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’ve spoken to my parents (who live in Santa Cruz) and they’re fine. Otherwise, the situation in Bolivia is now very tense. They’re usually a pattern to these kinds of things, and they’re largely seasonal. The fact that political tensions are escalating even as the Christmas season approaches is a very bad sign (usually politics takes a “break” for Christmas and Easter festivities).
I’m also increasingly concerned about the state of democracy—by which I mean “polyarchy” (liberal representative democracy)—in Bolivia. There hasn’t been a coup in the traditional sense. But the last few days have seen the incumbent MAS government turn towards strong intimidation tactics: The constitutional assembly (minus nearly half of the delegates) recently met to vote on a constitutional draft that was not read out loud, which no one has seen (there are a small number of “leaked” copies, but no official presentation of the draft yet), and while heavily guarded by police, military, and civilian loyalist forces. Next, the legislature passed a controversial pension plan bill (a bill I support, by the way) in a session without any opposition legislators (who hold more than half the Senate seats). To be clear: This was not a boycott; opposition legislators who arrived were told by police standing outside that if they went in, and voted against the bill, they would not be allowed out of the building (which was surrounded by a mix of police and MAS loyalists).
Bolivia may not be a dictadura (“dictatorship”) yet, but I think it’s now clearly a democradura (to use Juan Linz’s famous term).
These moves remind me too much of Fujimori’s 1992 “self-coup.” Back then, Peru faced economic & social unrest. Fujimori was elected in 1990 w/ a popular mandate but w/o legislative support. In the interest of “necessary structural changes” & facing opposition from the legislature & “traditional” parties, Fujimori called on the military to assist him in suspending democracy in 1992. It looks as if Morales has done something similar here, using the police & organized MAS loyalists (unlike Fujimori, Morales can count on an organized political movement) to essentially suspend many constitutional norms.
Are changes necessary in Bolivia? Yes. Is Bolivia still hamstrung by colonial legacies that exclude large sections of the population (primarily the indigenous parts)? Absolutely. Has the opposition, through its stubbornness, made things worse? No doubt. Has the media played a role? Yes. Though both sides have used the media for ill gains (after all, most [poor] Bolivians get their news from state-controlled media).
But will increased polarization & violence (the death toll of Morales’ presidency now stands at 29) solve these problems? That’s the question that needs to be seriously considered. Because the history of such radical, extra-constitutional, and populist departures (Perón, Vargas, Fujimori, Chávez) is not a promising one. And in Bolivia, when the pendulum swings too far, it tends to swing right back. And the losers? The losers are always the same.
I found your blog somehow through other Bolivia related blogs and read through your last few posts. I found your uncritical acceptance of accounts and characterizations by the Bolivian press very disturbing. I am a fellow at UC Berkeley working and following the CA for some time now. You do know that the Bolivian (corporate) press is extremely biased, often misconstruing and even lying about events to promote conservative political views with definite racial undertones, don't you? I hope considering you are planning to write a book on Bolivia for English language readers usually unfamiliar with Bolivia that you would take a bit more of a critical and fair stance.
Posted by
D.Beaulieu
November 29, 2007 4:57 PM
Yes, I agree that the press (particularly the "big" papers I often link to) are heavily anti-MAS in their bias. But they're the closest thing to a "mainstream" press when it comes to reporting. Although La Razón is often considered the "paper of record" when it comes to Bolivia, including by most Bolivians themselves.
I try, as hard as I can, to be critical (though I would add that there is a difference between "blogging" and "academic" writing).
The problem w/ bias, of course, is that it all depends on one's previous position. Those who find something like La Razón "biased" might not think the same of another source, and vice versa. I tend to avoid Telepaís (unless absolutely necessary) for the reason that it is incredibly biased. For the same reasons, I've tried to stick to La Razón, rather than El Deber or Correo del Sur (which especially lately has turned rabidly anti-MAS).
I think it would be more helpful if you would clearly state what specifically you disagree with in the reporting of the events of the last week, rather than make the generalizations that you do about the Bolivian media. Are you concerned about the extremely undemocratic process that was used to adopt the new constitution, as well as the government's encouragement of violence against those who would oppose it, or not?
-Thank you Centellas for your response. I generally use La Razon as well. El Deber and Correo are currently worthless in my opinion. I think I over reacted a bit, I am sorry, I understand these are your personal views. I felt concerned because of the privileged position academics have in this kind of situation. A lot of disinformation floats around Bolivia and it is difficult to always be right, but that doesn't mean one can't try.
-I am not related to Jim Schultz nor working with him.
-Frank,
I have read several conflicting accounts of how and why prisoners were released from the Sucre prison and whether the opposition was barred or boycotted (sources I trust more say boycotted). Additionally I felt that these posts generally showed the ugly side of the government, MAS, and its supporters without relating their actions in context to the actions of the opposition which I find equally, if not more, revolting.
"Are you concerned about the extremely undemocratic process that was used to adopt the new constitution, as well as the government's encouragement of violence against those who would oppose it, or not?"
I am sorry, but the government has not encouraged violence against those who do not support the constitution. The dog killings were done by the poncho rojos, the most radical segment of the Bolivian left. While dramatic, I see it as a response to the vitriol spilling out of conservative factions in Santa Cruz, Cochabamba, and Sucre. The videos replaying across Bolivian television, stoking delusional angst of the "Indian Revenge", isn't helping anyone.
Now about the "undemocratic process", I believe Bolivia raises important and not so easy to answer questions about the meaning of "democracy". While current "populism" in Bolivia may be "illiberal", I do not believe that automatically means "undemocratic". I frankly find the actions and rhetoric of the hard line oppostion- PODEMOS, CJU, Comite Pro Santa Cruz, JPD, Sucre students- far more anti-democratic than those associated with MAS; in some cases deserving the name fascists. One has to remember when watching the workings of MAS the historical context from which it emerged- "liberal" governments and policies unresponsive to real needs and demands while promoting "participation". It shouldn't be any wonder that MAS has little patience with the niceties of procedure (it sees as privileging a minority oppositions unwilling to compromise) to get things done. I do have sympathies with many aspects of MAS, not all, but I think we all suffer if we fail to see the big picture and uncritically pick sides- especially for the purposes of analysis! I hope that answers your question.
Posted by
D.Beaulieu
November 30, 2007 12:10 AM
D. Beaulieu:
I agree w/ the problem of taking sides uncritically. I hope I haven't done that. For some background: I was actually in Bolivia (on a Fulbright) from September 2003 through July 2004 doing my dissertation research. So I saw much of the events first-hand (and through family & friends, I keep in touch beyond just the online newspapers & media).
You are correct to point out that much of the opposition is driven by oligarchical concerns & has some clearly right-populist (or "illiberal") tendencies as well. But it is clear that Evo & Garcia Linera have stoked anger in the Altiplano as well. In short: Both sides are dirty, have blood on their hands, and could be labeled "fascist" and "undemocratic."
Another problem, of course, is that the MAS political project is actually little different from similar projects going back to the 1930s. Yet these have tended to fail spectacularly. The reason for that, in my opinion, is that they weren't grounded in a real social consensus. The current constituent assembly had that opportunity (I discuss it as "reimagining" the national community). But at this point it has become poisoned & imposing it by force ("de rodilla" to use a Bolivian expression) has made it worse. From what I can tell, the draft includes many compromises extended to the media luna. But the way in which it was passed, and w/ the accompanying violence (and constant arrival of Venezuelan troops) has made many too uncomfortable.
I think the 1994 Popular Participation reforms were a great leap forward for Bolivia. I wish the country had stayed on that trajectory (building a pluralist democracy), instead of this new 1930s corporatist vision.
Centellas,
I agree with you that it is important not to get into a simple blame game between MAS and the opposition, but what has happened this last week, ugly on both sides- sucre's students deserve no ones praise, has to be understood as apart of a back and forth between the sides throughout the life of the CA that has now escalated to this point. I agree with you that for the near future it is difficult to see how the CA will function in creating a new social consensus barring unforeseen events- we''ll have to watch what happens. However I wouldn't be so quick to characterize MAS' project as a simple resurrection of 1930's corporatism, certainly elements, but MAS is a complicated thing- full of contradictions- lots of "corporatist" discourse and more LPP logic. The LPP (its positive, negative, and ambiguous aspects) has quite a lot to do with what is going on now and the disputes underway. Please see Nancy Postero's new book Now We Are Citizens for a good discussion.
Posted by
D.Beaulieu
November 30, 2007 1:53 PM
mcentellas,
The constituent assembly has not yet imposed anything by force. What they approved last weekend is a long way from being imposed at all. Even in the western departments.
Could you comment on the veracity of the reports about Venezuelan troops?
What do you think a constitution written in the trajectory of the Law of PP/pluralist democracy would look like? How would Santa Cruz respond?
(Short answers OK.)
Posted by
John
November 30, 2007 3:38 PM
The constitution hasn't yet been "imposed" ... but the draft that was approved for consideration was approved w/o the parliamentary niceties. This draft (which is not yet released publicly) will be the framework for discussion & the govt has already made clear that it will put it forward for a referendum ASAP.
The arrival of Venezuelan troops is well known, reported in lots of media, seen by lots of people who live in the area. I've also had it confirmed by military people. Since early 2006, Venezuela has been helping Bolivia construct military bases in the eastern lowlands. This made many people nervous.
I'm not entirely sure what exactly a constitution in the LPP trajectory would look like. But I know what it would not look like, which is this. And again, it's not the specific content of the document that I'm objecting to (although the leaked drafts I've seen, if they are the "real" thing, are a jumbled mess of flowery but empty language) but to the way it was done. Also, the LPP was not part of the constitution, but a separate law. Many of the changes to the constitution should be separate laws. The constitution shouldn't become a container for nearly ever possible law in a country. It should be a basic framework. And, for the record, Santa Cruz was unhappy about the LPP when it was introduced, because it ignored departmental autonomy. But came to accept it, because it was explained & debated & negotiated in good faith, not using intimidation tactics.
Yes, I know both sides are guilty. But I've been of the impression that states have a higher responsibility to not use force to impose their wills. That was the problem in October 2003. The state (under Goni) responded w/ too much force in the face of protests. The story is little different now. Are we willing to accept a double standard for governments we agree w/? I hope not.
I think to talk about unbiased reporting and covering of news is a bit naive. Especially in current Bolivia, where feelings and emotions are driving decisions. Every news source has its angle, doesn't it?
I agree w/ MABB completely. But I would add (and I think he'd agree) that one can read the news & decipher through the potential bias to make one's own interpretation based on larger context (like, say, the fact that both MABB & I are Bolivian academics who've seen Bolivian politics unfolding for the better part of the last 10-15 years). I don't have to agree w/ a newspaper's opinion about an event to know that an event happened.
I would also add that, from my experience, those who attack media as "biased" and therefore untrustworthy often (though not always) do so from the position that some other source is more "objective" (though it's never clear why that source is "unbiased").
(For some reason your November 30 comment above didn't appear until today, so I'll respond to it below.)
Yes, I realize that calling the MAS project simply a resurrection of 1930s corporatism is simplistic. But the project's rhetoric has more in common w/ that view of Bolivian political reality than w/ other views. In my dissertation, I followed Fernando Mayorga and Juan Antonio Mayorga who, using discourse analysis, break up Bolivian political discourse into two basic frames: a national-corporatist (or state-corporatist, as I call it) discurse & a liberal-pluralist (or "gonista" as J. A. Mayorga puts it) discourse. The latter was dominant from the mid-1980s & emphasized liberal democracy, market economics, etc. Essentially: Washington consensus politics. The former was a project built from the 1930s onward. To these two I added a third, less influential "katarista" (or sectarian, if we wish to incorporate non-indigenous movements) discourse.
The three were in tension after the 1990s, in large measure (as I argue) because of the LPP & electoral system reform. Both reforms encouraged regionalist, sectarian, and "local" political conflicts at the expense of "national" ones. This weakened an already fragile state (in ways similar to what Mainwaring writes about in the article "The Crisis of Representation in the Andes").
While I agree w/ the general argument advanced by Postero (and others), I also agree w/ the general argument made by many Bolivian scholars (Toranzo, Molina, the various Mayorgas, etc) that the rhetoric & discourse of Evo's MAS has more in common w/ the corporatist discourse than the katarista one. In recent years, MAS has clearly adopted many of the tools of LPP reforms (which helped MAS as it built itself into a strong party), but his discourse looks back to the 1930s. It's not a coincidence that his decree nationalizing the gas reforms was called "Heroes del Chaco" nor that the new constitution includes a host of provisions for Chaco War veterans (including preferential employment, which is odd since the veterans are now nearing 100 years old & shouldn't be working anywhere). In many ways, the discourse of MAS in terms of natural resources & economic policy is taken from the 1940s MNR-POR platforms.
The policy towards ethnicity, of course, has more in common w/ the LPP goals than w/ the "integrationist" policies of the 1940s-1950s MNR project. But MAS's insistence on a "unitary" republic suggests that its members still have a strong affinity for corporatist orientation (especially w/ the emphasis on making decisions not as individuals, but after consultation w/ the "bases").
Speaking of discourse, on what planet does this guy live on? The officialist rhetoric + that of affiliated social sectors has been downright agressive, intolerant, and divisive. Even more than the other side.
The traditional political parties, have been on an "electioneering" kick the past 6 or 7 years, and there is hardly a "racist" slant to their public pronouncements for the simple reason they need votes.
Have the Cruceno types used some heated rhetoric, and crossed the line? Sometimes, yes. Stupid comments, some overtly racist, others where its clear they are talking about the "highland indios"("us vs. them"). Some poicy proposals like the unbelievably stupid idea to restrict internal migration. Spreading rumors about alleged anti-Cruceno atrocities.
But the more the "media luna" has become alligned with the more traditional "central" departments like Chuquisaca and Cochabamba, the more it has toned down its "unique and separateness" rhetoric,, and is embracing a much more inclusive and Bolivianist discourse.
MAS on the other hand, with its allies coming mainly from the syndicalist, and "indigenista" movements, has employed a ferociously antagonistic rhetoric.
One the one hand, Troskyist and Marxist-influenced harangues against "oligarchs", "imperialists", mixed with the "indigenista" rhetoric which panders to the fears, resentments, and hates of many Aymara and Quechas, but often seems culled from the anti-colonial, post-modern, identity politics scribblings of certain western minds, as Soliz Rada claims.
But whatever the origin, it is a harsh, and not only the targets but many middle class Indo-Mestizos in the highlands find it scary
Posted by
Boli-Nica
December 3, 2007 3:24 PM
Media Luna has 80% of the wealth. It has agriculture, industry and gas. It has people who believe in democracy and earning a living. The other 3 states have Evo, a couple of mines, a lake and uh, uh, oh yeah, a bunch of people who have nothing to do but stand around and hold their hands out to the government. Why does Media Luna need them? Evo's promises of free everything in the socialist state only encourages such dreams built on the false promises of Hugo's money doled out by the handfuls to buy votes. Soon, even those will realize that what wealth they do have they have through capitalist endeavors of their own hard work and enterprise. Hopefully soon they will realize that working for free for the governemnt is no solution to their problems. In the meantime a economically viable state built from Media Luna seems to be a good answer to Evo's trying to force unpopular policies on a lot of people that don't believe in him.
