, to counteract the capitalist strangulation these countries have been subjected to for centuries, then there might be hope for progress at home. If they continue to dive for cover every time they hear the word 'socialism', and continue to vote for ersatz saviors such as Obama, then there is no hope for real change; the best they can hope for is pale cosmetics and cheap window dressing. Support for the mild socialism advocated by the Green Party might be a good place to begin to energize their country's political regeneration, as Evo Morales has been successfully energizing Bolivia's.
The CIA is active and at work, you can count on it. Unless and until that criminal organisation is put out of business the rest of the world will continue to have a hard time. So will we.
Veteran, '66-68
So many good things happening in South America. Morales gets his mandate, Fernando Lugo has become the President of Paraguay. Ecuador has a progressive leader in Correa. Chavez stands up to Bush when no one else will. Of course the US is probably devising ways on tearing Bolivia apart.
In the developing world, U.S. foreign policy is often conducted out of earshot of all but a small group in Washington. There is no Congressional debate, and information is carefully filtered through the main stream press. Americans' poor world knowledge, and even worse language ability means that this small group can ride roughshod over democratic principles with no one the wiser. Little wonder that this Washington elite can get away with favoring the local elite.
For decades and more, this went on with little notice, except when the carnage becomes too much to ignore. Then Bush came along and let the cat out of the bag. Irag and Guantanamo finally proved that this giant is far from gentle. It is capable of unspeakable deeds, and people everywhere should be leery of its embrace.
Will Obama re-administer the opiate, and numb us so that we do not the feel the pain our policies cause in non-white lands? I wonder.
"The recent referendum shows that the Morales government has increased its mandate to a landslide margin, by delivering on some of the changes that the electorate had voted for, and offering the majority of Bolivians a realistic hope for a better future." Who would've believed a few short years ago that the world would look to S. America as a model for good government? Maybe moving a little toward the center/left isn't as uncomfortable as the career pols would have us believe.
"It casts doubt on the claim that this government has simply pursued its own, polarizing, leftist agenda, without regard to the concerns of the broad electorate." Compared to what?...say, the Dem/Rep form of fascist government that has pursued it's own, polarizing, rightist agenda, without regard to the concerns of the broad electorate?
Let's just skip to the part where the revolution spills into the streets, and just see what happens, because currently Amerika is sinking to the bottom of the septic tank, and doesn't offer "hope for a better future". It should be obvious by now.
Yes Robert, and once the material support for Oligarchy has died because El Norte has drowned in a sea of red ink, that battle, from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego will finally be won. But only when the US is in tatters, fighting itself, killing it's own people in civil wars. As long as our richfilth animals are capable they will support oppressive oligarchy where ever it exits. Let the games begin, again, and again, and again. Water on rock. Rock looses.
In Latin America the word patrimonio is well understood, and highly regarded. That is certainly true where I have lived for over 16 years in Honduras. A consciousness is growing here that the wealth of a nation, and maybe of a continent, is the patrimonio of everyone living there, to be shared by everyone. That is the basic impulse behind the phenomenon of Chavez, Morales, and many other new faces, including our own president Mel Zalaya here in Honduras. The old idea of a patrimonio that descends from my father alone, by reason of wealth, power, and race, still has its advocates fighting a losing battle to perpetuate it.
Well said poet. Best wishes to Evo Morales and other progressives in South America. They have a lot to deal with.