Should the threshold for a win in a referendum be a simple majority (50%+1)?

This issue obviously needs to be solved by a referendum!

But a political victory for Evo is not about keeping his seat—it’s about trumping the opposition. And de can only do that if he wins more votes than he did in December 2005. MABB suggests 75% (which is highly unlikely, barring massive voter fraud). I think 55% is a good threshold. Anything less than 55% is a political defeat for Evo.

Why is it a political defeat for Evo is he doesn't win over 55%? This is pie-in-the-sky stuff surely.

This is one Evo has already won, he will be left standing with many of his political enemies gone through their own incompetence in the Senate. That is an overwhelming political victory. Any other considerations are simply negligible.

@Steve: I think what MABB & I are talking about is political momentum. If Evo keeps his seat, but does so w/ fewer votes than he won in 2005, it will be clear that he has *lost* support since then. It will weaken him as he confronts an increasingly oppositionist Senate & the regional movements. But that's just my opinion, of course. But the question, I think, is whether Evo is consolidating a "new" Bolivian revolution. To do that, he has to show that he's won hearts & minds ... that means *increasing* support at the polls. Otherwise, he's just treading water. And revolutions aren't built on treading water.

I am thinking he needs more than just "political momentum", in his case, he needs political acceleration. He needs to bring about sweeping changes, revolutionary changes (as Miguel puts it). Only with overwhelming support (at least in numbers) can he make the changes he wants. I explain a bit more this point in a comment thread in a prior post.

@Steve: I think what MABB & I are talking about is political momentum. If Evo keeps his seat, but does so w/ fewer votes than he won in 2005, it will be clear that he has *lost* support since then. It will weaken him as he confronts an increasingly oppositionist Senate & the regional movements.

When Evo got a mandate the last time, men like Ruben Costas and Branko Marinkovic immediately set about undermining his mandate by putting their energy into autonomy. They have no interest in playing ball with an indigenous, they have no interest in social justice and equality and they most certainly have no interest in mandates. Where is their democratic tradition? Coalitions and coups.

I have deep skepticism that autonomous movements with these kinds of men at the helm have any regard for whatever mandate Evo receives. I have great sympathy with the autonomous movements, but not under the guise of protecting a heaven that was stolen.

But the question, I think, is whether Evo is consolidating a "new" Bolivian revolution. To do that, he has to show that he's won hearts & minds ... that means *increasing* support at the polls. Otherwise, he's just treading water. And revolutions aren't built on treading water.

This is framing reality in such a way that the events match your own preconceived ideas. I still think this is pie-in-the-sky stuff.

Evo is the first Bolivian president with a mandate for instituting an equal society. Regardless of his success that mandate is unlikely to change - even if it transfers to another man or movement. Evo's administration has been disappointing, but it is hard to judge it fairly considering the battle that has been waged against his legitimacy, which is how I see the main thrust of the current autonomy movements.

With the history of short-lived Bolivian leaders, I think that regardless of our expectations of his potential mandate, a simple majority is a victory for the moment.

@Steve: I can appreciate your views. But I'd caution against the sweeping statement that because Costas et al aren't supporting Evo that it's *because* he's indigenous (though that's clearly a part) or because they oppose "social justice and equality" (since these terms are slippery & have multiple definitions). I also don't recall Costas or Marinkovic having supported any coups or dictatorships in the past (the same, of course, can't be said for Manfred Reyes Villa in Cochabamba). And I'm also unclear as to why you seem to think that coalitions are inherently undemocratic.

One could argue that decentralization (both regional & indigenous autonomy) would improve the quality of democracy. Thus, perhaps the autonomy movements are also about social justice. One could point to Costas's record as prefect on development projects in rural Santa Cruz.

My point isn't to convince you that Costas would fit *your* definition of social justice. Or that you should support his politics. I'm just perennially troubled by the simplistic equation that Evo equals "social justice" & that his opponents must therefore oppose it. Politics is much, much more complicated than that.

@Steve: Your second comment continues the line of argument that I'm critical of. Evo had a mandate as the first democratically elected president to win more than 50% of the popular vote. No disputing that. But ... it was in a virtual 2-party contest. The other elections were in multiparty contests (like in European parliamentary systems, which I hope we all agree are democratic). Evo was also the first president to come to office *without* a majority in both chambers of the legislature. The prefects, of course, are another matter, since there were no prefect elections until 2005.

But I'm not sure if Evo's mandate was one for instituting an "equal society" (it raises a lot of questions: equal for whom? and how? and by what means?). Did people who vote for Evo vote for Evo's policies? Or did they vote to give him a chance? Or simply to put him in power to see if that would restore stability (since, let's face it, MAS was a destabilizing force)? It's unclear. Not that it matters: He won. But let's not read normative weight into his victory.

I'm also not so sure that the autonomy movements are movements against Evo's legitimacy ... or even against Evo in particular. Remember that the autonomy movement (in its recent guise) began in 2005. In other words: It challenged Mesa (a scion of the white elite). The autonomy movement also goes back to a long history, including a federalist uprising in 1876. I think one makes a better case to argue that the autonomy movement challenges the legitimacy of a centralist state—regardless of who is in power.

The reality, of course, is that regional autonomy would benefit places like Santa Cruz, but hurt poorer regions, like Oruro. And autonomy would limit Evo's plans to pursue a centralized oil & gas policy. But imagine if the tables were turned. Imagine if the autonomy movement in Tarija demands a regionalization of the oil industry in opposition of a central government (like, say, Goni's) that wants to sell it off to private investors.

I'm making the comments about the autonomy movements in full context of their history. As I alluded above I have no problem with the autonomous movements in Bolivia as a political goal. I understand some of my comments above are broad in scope and you are quite right to pull my socks up about them.

Miguel I have read some of your articles about race and I appreciate your efforts not to unduly stamp labels. But if I am calling a spade a spade my opinion of much of the autonomy movements is that a large thrust of their new found strength is opposition to an indigenous leader and economic equality for indigenous. The autonomy movements in this guise are deeply unacceptable. I can chase relativism around until it bites me in the behind but race is a key issue here.

When I question the democratic tradition of Costas and Marinkovic I am doing so in a broad way, that of their culture. If you do not find anything undemocratic about the past coalitions of Bolivia then all I can say is "salud".

I accept your point about reading into Evo's mandate. I've probably been a bit rash in that comment. But when I look at, for example, the Santa Cruz autonomy movement or the treatment of the indigenous in Sucre recently it scares me as to what a powerful autonomy would mean for the weak of Bolivian society. My experience in Santa Cruz and the opinion I formed of the autonomy movement convinced me that autonomy under the current guise there would be a disaster for poor indigenous - the Guarani for example would most likely never be heard of again.

I think one makes a better case to argue that the autonomy movement challenges the legitimacy of a centralist state—regardless of who is in power.

But a centralist state now means an indigenous ruled state. So this renders this argument null and void. You cannot honestly reply to me in the belief that autonomy would carry such power if a Goni was still running the state.

But yeah, I don't think Evo is the torch-bearer for social justice, but he is certainly more interested in that than any president in modern Bolivian history - who have been more interested in filling theirs and their buddies suit pockets full of cash (maybe not Mesa, I kinda liked him).

@Steve: When you suggest the previous coalitions were "undemocratic", what do you mean? Are coalitions by themselves undemocratic? Or do you mean something else? Because those coalitions usually represented 60% or more of the popular vote. Which is the same kind of mandate you give Evo.

I also take issue w/ your view that the issue of a centralist state is now "null and void" because it is now an "indigenous ruled" state. First, I'm not sure it is an indigenous ruled state (What does that mean? How is indigeneity defined? Etc.). Second, that raises the question of whether an indigenous ruled centralist state is somehow more legitimate than a non-indigenous ruled one.

The autonomy movement does have many skeletons in its closet. No doubt there. But some of them are less solid than you think. I believe the opposition candidate in Chuquisaca was a Quechua speaker w/ a long history of involvement in indigenous politics (a former executive secretary for the Bartolina Sisa women's federation) who ran against a mestizo candidate from MAS who was never involved in politics until then.

The autonomy movement in Santa Cruz has fought against the centralist state for some time. One thing many forget (or don't notice) is that in Santa Cruz the term "kolla" means not only someone like Evo, but also someone like Mesa. In other words: someone from "Andean" Bolivia. Again, identity is a complicated thing.

Look. Costas and Marinkovic are clearly populits. Perhaps even populists of the right. But what "culture" do they have? I'm a little troubled by that kind of statement.

I prefer not to explain politics through culture (no surprise there) but through behavior and institutions. Just like I don't think there's much to be explained by appealing to an "indigenous" (or even a Quechau or Aymra) "culture"—I also don't think much can be explained by appealing to some notion of a "Europen" or "white" or some other kind of culture, either.

But if I am calling a spade a spade my opinion of much of the autonomy movements is that a large thrust of their new found strength is opposition to an indigenous leader and economic equality for indigenous.

I'm always a bit surprised when folks emphasis opposition to indigenous over opposition to socialist. Or is it that Morales (as I see it)seems to want to guarantee rights for the indigenous above and beyond the rights for other races? On the one hand, Costas and Marinkovic (again, to my knowledge) come from a capitalist background. (BTW, the word "Capitalist" is not a curse word.) As far as I see, they oppose Morales' policies, not his heritage (or is it heredity?).

You cannot honestly reply to me in the belief that autonomy would carry such power if a Goni was still running the state.

If Goni had tried to nationalize industry in the same fashion as Morales, autonomy would abosolutely have carried power. I won't go sos far as to say it has nothing to do with race. What I will say is that it has much more to do with extreme differences in policy. Race becomes a factor more because Morales makes it about race.

Taking a historicist interpretation of the past: The 1876 Federalist uprising in Santa Cruz was waged against the Sucre criollo elite. A more recent cruceño regionalist political movement was led by Banzer during his 1971 coup, which was waged against a white paceño dictator. When Goni attempted to decentralize the country at the municipal level, it was heavily resisted by comites civicos (in Santa Cruz and elswhere, which wanted departmental autonomy). And the first mass demonstration for autonomy was waged against Mesa in January 2004 w/ an estimated one million (though probably closer to 500,000) in attendance. I think it's fair to say that today Santa Cruz wants autonomy regardless of whether the person sitting in the presidential chair is white, indigenous, socialist, or capitalist.

Race becomes a factor more because Morales makes it about race.

So the fact there is a large racist element to the autonomy movement is because Morales put it on the map? Aren't you confusing cause with effect here?

The problem I have with some of the opinions on this board is that they are constantly trying to downplay racism in Bolivian culture and politics, sometimes through chasing-your-tail relativism and otherwise through pure denial. It is incredibly entrenched, and amongst the former ruling classes it is epidemic and encompassing.

@Steve: Your comments are much appreciated, please don't get me wrong. And I appreciate that there is considerable racism in Bolivia. But I also believe that not *ALL* political problems in Bolivia can be defined by race/racism alone. In other words, if Evo is doomed to fail in Bolivia *because* of racism against him, then there is nothing he can do. Right? I think, instead, that Evo has options available to him, and that certain other political, economic, and social considerations give him room w/ which to negotiate w/ his opponents. That's what I mean when I don't want to reduce it all to race. Look at Chuquisaca's recently elected indigenous, Quechua-speaking prefect. There must be some reason by Sucre's elite voted overwhelmingly for her, rather than for the mestizo candidate MAS put forward. I appreciate your trying to avoid relativism; I likewise hope to avoid reductionism.

Steve is right. Racism is rampant. It is the banner of Evo and Mas. Otherwise, while engrained in the society of Bolivia, it is not as important as the economic theories being espoused. Evo wants a socialist state where the government owns everything. Others want a real chance to be able to make way for themselves. period. Evo has convinced many that by voting for him they will not want. The fact that he omits that socialism means everyone works to support the state for free is overlooked. Others do not buy it. The fact that the poor also happen to be "indian" makes it look racist. BTW everyone born in Bolivia is indigenous to Bolivia. Get over it. No matter where your family came from, and everyone's came from someplace else, you are indigenous to where you are born. Truth is the indians lost the war and their land. they do not have any more right to Bolivia than anyone else born there. evo preaches racism to those people instead of being a democratic president. His time has passed. The country needs a leader who takes the mandate to make Bolivia a real democracy with equality for all seriously, no matter the hertiage of the family.