The official results aren’t in yet. But El Deber (and other media) reports that the “Sí” vote won in the Santa Cruz autonomy referendum—by a wide margin (exit polling has it 85.3% to 14.7% in the city, 89.6% to 10.4% in the rural areas).
Even as I typed this, MABB posted results (and a television screenshot) showing a landslide “Sí” victory (85.1% to 14.9%).
No doubt the pro-MAS (and anti-autonomy) boycott—which was most effective in rural areas like San Julian & Yapacaní—brought down the potential “No” votes (in 2006, “No” took nearly 30%). But the result was never in doubt. It was only a question of whether the results would be “legitimate” or not.
For its part, I don’t think Evo or MAS won this round. Despite some sporadic violence by pro-MAS groups, the election went relatively smoothly in most parts of the department. The department leaders demonstrated that they’re able to carry out a regional referendum, both despite the central government’s objections & w/o its institutional support (some might even say, despite it’s deliberate attempt to disrupt the process). International & domestic observers are likely to verify the results, making it harder to press for a claim of “illegitimacy.”
On the other hand, the margin of victory for Santa Cruz will now depend on a number of factors:
How high was voter absenteeism? If it’s too much higher than 30% (voter abstention in the 2005 was about 20%; I don’t have the figures for 2006), it will weaken the regional leaders’ claim for a mandate. But it won’t change the fact that a majority support some measure of regional autonomy. Even a 40% abstention rate, assuming all of those voters would’ve voted “No” would still leave a solid majority for “Sí” (51%).
How much violence is acceptable? With at least one dead & about 40 injured, a claim can be made that this wasn’t a smooth election. On the other hand, there was considerably less violence than many predicted (and much less than in previous clashes in Sucre, Cochabamba, and elsewhere).
How does Evo respond? That is the million dollar question. Santa Cruz has essentially shown that a considerable majority of its population wants regional autonomy. It’s now up to the government to respond w/ a counter-proposal that would incorporate regional autonomy into a constitutional framework. This is essentially where we were in 2006 (when 71% of Santa Cruz voted for autonomy). But now the government’s bargaining position is weaker: it tried to prevent or disrupt the referendum, and failed to do so. The two options now seem to be: a) accept the results & move to compromise or b) dismiss the results as irrelevant & risk further confrontation.
The longer the issue simmers—particularly in this polarized climate—the further away a compromise will be. And the more likely the region will drift closer to secession.
----
PS. You can read some (less than stellar) quotes of mine in this Voice of America story on the referendum. The other interviewee was Raul Madrid (University of Texas at Austin).
