Bolivia v. Guatemala, August 6, RFK

My family is going as well and I might join them. Fortunately for me, though, I only have to take the Metro since I'm somewhat close to DC. I could wear my jersey or better yet, sport my Santa Cruz flag as a cape...

Hope you have fun.

D. Arias if you are going to go to the match to support the Bolivian national team shouldn't you bring along a Bolivian flag, rather than the flag of the Department that is leading the charge to tear the country apart?

@Shanqueros: Would it be appropriate for a team USA fan to bring the flag of their state? If not, why not? Can one be pro-autonomy and still be pro-Bolivia? I think so. Last time I was in Bolivia, it was interesting to see people wearing pro-autonomy shirts also argue against how FIFA's soccer altitude ban was unfair to "them" (as Bolivians).

Also, the Bolivian national team colors are green & white. So there's that, too.

I think if someone brought a state flag to team USA event it would be seen as a bit odd, but not necessarily inappropriate. If Alabama were attempting a de facto succession from US by promulgating an autonomy statute that would limit the role of the Federal government to infrastructure development, foreign relations and military defense, because they objected to the affirmative action policies of the Federal, and someone were to bring a Alabama state flag to team USA event, I think most Americans would find that divisive and not a pro-US statement.

You seem to have a one dimensional way to look at the Santa Cruz flag. Those from that part of the country have long taken pride in their region (Santa Cruz flags have long been prominent in the department, compared to say La Paz flags or Cochabamba flags). But not all who love Santa Cruz hate Bolivia, not even those who favor autonomy.

I also think the comparisons between Santa Cruz autonomy and 1860s southern secession are a bit overdone. A better analogy would be Catalan (or even Scottish) autonomy movements.

For many -- myself included -- being proud of Santa Cruz is perfectly compatible w/ being proud of Bolivia. And, in fact, for many of us the two are inseparable. Some of the pro autonomy supporters are those who want to remind the world that Bolivia is not only an "Andean" country, but that it has a richer diversity. And being able to wave a Santa Cruz flag at a national game can be a way to say "I am also a Bolivian!"

The statement that the department of Santa Cruz is "leading the charge to tear the country apart" is overly simplistic. First, it implies that "the Department" is a monolithic entity. It's not. Like the country, it's diverse. "The Department" isn't doing anything; various members of the community are pursuing diverse political goals (including pro-MAS cruceños). Second, the assumption that whatever "the Department" is doing is deliberately aimed at "tearing the country apart" is ideologically driven. What if the autonomy movement is seeking to better the country? You may not agree w/ that interpretation, but it's a certainly valid one. It may shock you to know that the first slogan of the autonomy movement (back before Evo even took office) was: "Tambien somos Bolivia!" (We, too, are Bolivia!).

I'd also caution against using the term "Federal government" in the Bolivian context. Bolivia is a UNITARY state; it has no "federal" government. What is has is a central government that has (only in 1994) devolved some powers to municipal governments (though close studies of municipalization have regularly found the central-municipal relationship very lopsided in favor of the central government). And, yes, the prefects are (only since 2005) directly elected, but they are still constitutionally agents of the executive branch of the central government. The point is that those favoring autonomy aren't seeking to "limit" a federal government at all (since none exists), but rather to create one. Only after such a federal system is in place can we begin to debate about what powers & limitations should or shouldn't exist.

Shanqueros: Does your objection to non-national flags extend to the whiphala (the indigenous flag) as well?

I agree with Centellas. Also, I haven't made a trip to Bolivia in a while and I don't get too many opportunities to brandish the flag here in the States, so I think it is as good a time as any. My brothers can bear the task of holding up the national flag as they were born in La Paz and don't have the same connection with their department as I do. The matter is honestly a bit more complex than Confederate secession and one should refrain from being drawn into false analogies (as often happens with Iraq and Vietnam).

Anyway, here's to victory later today.

My reply started as a question but it has turned more argumentative. I agree with many of your posts and I was mainly interested in a response to the question. I thought I might hear something about Jaime Moreno a Santa Cruz native. However his full apellido is Moreno Morales and might be indicative of Orureno roots. This point about about the Whiphala is a good one and I guess I would say that it is not as divisive a symbol to me. I am not sure how important the degree of centralizism is to my point, but comparisons to the US are interesting. The US Federal system has grown more centralized over time, as the central government has asserted itself in myriad through legislation such as Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Labor Regulations, and other fredoom of expression, privacy and speech issues. And unlike the Bolivian national system which is centralized by design, with the President possesing substantial power, but we know that many laws that are promulgated, but never enforced and/or funded, like bi-lingual education. (Nonetheless, as we have discussed before Santa Cruz benefited greatly from the centralized system from 1952 forward.) The US Feds also have financial ubstantial control. If you are a property owner you probably pay more taxes to the state and local governments, but if you are a renter most of taxes probably go to the Feds. So, I think it is simplistic to say the Bolivia is highly centralized compared to the US, rather there is sliding scale in place. And centralism is not inherently bad...

@Shanqueros: Well, Moreno & Morales are the Spanish equivalents of Smith & Jones, so the surname says little about a person's origins.

But your more important points about centralism have merit. Yes, centralism can at times be good. Though I prefer systems in which power is broadly dispersed, rather than concentrated.

But there's no denying that Bolivia is HIGHLY centralized. Yes, there's a sliding scale, but Bolivia is on the "very centralized" end. One example of a unitary state (like Bolivia) is France, which is divided into 96 départments (though power has been devolved to local governments since the 1980s). But in Bolivia most decisions are made at the central government.

Additionally, though municipal governments can theoretically use their funds as they see fit, they have to submit development proposals (planes de desarrollo) to the central government's secretariat in charge of municipal governments (the specific name has changed, but it's still typically referred to as "Participación Popular") for approval. If there are problems w/ the plan de desarrollo, the central government can freeze funds. Additionally, if any of the comites de vigilancia (citizens' watchgroups) lodges a complaint regarding the plan de desarrollo, the central government can freeze all funds until the issue is resolved. A number of municipalities have operated w/ no budges for years because of such issues. For poor rural municipalities (the vast majority of them), raising local taxes is not an option. In Bolivia nearly ALL taxes are raised by the central government, which then decides how to distribute it to the local units.

As for Bolivia's prefects ... an autonomy statute would increase democratic accountability. Currently, prefectures are perfect winner-take-all offices. There is no department-level legislative assembly empowered to make laws or otherwise check the prefect. This means that (so long as Evo decides not to sack them, which he can constitutionally do), the prefects can do pretty as they see fit w/ whatever funds the central government allots the departments. And because the departments administer municipal funds on the regional level, that's quite a lot of power.

Typically, highly centralized governments have not fared well (under any criteria). The beauty of a republican system (such as the US Constitution) is that it doesn't assume that political leaders are good or noble; in fact, it explicitly assumes that leaders are power-hungry, and so seeks to "check ambition w/ ambition".

I thought that the Bolivian equivalents of Smith and Jones was Moreno and Mamani.

That would be the SPANISH equivalent of Smith & Jones. Not only does Moreno/Morales tell you little about where one is from in Bolivia, they tell you little about where in the Americas one is from.

Mamani is perhaps the AYMARA equivalent of Smith or Jones. And, yes, Mamani says "Altiplano" right away. Just like "Vaca" says "media luna."

BTW. Centellas is typically a Spanish surname (though it's of Catalan origin) peculiar to Bolivia (and, specifically, to Oruro). Not surprisingly, my father was born in Oruro.

The duscussion was about Bolivia, not everywhere the spanish language is found. If you want to speak about Ppanish generally, I doubt Moreno and Morales are really that high on the list of the most common Spanish surnames. Garcia and Martinez are more common generally, but not necessarily in Bolivia.

Interesting info on Centellas though, maybe you and Evo are distant cousins. :)

Perhaps. My abuelitos (grandparents) both were Quechua speakers, and my abuelita also spoke fluent Aymara (my abuelito, not so much). But like most sons of immigrants, I consider myself a camba. :-)

Garcia and Martinez are the equivalent of Miller and Johnson. Sheesh, get it right! :-)