More photos at my Flickr page

About

  • I’m Miguel Centellas. As a political science professor, academic interests are a significant part of my personal life. I post on Bolivian politics, interesting books, pop culture, and daily life in a Baltimore.View my (old) academic pages at Dickinson College.
  • Send questions & comments by email.

The Coffee Table

The Reference Desk

Noticias de Bolivia

Blogroll

My del.icio.us

The day after the Santa Cruz referendum

May 5, 2008

The official count will be made public by Friday. But this morning’s reports show that “Sí” (pro autonomy) won by 86% to 14% in yesterday’s Santa Cruz autonomy referendum. It seems unlikely that these figures will change significantly. Some brief analysis:

The vote is a significant increase from the July 2006 vote, in which a similar referendum won 71% approval from voters. But it also had a much higher absenteeism than in 2006 (from 17% to 39%, slightly more than double). Mathematically, of course, it wouldn’t have affected the outcome.1 This does show, however, that the most of the abstentions were from potential “No” voters.

How legitimate is a vote w/ only 61% voter turnout? Clearly, it’s acceptable in the US context (where 61% would be considered very good). But what matters here is the Bolivian context. In the December 2005 general election, the national turnout was 84.5%, w/ 86.7% turnout in La Paz & 81.6% in Santa Cruz. But that year was a high turnout year nation-wide, and one in which Santa Cruz (which usually had one of the highest turnouts in the country) had an exceptionally low turnout.

Clearly, 61% turnout is not stellar. Evo points to this as sign that the referendum failed. But considering highly concerted efforts by the government & its sympathizers to disrupt the process, the lack of police protection, and an organized electoral boycott, 61% is not an incredibly low figure, either. Many in Santa Cruz began celebrating last night. They were joined by celebrations in Sucre, Tarija, and other parts of the country.

Everyone recognizes that a negotiation will now ensue. Santa Cruz leaders will have to be flexible w/ their autonomy statute; Evo & his supporters will have to be flexible as well. At this point, it seems obvious that any political solution to the conflict brewing in Bolivia since January 2004 (when the first pro-autonomy protests began) will have to recognize some degree of political devolution to the country’s regions. Bolivia will no doubt begin to follow Spain’s path, which granted special autonomic status to regions like Catalonia since 1978. It’s perhaps not surprising that several regionalist leaders (particularly in Tarija) have had Catalan advisors for some time.


----
1 If you do the math, dividing the number of votes cast for “Sí” (569,324) over the total number of registered voters (935,959), the figure is 61%.

PS. The New York Times has a story by Simon Romero that includes some quotes from me.

Post this to: Digg del.icio.us Facebook Newsvine reddit Technorati Google


Comments

What about the threats of indigenous leaders to vote for automony for indidenous peoples in the Santa Cruz province? Could this cause problems?

Posted by Ginger May 5, 2008 11:24 AM

    Good question, Ginger. I think such a move would be interesting. If Santa Cruz regional leaders refuse the move, it would make them look hypocritical. If the government accepts the indigenous vote, it also suggests that it must accept the right of Santa Cruz to have autonomy, too (or else the government looks hypocritical).

    The solution is probably something Ivan Finot, myself, and a few others suggested at a workshop back in April 2004: A new constitution w/ layers of autonomy, defined at the local level. This would be somewhat complex, but certainly manageable. This would grant autonomy at the department, multi-municipal, and municipal level.

    Since the Popular Participation law created indigenous municipalities, this would provide a territorial framework for indigenous autonomy. The change would be that municipalities could bind together (perhaps as provinces) to form a larger entity (something already allowed in the PP law as "mancomunidades"). The difference would be that greater powers (taxing, education, policing, etc) would be devolved to these units, based on want/need/ability (in other words, a certain municipality might want to create its own educational curriculum, but rely on a national police).

    Meanwhile, the departments would operate like semi-federal units, w/ similar powers as in a federal system. Then again, those departments that didn't want greater powers (policing, education, etc) could let the central government continue to manage their affairs.

    It seemed like a sensible solution to us back then. I still think it's sensible. It's also roughly what Carlos Hugo Molina (one of the original PP law drafters) has recently suggested.

    Posted by mcentellas May 5, 2008 12:42 PM

      Could the indigenous people's autonomous regions be located where the natural resources are concentrated - i.e. could this process be used to strip Santa Cruz of its natural gas production areas and most fertile farmland?

      Posted by Ginger May 5, 2008 4:21 PM

        Unlikely. The oil fields sit on new "colony" communities established since only after the 1930s (but mostly since the 1950s and after). So not much "indigeneity" there. Most of Santa Cruz is likewise a new "immigrant" population of European immigrants (like Argentina, Brazil, Chile in the early 20th century) and recent internal migrations from the Andes to the east (especially after the 1950s). Some of these communities might want local autonomy, but it won't be "indigenous" autonomy of the kind we think of for Andean communities still living in the Andes. The exceptions might be aboriginal Amazonic communities, but there are relatively few (if any) oil fields in those areas.

        Posted by mcentellas May 5, 2008 6:01 PM


          The Basics

          Search


          Categories

          Archives

          Posta Classico