I’m Miguel Centellas, a political science professor at Mount St. Mary’s University. Because of academic interests, I post frequently on Bolivian politics. I also occasionally discuss interesting books, pop culture, and daily life in Baltimore.
I just find this odd. There are two significant anniversaries coming up in Bolivia: the first is the 40th anniversary of the death of Che Guevara (who died in Bolivia), the second is the 25th anniversary of the end of military rule in Bolivia.
Evo will commemorate Che’s death today, alongside dignitaries from Cuba & Venezuela and ex-guerilla members. This will be a significant event of state, designed to further integrate Che into the iconography & mythology of the Bolivian nation-state. Not w/o some tension, of course, since the military (particularly the officer corps) remember the event in a very different way.
Both events are significant for Bolivia; both should be remembered. But it’s odd that a milestone like 25 years of democratic government rates so low on the government’s agenda. For all its problems (and Bolivia’s “democracy on stilts” certainly has its share), this is significant step up from the military regimes that ruled from 1964-1982. And it’s perhaps ironic that Che died fighting against the Barrientos regime (which many of Evo’s ideologues have fond memories of).
----- PS. The military’s response to the Che celebrations are interesting. Read this article (from El Deber).
MAS celebrated democracy in December 2005 and January 2006...
Posted by
John
October 8, 2007 3:05 PM
I think MAS at that time celebrated winning an election, which is not entirely the same thing (though not entirely different, either). I just took it for granted that the government might say something "official" as way to commemorate the date.
It's odd, to me (and others), because many of Bolivia's intelligentsia (like the ones recently attacked) spent the 1970s organizing resistance to military rule. Even Paz Zamora's brother died as a Che-inspired guerilla. Some have wondered why others, like Garcia Linera, didn't join guerrilla movements until *after* democracy was established (EGTK wasn't active until the 1990s), but seemed little concerned during the 1970s.
But Evo sees himself as representative of excluded people, so he's going to be at least a little like the African-American in the United States on the 4th of July. He might value the accomplishments of 1776 and 1789 but feel it was not complete until 1865 or 1963 (or 20??). From this perspective, the 2005/2006 election and inauguration would be just as important a milestone, maybe more. The May 2006 "nationalization" and successful reforms in the CA might be as important in what they see as the bottom line, restoring self-government to the people. Your definition of democracy is not quite his, maybe.
But of course, I don't really know. Just my guess.
Posted by
John
October 8, 2007 6:21 PM
Or maybe there's just more tourism value in Che...
Posted by
John
October 8, 2007 6:42 PM
I certainly recognize your point (re: Evo feeling "excluded" by pre-2005 political system). But part of that is a more recent phenomenon, ironically. The military regimes were brutal towards campesinos, and much more anti-indigenous than many realize -- particularly the 1970s regimes. These regimes also heavily persecuted the socialist left.
The new democratic regimes--especially after the 1990s--were the first to recognize Bolivia as a pluralist, multicultural country. That language went into the constitution in 1995 and indigenous autonomous territories were first recognized by the 1994 Popular Participation law. So I think the arguments against the democratic system are, in part, selective amnesia.
But you're right that their definition of democracy is not the same as ours. And that's actually a bit troubling, for liberal democrats. Alvaro Garcia Linera (the "brains" of the current MAS coalition) has been pretty clear that he believes democracy can exist in the absence of elections, mechanisms for minority rights, etc. For him, democracy means absolute economic equality (regardless of how it's arrived at). Such a utopia may be worthwhile model for theoretical speculation, but it's no basis for a program of democratic government. At least that's my opinion.
Or perhaps it is just that Che is better for tourism. Hey, the guy sure can sell t-shirts, posters, and other kitsch.
On the one hand, I think it makes sense for Evo not to have "celebrated" the military's triumph over Che. And I can understand his absence from the military's event to commemorate their dead. But that, combined w/ his comments at Che's celebration, have created some unecessary tension between him & the military (see this). And he can't afford that now.
