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.
Today’s La Razón has another special supplement on the new constitution. It offers some more detail on some of the text’s provisions. Meanwhile, Carlos Hugo Molina reminds us that there is no official document yet. Even w/o an opposition present (whether through boycott or intimidation), assembly delegates couldn’t agree on 8 articles (out of 408), which are still on the table. Thus, it’s still unclear what the final draft will look like.
Two new powers are created: the Procuratorship & Social Control. The first seems to be a fill the functions of a justice department (it specifically represents the interests of the state in legal matters). The second is unclear, but it grants “organized civil society” official legal right to intervene in “all levels of government” directly.
The text specifies that Bolivia has an “irrevocable” right to the sea.
No legislation require a two-thirds supermajority (the previous constitution required it for some decisions, such as altering the constitution or naming directors to the Central Bank); now all decisions merely require a simple majority.
Sounds like a small concession. That's one term from 2009 to 2013 and one term from 2013 to 2018. 2018 is a long way off leaving plenty of time for collective amnesia and a minor adjustment to the constitution.
Posted by
Norman
December 11, 2007 1:06 PM
Greg: Not sure what changed. It's clear that the document seeks to appeal to MAS critics—though it would've helped if the document had been debated more openly, as a way to potentially convince opponents.
Norman: I see your concerns. But you're assuming that Evo would win an upcoming recall vote. I'm not sure that's a given. Keep in mind that Evo is polling at 52% in a poll conducted *before* the events in Sucre recently. Even if those figures aren't accurage (since they over-sample cities), they demonstrate a sharp drop from the previous month. If his approval dropped further since, he may be vulnerable in a recall vote.
Yes with the new constitution in force, the legislature could approve additional constitutional changes by majority vote instead of by a 2/3 majority.
Posted by
Ginger
December 11, 2007 3:27 PM
He may be vulnerable Miguel, but I really am a cynic. He just finished stealing votes in the CA and the Senate. His supporters don't argue that the moves were legal, just that they were justified. Why should we expect the referendum to be fair? I think folks need to stop underestimating Morales.
Posted by
Norman
December 11, 2007 3:30 PM
I think determining what property serves a 'social' purpose is too ambiguous. I wonder who will make those designations. According to ABI:
I. Toda persona tiene derecho a la propiedad privada, individual o colectiva, siempre que ésta cumpla una función social.
II. Se garantiza la propiedad privada siempre que el uso que se haga de ella no sea perjudicial al interés colectivo.
III. Se garantiza la sucesión hereditaria de la propiedad privada.
Miguel: Off-topic, but I'm curious. The government has a sent a few hundred police from Cochabamba to Santa Cruz. The existence of a National Police force, in Latin America and other places,is something,I, as an American, don't understand. Shouldn't municipal police be locals? In Sucre, police were shipped in from Oruro. It reminds me of China and Tiananmen Square where soldiers were shipped in from the farthest reaches of the country, precisely because they didn't speak the same dialect as the students. Not that I'm suggesting anything remotely like that will happen.
Posted by
galloglass
December 12, 2007 11:30 AM
Galloglass: The Bolivian police is, like in most Latin American countries, a national police force. That means it's actually organized much like an army (it has generals, colonels, etc), but for internal purposes (and less well armed). In recent years, there has been an increase in "municipal police" forces (particularly in Santa Cruz & La Paz), but these are separate from the national police. Some have looked at the growing number of Santa Cruz municipal police (which answer to the mayor of Santa Cruz, not to the national government) as a sign of potential conflicts between the two forces. You are right to worry.
" . . . plunging the country back toward war, threatening to undermine the fledgling democratic state and set off a new regional conflict on a scale not seen here in years . . . fueled by the ethnic tensions . . . the quest to control the nation’s unusually rich endowment of minerals and farmland . . . " Doesn't mention a new consitution.
Back to Bolivia.
I think the Oruro constitution and Renta Dignidad are bargaining positions.
Posted by
John
December 12, 2007 7:28 PM
the restriction of "funcion social" to private property, was added to the 1938 Constitution, the one cooked up during the rule of that wacky Camba Busch. His rather eclectic group of advisors included devotees of certain German and Italian rulers of the time, as well as followers of a current Soviet leader - and his biggest Russian detractor. The social function thing, apparently came from the Italians.
Ironically, the existing Chavista constitution, gives more protections to private property, it says you have the right to private property, including the right to "uso, gozo y disfrute" translates roughly to "use enjoy and transfer" said property.
As far as the national police, that is nothing but common sense. Given the Latin American proclivity for bands of armed men running around under everyone's authority but the state, it makes perfect sense to have one police force. Creating local/departmental police forces under a separate level of authority, can be seen as introducing a bunch of new militia/armies/paramilitaries to departments.
And, the issue of "local" cops also makes for some other potential problems when dealing with certain "Bolivian" crops. Methinks the DEA would prefer to have only national army and police with jurisidiction over the "trade."
I don't worry so much about the "social function" provision, depending on who interprets it. As Boli-Nica points out, that provision has been in Bolivian constitutions since the 1930s. It's also a common feature of many constitutions, including our own in the US (look up "imminent domain" cases).
As for police. I see Boli-Nica's point about a national police force. But both "federalism" and "federacy" would suggest the need for "regional" forces. Some already exist. Both Santa Cruz and La Paz have their own municipal police. Instead of the green uniforms of the national police, they wear burgundy (in La Paz) or blue (in Santa Cruz).
