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.
Bolivia’s Constituent Assembly (or at least 136 members of the body’s 255 members) approved a new constitutional text late last night in Sucre (about 100 opposition delegates were absent). Since last week, 145 delegates & other government officials were holed up in La Glorieta (a colonial castle turned military academy). Outside, the city of Sucre was convulsed by anti-government protests; confrontations w/ security forces left at least one dead (a young lawyer) & hundreds injured. According to Correo del Sur, tear gas was already drifting up into the Assembly’s chamber as it rushed to vote on the text of the draft constitution. Shortly after midnight, delegates snuck out of La Glorieta.
Separately, by a vote of 118 to 2 (w/ 18 abstentions), the delegates also approved declaring Sucre the “constitutional capital” of the republic. In addition to the Supreme Court, they proposed moving the National Electoral Court, some institutions created by the new constitution, and several legislative sessions.
The text of the new constitution was supposed to be approved by two thirds of the Assembly delegates. But since the opposition was absent from the meeting, this no longer seemed to matter. Technically, MAS delegates represent a quorum (half plus one), and they voted for the text by a staggering 98% of those present. The Assembly still needs to meet again to vote on the draft, article by article. Once these are approved, the constitution will be put up for a national referendum, w/ a simple “Yes” or “No” vote, requiring a simple majority to pass.
I am not sure that the constitutional convention or the meetings to write the Declaration of Independence in the 1700's worked exactly like this Bolivian Constitutional Assembly. Imagine if John Adams locked out Thomas Jefferson or if the meeting moved from Philadelphia's Independence Hall to Fort Pitt and all of the delegates from southern states were locked out. Actually that might have been good in the long run because they might have prevented the Civil War!
Posted by
Ginger
November 26, 2007 10:03 AM
I'm still not clear if the opposition party members were excluded from the Assembly at La Glorieta, or if they simply felt uncomfortable trying to pass through the phalanx of MASistas outside. I'm curious just how illegal this constitution is, not that I really expect it to make a difference. I can't figure out MAS MATH... 145 delegates may have voted... 2/3s of 255 votes required to pass, or 170 votes, and it managed to pass.
Posted by
Norman
November 26, 2007 10:21 AM
From superficial descriptions (since the text of thew "new" constitution isn't available), there's nothing blatantly "bad" about it. It seems to give more of a constitutional role to Sucre than before, it recognizes department and sub-departmental autonomies, and it includes a host of other provisions that seem downright progressive.
I'm sure there are objections to some of the stipulations (such as those regarding natural resources, foreign investment, etc)—but in my opinion those things shouldn't be in a constitution, but rather in special laws passed by legislatures (I prefer short, minimalist consitutions rather than than lengthy books full of prattle).
The real problem, IMO, is procedural. By using questionable means to impose a document, MAS has delegitimized the document from the start. Even if it's a "perfect" constitution, there are many who will never accept it by the way it was imposed. I don't blame them. After all, as the British well know, a constitution is more than merely a scrap of paper (FYI, the Brits don't technically have a constitution at all). Instead, a constitution is the body of institutions, norms, procedures, political culture, precedents, etc. that define politics in a community. In many ways, the way MAS is attempting to impose this text says something about Bolivia's "constitution" (in the broader sense).
It is very tiresome to hear Evo and Garcia banty "democracy" as if they understood the meaning of the word. Evo doesn't think he is the president of Bolivia. He believes he is the president of some imaginary "indigenous" country that he has created in his mind. The prez and vp are always stating "if you don't do it my way we will do it anyway". This faked constitution is a prime example. Maybe, just maybe being a llama herder and coca grower doesn't prepare one to run a country. Maybe a little reading would have helped. As it is, he has his big ole head so far up Hugo's butt he can't see reason. And when did it become ok for government officals to maintain private militias? Evo has called his cocaleros into La Paz now. This would be the union he still represents and the same he sent into CBBA last year to kill and burn. Garcia is calling in his storm troopers to conquer Sucre. Sounds like grounds for impeachment to me. At best. Violent revolution in the end. These fools are killing this country. BTW does it say 2/3 of a quorum or 2/3 of the elected assembly members? Everyone (who can think) thinks it is illegal. There will be alot more trouble ahead. It should be moot anyway. Every person who was living in the geographic region that became Bolivia is indigenous to Bolivia. There were people in the same area before but they were not Bolivians. They were people who lost a war. And even then they can't claim to be first. There were people here before them that left no records. Sould most of Europe be given back to Italy because Rome once ruled? How about those before them? Bolivians are Bolivians and need to act like it instead of creating sub divisions based on unfounded racial claims. It doesn't help that the president, turned facist, is inciting these problems. Ironically, Bolivia is one place that democracy would truly give the minority a say. Too bad he has chosen to abuse his mandate.
