Centellas,

The Human Rights Foundation is not a reputed human rights observer with historic credibility. No reputed organized observed the election because it was not internationally recognized as legitimate.

"Increasingly, it will become harder to oppose the referendum on liberal democratic grounds (though its “legality” remains murky, of course)."

The "referendum" was illegal, period.

"One of my greatest criticisms of the Evo government is its excessive reliance on para-state entities (Ponchos Rojos & other organized grupos de choque—and, yes, I know the opposition has some of its own grupos de choque, but that doesn’t make it right, does it?) to enforce its political will."

The opposite is true. Evo has increasingly put his reliance on the national military and police. Hence, the national police provided no protection for an illegal referendum vote. It was Santa Cruz that relied on "para-state entities".

So you have made a dramatic and accusatory characterization of Linera's relation to 1970. Can you explain what that armed movement was in reaction to? What are the leading political figures in the Media Luna autonomy movement relationships to the Banzer dictatorship? A full accounting of these historical legacies would go a long way towards analyzing the route of conflict resolution and social justice in Bolivia we are all looking for, avoiding the violence we are all fearing.

I'm not going to debate the credibility of HRF. That's another issue, perhaps. But a number of international observers did go to the vote.

Was the referendum illegal? That actually remains unclear and depends on some interpretations of the constitution. I'm willing to concede that it might have been "illegal" in the sense that it wasn't endorsed by the central government. But 2006 autonomy referendum was supposed to be binding (by the current government's own law), a stipulation that was then ignored.

I also disagree w/ your argument that Evo has increasingly relied on the police. Evo didn't have to send the police to guard the polling places. I'll grant that. But they should've made efforts to prevent violence, not simply stand aside. It's also clear that much (though not all) of the violence was instigated by pro-MAS groups, many of whom were sent from Cochabamba, La Paz, and Oruro by government officials and/or MAS leadership. I'll grant that Santa Cruz regionalist leaders relied on para-state groups. But so did the government. And governments shouldn't have to.

Are you asking about the 1970s guerrilla groups? The ones I referenced were led by teh Paz Zamorra brothers. They fought against the Banzer dictatorship. And, yes, many of the autonomy leaders are probably tied (in various ways) to pro-Banzer political groups.

Look, I don't mean to romanticize the regionalists (and I'm sorry if you took my statement that way). But please don't romanticize the MAS government, either. And it's hard to dispute that—despite having elite leadership—the Santa Cruz autonomy movement has significant popular support. The fact that nearly half a million people supported the autonomy statute in the referendum suggests that more than a few elite families support the measure. For whatever reason, that reality has to be clearly reckoned w/ & can't be simply dismissed by rhetoric.

But what's most interesting—and part of the Bolivian historical irony—is that **both** MAS nor the regionalist movements represent a post-authoritarian, post-democratization political landscape. Just as Evo & Garcia Linera were too young in the 1970s to have been involved in the anti-dictatorship struggle, so too were the regionalist leaders too young to have been part of them. Instead, I refer you to the paradox of democratization: it erodes central states by opening up the state to the forces that deconstruct national imaginaries while also encouraging decentralization & state power devolution.

I agree with Beaulieu that HRF is not a reputable organization. It is essentially an anti-Chávez outfit run by a Venezuelan-American named Thor Halvorssen (he was an "observer" in the Santa Cruz referendum). Its board counts right-wing luminaries such as Alvarito Vargas Llosa, who can hardly be seen as moral even-handed personalities.

Halvorssen believes that property rights and free markets are the basis for human freedom, and founded HRF as an alternative to Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch, which he accuses of "undermining capitalism".

Previously he run an organization named FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) to counter the ACLU (which he presumably also accuses of undermining capitalism) and to defend the rights of conservatives on US campuses, which he considers to be under attack.

I think it was a big mistake of the referendum organizers to associate themselves with such a murky organization.

This said, I do not consider the Santa Cruz referendum was "illegal". By all accounts it seems to have been conducted cleanly and fairly. More than the lack of credible international observers, it is the presence of non-credible observers such as HRF that will taint the results.

Jorge: While I agree w/ your assessment of HRF, I think it's problematic to start dismissing organizations merely because we disagree w/ their politics. Isn't that what conservatives do when they dismiss the Carter Center, Amnesty International, the Southern Povertly Law Center, the ACLU, or other watchdog groups?

Usually Miguel your analysis is fairly objective and insightful, here unfortunately you pro-Santa Cruz bias hindered the post tremendously.

Yes, it is unfortunate that certain Masista tried to disrupt the illegal vote. You fail to mention the equally deplorably violent behavior of the Union Juvenil and their indian skull busting behavior, which is often butressed by a racist discourse.

You erroneously characterize the social movements in Bolivia as belonging to Evo. He is not a dictator and he evolved out of one unionist social movement, the cocaleros. Other social movements have aligned themselves with MAS, but he has never controlled them. You provide no evidence that Evo directed the conflicts on May 4. You fail to acknowledge that Evo asked social movements, after initally encouraging them, to not march on Santa Cruz and to express their dissent non-violently via abstention.

The MAS violence on May 4 was not suprising at the municipal level, and not by social movements, and there has been long history of antagonism between Santa Cruz municipalities, which benefited from the PPL, and the Prefectura elites that saw the Law as a continuation of the decline of their priveleged relationship with the central state. The municipalities fear rightly that the referendum with deblitate their standing, as it provides unprecendented centralized control at the departmental level. It therefore is ironcically simultaneously a centralizing movement and a movement away from central government.

So you can wrap the autonomy movement in the veil of democracy all you want, but the polemic erroneous Evo bashing, which lacks any historical context is frustrating. You must admit that the autonomy movement in the east is an elite-led reaction to indigenous social movements. While the Santa Cruz elites have co-opted non-elite actors, it is still a top down movement. The roots of MAS however are not top down. While an ecclectic mix of social movements from the peasant and working classes have allied themselves to the charasmatic leader, he does not wield dogmatic control. Their alliance with him will only last as long as they deem it as efficacious and it does not preculde regional and local deviations with roots going back to 1952.

Shanqueros: I don't think I ignored the fascistic UJC. But two wrongs don't make a right (I don't think it's fair to excuse fascistic tactics from people whose politics we support). And while I may not have in these posts given evidence that Evo directed the movements, he clearly made a number of statements (even convered in state-controlled media) urging his followers to disrupt the voting process. So, yes, I think it's fair to say that "Evo's MAS" was responsible for most of the violence.

I agree w/ you on some points (particularly about the tensions between municipalities & the prefecture), but if you want to caution me to keep my "pro Santa Cruz bias" (which is minimal) in check I should ask you to keep your pro MAS bias in check, too. Let's be fair. Both are social movements. And whether one is "more grassroots" than the other is an important, but unessentialist argument. Both are structured around clientelistic networks of various kinds, even if some are constructed by traditional elites.

And while the regionalist movement is largely dominated by an anti-Andean discourse, it is also more than that. It also has a history that goes back to the 1800s. Santa Cruz elites have been very successful in appropriating the discourse of the "neocolonial state" (used by indigenous movements against traditional elites) to attack the central government for trying to "colonize" Santa Cruz and impose an Andean culture & cosmology on a non-Andean region. It doesn't help, of course, that many recent immigrant communities from the Andes who have settled in the Santa Cruz lowlands are referred to (and refer to themselves) as "colonizadores." It's an interesting twist on political rhetoric. But it does resonate w/ many people—including may second generation Andean immigrants.

Finally, I agree completely that Evo's control over social movemetns is tenuous at best. But so far, those movements have backed him. And they've done so by using street violence & other forms of ceorcion. And he's let them, even encouraged them. I don't see how that can be ignored, either.

Thank you, Miguel de los Shanqueros for your analysis of the May 4th violence.

"While I agree w/ your assessment of HRF, I think it's problematic to start dismissing organizations merely because we disagree w/ their politics."

HRF politics are not specifically the issue. Whatever HRW or Amnesty Intl. politics, these organizations have built a reputation for fairness and accuracy in reporting over decades. HRF was founded in 2005. Considering the allegiances of its board members we should pause before putting our trust in them. I am not damning HRF, but they cannot be accepted as a objective observers either way.

"Was the referendum illegal? That actually remains unclear and depends on some interpretations of the constitution. I'm willing to concede that it might have been "illegal" in the sense that it wasn't endorsed by the central government. But 2006 autonomy referendum was supposed to be binding (by the current government's own law), a stipulation that was then ignored"

This statement is disingenuous. The referendum was illegal by any legalistic understanding of Bolivian Law. If you want to go beyond legalistic understandings, fine. What is ironic here is the role reversal of MAS, the social movements, and PODEMOS and autonomy movement in previous debates about Bolivian liberalism.

The current constitution does not recongize departmental autonomy or the right of official legally binding elections to be called for or conducted by subnational institutions- hence it was struck down by the national election court and bears no binding dictate. The 2006 autonomy referendum binded the inclusion of departmental autonomy in the new constitution, to be drafted by the Constituent Assembly. The language simply does not exist in the current constitution. The dictate of the 2006 referendum was not ignored. Departmental Autonomy is incorporated in the proposed constitution, not exactly as the Media Luna wanted it, but it's there. The Autonomy Statute (the text itself) is unconstitutional under current law and has many articles that directly contradict the supreme law of the proposed constitution, only under which it carries any constitutionality. I do not always agree with Evo but he was right we he said that "You cannot have the baby without the mother, first the mother, then the baby." The only way the Autonomy Statue carries legality is if it is understood as separatist- opening the door for murky debates about international law.

Beaulieau: I'm happy to concede the point on HRF. They don't have a long track record, so I'll let you use length of existence as a criteria for trust (it's as good as any other objective criteria).

But I will dispute the argument over legality. Again, I'm not arguing that the referendum was explicitly legal, only that it was not explicitly illegal.

The current CPE (2004) in Article #4 stipulates that the people govern themselves through various means, including the legislative representation, constituent assembly, citizen initiative, and referendum. These are to regulated as "established by law" (but the CPE doesn't spell out more than that). I think the referendum qualifies under both "citizen initiative" and referendum (or both).

The current Electoral Code references referendums in Article #3 as an expression of popular will. In Article #32 (section f) it specificaly stipulates that the CNE should oversee referendums at the national, departmental, or municipal level (suggesting that local referendums are possible). In Article #52 it also states that CDEs (departmental electoral courts) are in charge of overseeing elections in their territory, including referendums.

The ambiguity sents in when one looks at Article #84. There, the president & legislature set the dates for general & municipal elections (this is explicitly stated). But then a few sections down, it only states that referendums must be announced at least 90 days before the voting day (no mention of who announces them). The government intereprets this to mean only the president & congress can call **any** election, the regionalist leaders think the lack of an explicit mention suggests that Article #52 kicks in: local authorities direct local referendum elections.

Article #128 (along w/ some other articles) describes the ballot structure, printing, distribution, etc. Interestingly, it gives those supervisory powers to the electoral courts (plural). Again, more ambiguity.

So you see ... it's unclear what legality the regional courts have, or what autonomy they themselves possess.

Additionally, the argument can be made that the 2006 referndum was binding. Since Santa Cruz voted for autonomy then, under a law that explicitly stated that regions that voted for autonomy would enjoy autonomy immediately after the new constitution was enacted, the leaders can argue that they are enjoying that priviledge following the approval of a new constituion late December 2007. Then again, the new constitution hasn't yet been approved in a national referendum, so more ambiguity.

The point: It's not a simple matter.

Centellas,
Thank you for expanding the complexity of the matter. I was too strict in my characterization of electoral law. However, I will not concede the point that the May 4th referendum was illegal, its status not simply a matter interpretation.

You point to the ambiguity between the stated role of the legislature, president, CNE, and CDE in relation to referendums. The question then becomes which judicial organ is supreme. Under the current constitution, by which all branches of power are still operating, did the National Electoral Court not act within its statute and powers in striking down the referendum? To what superior authority is Santa Cruz calling? The CDE as a superior authority is dubious at best. Furthermore, the 2006 referendum enacts departmental autonomy only in relation to the proposed constitution, which has not yet been enacted according to the requirements put forth by the Legislature in 2006 originally convoking the Constituent Assembly and the text of the proposed constitution itself, requiring a national referendum to enact the Law. Currently, the proposed constitution has only officially been presented to Congress, the constitutional referendum for May 4th having been struck down by the CNE for not meeting requirements you have summarized for us.

The legal procedures of referendums aside, the text of the Autonomy Statute itself directly contradicts parts of the current and proposed constitution- I am thinking most specifically on authority over police, agrarian reform (property), and regulation of internal migration. The Santa Cruz autonomy movement has really painted itself into a legal corner and we should expect the government to further leverage its position against them in this manner, as much as we should expect Santa Cruz to try and find a way out (or 'break out' in one way or another).

Beaulieu: All valid points, of course. I agree that the referendum's legality is dubious. But, then, a demand for greater autonomy from a central state is bound to be (ask the Catalans, the Scots, or the Kosovars). And perhaps it's important to note that the autonomy statute will most likely serve as a reference point for a negotiation. I think (or perhaps hope?) that the two sides can work out an agreement that meets in the middle. As it is, however, I think it's fair to argue that the Bolivian state is exceptionally centralized. And I also disagree: I think Evo mismanaged this situation. Had he negotiated earlier, he wouldn't now face the reality of a referendum that went ahead relatively smoothly, and the prospect of three more (Beni, Pando, Tarija) in the following weeks. I don't think Bolivia can continue to exist as a nation-state (like all post-colonial nation-states, it's "natural" existence was always tenuous at best) unless it adopts some kind of federacy.

But I would caution that the "legality" argument is problematic. First, because what is legal isn't always what is correct. Second, because it confuses democratic institutionality w/ legality. What I mean by democratic institutionality are the criteria specified by Robert Dahl (and others), not strict adherence to the law. For example, a law that violates those norms (say, racial segregation in the 1960s) violates the norms of democratic institutionality. So althought Evo represents a subaltern group that was previously marginalized by the central state, their capture of that state doesn't negate the problems of the neocolonial central state. Hence, I support greater devolution of political power to local communities—be they regional, municipal, provincial, or indigenous communities. What Evo seems to want to do is merely lead the neocolonial state, retaining is basic structures.

Thank you for the productive exchange. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the label of "illegal" or "dubious legality" concerning the referendum. I agree with you on the problems of strict legality versus democracy and the need for the devolution of powers in postcolonial Bolivia. The central concern of course has to be the question of how, process- a means of conflict resolution I only see happening through the proposed constitution and the negotiation that entails. This extra-(un)constitutional autonomy vote hasn't helped anyone.

Beaulieu: I'm w/ you 100% on the issue of the referendum being of "dubious legality". But I'm not entirely sure it can't help the situation. It will all depend on how the government & opposition use the new facts on the ground in their ongoing negotiations. Both, of course, will have to be flexible & start to negotiate in good faith (something lacking on all sides so far).

I really still don't understand whats this nonsense about institutions? Either you support the current legal institutions or you don't, Centellas.

Santa Cruz required a vote of Congress to carry out a referendum, and they did not have it.

The fact that you lend credence to some "observer" obviously pulled out of someone's rear end casts further doubt on your judgement. Need I point you to the articles on Bolpress explaining the Cuban-American character HRF sent?

Now, very well, the autonomy referendum of 2006 authorized for autonomy to be implemented only in the new constitution which was to be drafted last year and approved this year. Tacitly- and obviously, one would think for an academic- recognizing that the CURRENT constitution does not authorize autonomy in any way, shape or form.

Finally, in your response over at DC blog you pointed to October 2003 as another instance of "legitimate versus legal".

However, let me remind you that the public revolt of 2003, however illegal and violent and conspiratorial the social movements may have been (and that is debatable to many degrees) was fighting FOR CONSTITUTIONALITY, since the capitalization/privatization of our natural gas, telecommunications, and other state enterprises actually violated the Constitution.

Gas policy, and FTAA (which also would have violated our Constitution) were the central demands of 2003.

So, I am not defending any violence in 2003, but those struggles, which you rightly claim have become a legitimate public demand, were backed by the constitution, while this referendum you continue to defend was not.

Autonomy is necessary and is legitimately demanded by many, but why should it be done illegally?

Respectfully,

Hippie: Your argument that I should dismiss HRF because of the personality or politics of its members is similar to saying that I can dismiss any arguments for vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian. Arguments stand on their own merit, not on the personal qualities of those making them.

I could point out that violence in October 2003 however "legitimate" or aimed at restoring constituionality, was, in fact, illegal. According to Bolivian law it is illegal to blockade streets and take such actions. SUch laws are sporadically enforced, of course.

And I don't undestand this need to paint people into neat little boxes: Either you support constitutionality or you don't (as you put it). It reminds me too much of "Either you're w/ the terrorists or you're w/ us." The world's not that simple.

Well Miguel I was not glued to the TV down here in Bolivia in the days leading up the May 4, but did not see or read in newspapers about any such inflamatory language from Evo. If you have any sources to back up your contention I would love to see them. The most I heard directly from Evo was again not to march to Santa Cruz and the he was not going to use state forces to intervene in the illegal vote.

While federalists sentiments do have a long history in Santa Cruz and other departments (even more so in Cochabamba), Santa Cruz elites shelved that idea from about 1952 until 2005. The reason being that during that period Snata Cruz elites, especially under Banzer dictatorship, benefited disproportiantely from the centralized government and its accelerated economic growth is evidence of that relationship. Now that the centralized government is not a viable option, they seek to monopolize gas revenues at the expense of the highlands and create an imagined Nacion Camba. I might favor MAS as reaction to 500 years of exploitation, but I am also not opposed necessarily to increased departmental autonomy. But not when it is for the sole purpose of continuing to enrich the Santa Cruz elite by monopolizing land and gas resources. There has been no willingness on the part of the Santa Cruz to negotiate or compromise with MAS, and perhaps the reverse is also true. Nonethess, your lauding of the autonomy movement as some sort of altruistic movement of oppressed people is a farse and based on rhetoric rather than historical analysis and facts. For example, your contention that MAS is attempting to colonize Santa Cruz is bizarre. I thought people went there to look for work. It is a suprisingly xenophobic comment, and not far from Unionist propoganda warning collas to leave or face expulsion or death. Nice genocidal talk for such a righteous movement. Also you wrote that MAS is seeking to "impose an Andean culture & cosmology on a non-Andean region." Please provide specifics on how exactly that is happening. I would trully like to know. By and large Evos legislative history is moderate, and it raises the question why the reaction has been so extreme? Racism is certainly a factor, but your analysis only blames Evo and it is largely unsupported by evidence. At least thus far...

Shanqueros: Honestly, I wish you'd read what I wrote more carefully. I didn't argue that Andeans are colonizing Santa Cruz. I pointed out that Nacion Camba people use that term, and that it's reinforced by the self-identification by many (more recent) immigrants to Santa Cruz as "colonizadores." Your historical assessment about Santa Cruz is correct, of course. But one can recognize its history w/o either romanticizing or demonizing it. I also think the lack of willingness to negotiate cuts both ways. See, unlike you, I refuse to blame only one side for the problem. You seem to insist that Evo is blameless and that all the fault lies w/ some conspiratorial Santa Cruz elite. Both descriptions are overly simplistic. Evo is neither a demon nor a saint. And the Santa Cruz autonomy movement is both elitist and popular.

Hitler (AH) has posted his preliminary report on Santa Cruz meat-eating.

More MaSSist news later.

Yes apologies on misinterpreting your analysis as advocacy nonetheless, I would still like to know how MAS is imposing a andean way of life of non-andean people... If you have any articles or the like that describe that argument please let me know. I would also still like to know when and how Evo inspired the May 4 poll station ransacking. You vaguely cited news broadcasts and I saw none of that. If he promoted anyting like that on TV, I am sure that the conservative press would have picked up on it. I read nothing in Opinion or Los Tiempos on the subject in the days leading up to the vote. So I suspect that your source is hearsay, perhaps from Bolivia Libre. (That is a joke) So, I am willing to admit, and I believe that I did in my response, that Evo has been less than ideal in terms of compromising. But your one-sided post, with factual errors, prompted a one-sided response. I think autonomy actually could be a good thing, with a more responsive and efficient state apparatus. But is also succeptible to domination by regional elites and could minimize the re-distribution of resources to ensure at least relative equality. An idea that most political economists think is important, even if they disagree about the means. Not that a centralized government has been very good at that, but the autonomy statute as written gives almost complete power to regional governments, leaving only foreign relations and national defense in the hands of the central government. That model exists nowhere else in the world, not even Spain. It is too extreme, and should not be blindly supported because of one vote. It is also interesting to note the in other pro-autonomy regions the saneamiento, or validating of land claims, has gone smoothly. It was completed in Pando last year without problems. But in Santa Cruz it is resisted tooth and nail to the point of taking hostages and beating up guaranis and government officials. Which begs the question what are they hiding? So, I am willing to listen, especially if you have more solid sources to support you argument, but otherwise biased post will continue to prompt biased responses.

Shanqueros: Evo made pronouncements about such things for months leading up to the election. Then he rescinded them (as I posted). Then members of his administration went back to such statements (but Evo didn't counter them). So I take it that MAS (as a party institution, which Evo leads) officially encouraged such behavior (even if not explicitly). Some MAS (or MAS-allied) deputies & municipal councilmembers from across La Paz, Oruro, and Cochabamba were quoted in various news sources explicitly organizing groups that came into San Junlian, Yapacaní, and other. I posted about these previously, as well.

If you think I'm biased, that's fine. I think we're all allowed to have our own perspectives. Yes?

Is Evo imposing an Andean vision on Bolivia? I'm no sure. But many in Santa Cruz have long argued that the country as a whole -- including the post-1952 MNR governments -- tried to impose an Andean vision of the country. Even the definition of Bolivia as an "Andean" country implies that. Or reports about "Bolivian indigenous" in Santa Cruz (when Quechua/Aymara populations are not "indigenous" to that part of the country) as well. At the heart of the Santa Cruz autonomy movement is a push to redefine the national imaginary as something other than "Andean." Evo's push internationally to recognize coca, to include the Whiphala, etc. is a push to make Bolivia recognized (both internationally and domestically) as an "Andean" nation-state.

And as for the elitist Santa Cruz autonomy statute. I won't go into your own factual errors when you argue that it is far removed from what "any" other country allows (many do, in fact). But to insist on the movement as purely "elite" seems to ignore the fact that nearly half a million people voted for autonomy. I can't imagine that there are half a million elites in Santa Cruz. Clearly, there is some reason for broad popular support for this movement. The job of a social scientist is to understand that. But we can't understand why broad movements exist if we insist on defining them (from the outside!) in ways that better fit our ideological models.

We must agree to disagree on the Evo as instigator of the May 4 violence. If he had actively encourage such an intervention you would have seen much more violence.

I never said that the autonomy movement did not have popular support, only that it is elite-led in contrast to indigenous social movements. And I mainly take issue with your characterization of Evo as able to exert dictatorial control over social movements. Recently there has been substantial dissent on the part of CSUTCB and Alejo Veliz.

I also began my first response by saying that usually your posts are balanced and insightful. This one was particularly bad however.

Thank for the additional information on imposition of andean culture issue. It seems more symbolic however than a material imposition. How by recognizing and valuing what has been denegrated in the past are you imposing?

Shanqueros: I still think there's a bit of a misunderstand. So let me try to clarify (for you, and for others). Yes, I know Evo isn't in full control over social movements (no one is). I've noted as much in previous posts. I'm also well aware of Alejo Veliz, who broke w/ Evo in 1999. More recently, Filemon Escobar broke w/ him just before the 2005 election.

As for the Andean culture thing. Again, an important note to remember about Bolivia is that it is not always about white v. indigenous peoples. The Santa Cruz conflict is about east v. west. Santa Cruz whites tend to join together w/ lowland indigenous peoples against both Andean indigenous peoples and Andean elites (La Paz criollos like Carlos Mesa).

So while I agree that Andean indigenous peoples have been denigrated and should be valorated in a new multicultural Bolivian state, cruceños have argued—for decades—that they have been marginalized as well. Their objection to La Paz dominant would exist w/ or w/o Evo (though perhaps in different forms/intensity). Growing up in Santa Cruz I can attest that many cambas use the term "collas" applied to both indigenous peoples and white paceños alike. And in much the same way as paceño elites adopt some indigenous Andean customs, camba elites do the same w/ Guaraní & other groups. In the camba imaginary, the Guaraní indian is part of their roots (just as the MNR's national imaginary uses Aymara/Quechua peoples as a "root"). One of the first "regional" monuments in Santa Cruz were dedicated to Guaraní warriors.