I’m Miguel Centellas, a political science professor at Mount St. Mary’s University. Because of academic interests, I post frequently on Bolivian politics. I also occasionally discuss interesting books, pop culture, and daily life in Baltimore.
I mentioned earlier some recent protests unsettling Evo’s government (mostly because they’re coming from the left, not the right). The protests have both escalated, and spread.
While Evo has challenged the mineworkers’ and teachers’ strikes as serving the empire/oligarchy, they’re turning from political headache into a pr nightmare. The recall referendum takes place this Sunday. These protests not only hurt Evo’s image, they also impede the mobilization of his recall referendum campaign. But yesterday’s attempt to break a mineworkers’ blockade of the La Paz-Oruro highway left four dead & several injured. The press is having a field day, of course, pointing out that nearly 30 have died during Evo’s presidency. (It’s fair to call the media “anti-Evo” on the whole, though much of the Bolivian media has been “anti-incumbent” for nearly two decades.)
Adding to the tension is the mobilization of rural government supporters in the countryside to break the mineworkers’ & teachers’ barricades. Obviously, road blockades disproportionately hurt poor people (particularly those who must sell their produce in La Paz & those who live from tourism). And poor campesinos aren’t likely to empathize w/ striking teachers. But the danger of confrontations between civilians can’t be ignored—and the political consequences for Evo’s populist coalition would be devastating. A confrontation between MAS supporters & mineworkers’ wives (two of them recent widows from the confrontations between their husbands & police) produced chaos in Oruro, the country’s historic tin mining center.
And the hits keep coming: Recently, Felipe Quispe returned to the political scene, declaring his opposition to Evo. This week, Jaime Solares (another key figure in the Gas War) has done the same. Solares has long been a controversial figure. But his instrumental role in the Gas War is unquestionable. His claim that government forces are trying to kidnap him (while probably hyperbole) only adds fuel to the fire.
All in all, this is beginning to look too much like a repeat of the 1982-1985 Siles Zuazo presidency. The situation is different now, of course. Back in the early 1980s, Siles Zuazo couldn’t count on international support (the USSR was in doldrums & China wasn’t eager to be a world superpower just yet). Evo can count on Chávez, flush w/ petrodollars. Inflation, though creeping up, also hasn’t reached the astronomical proportions of that era, either. But from 1982-1985, Siles Zuazo attempted to steer the country to democracy w/ a vaguely socialist-populist-reformist agenda that represented the last gasp of the national revolutionary project of the 1950s. Then, too, a president leftist president was assailed simultaneously from the right & the left (principally the COB). Of course, Siles Zuazo didn’t have a loyal mass following of the kind Evo can mobilize. Nor could Siles Zuazo claim to represent an “indigenous” Bolivia. So Evo may yet survive this crisis. If he can keep his fracturing coalition together long enough (something Siles Zuazo was unable to do).
This type of instability is common place for presidents, wouldn't you say, generally speaking?
At which point would you say this escalates to a crisis situation?
Posted by
GS
August 6, 2008 7:17 PM
Wait. That needs some qualifiers.
What I should have said: This type of instability is not uncommon for recent Bolivian presidents, going back to Zuazo, like you say.
My question remains as stated.
GS
Posted by
GS
August 6, 2008 7:21 PM
MC,
I would say you are definitely falling into the trap of anti-Evo press sensationalism and over blowing the current "crisis". Morales' poll numbers are steady and it looks like he is heading for an easy win. It is only expected that segments of the left would try to use the current moment to achieve some concessions by pressuring threatening to withhold their support. Unless blockades go up in El Alto, I really wouldn't be too concerned about threats to Morales from the left. The opposition and Media Luna are another story altogether.
Posted by
D.Beaulieu
August 6, 2008 8:03 PM
@D.Beaulieu: I think it's important to separate broad public support from the kind of protest activities that can cause a "crisis". Yes, Evo's poll numbers do remain steady. But Bolivian politics has in the past decade or so been increasingly defined by these peak crises. And it only takes a few hundred people to paralyze La Paz (if you've spent more than a few weeks in La Paz you'll know what I mean). If the small crises all pile up at the same time, it can lead to government inaction. Once that happens, broad support begins to ebb away, which then turns into a hemorrhage. But you'll notice that I didn't argue that Evo will lose the election (and I even pointed out how he was in a much stronger position than Siles Zuazo). Though the growing boldness of his critics on the LEFT will cause problems for him. It means he can't very easily compromise on his right (for fear of losing more support on his left), but he can't appease his recent opponents on the left (for fear of further alienating those on his right).
@GS: I don't know if I'd call the current situation a "crisis" yet. But Bolivians have referred to the entire period from 2003 (or earlier) as "la crisis boliviana". So perhaps this is just par for the course. But while it's not uncommon for groups on the left to challenge Bolivian presidents (including Siles Zuazo), their challenge of a president internationally hailed as representing poor, indigenous Bolivians changes the dynamics. How much? I'm not yet sure.
Posted by
Miguel de los Shanqueros
August 7, 2008 11:50 AM
It is time for evo to proscecuted for the deaths during his administration if he can justify his attempts to go after goni etc. evo has a severe everything i do is right attitude. he is blind to what he actually does. he does not hear what he says. this attitude that it will be his way and his way only and everyone is wrong is pure fascism. i would wager that if, in this upcoming farce, he were to somehow lose, he would not step aside. much like chavez's recent actions to implement decrees that were rejected by the people, evo would not recognize that he is not wanted but only that the US paid for the loss on his part and, therefore, it was not a legitimate loss. i feel he should be impeached anyway because he is constantly diobeying the law of the country. he encourages discourse and antagonizes any chance of resolve. then again, i felt he should have been arrested for subversion when, as a member of congress, he led strikes and protest against the government he was sworn to uphold. i guess petrobucks speak louder than loyalty.
Posted by
roberto white
August 7, 2008 12:01 PM
For those talking polls, it's good to remember that Carlos Mesa was above 50% when the protests started against him and actually increased for a time as some people rallied around him. Eventually, though, protests take a toll on a government's support as they show the government unable to control the country.
Evo knew that when he was on the protesters' side during the GSL and Mesa governments. Now that he's on the other side of the fence, we'll see whether he knows how to manage it.
Boz makes a good point. It's also good to remember that the poll published in La Razón (which I linked to in an earlier post) was conducted 19-27 July. Could events in the last few days swing popular approval in another direction? It's always possible.
...their challenge of a president internationally hailed as representing poor, indigenous Bolivians changes the dynamics.
It sounds like you're saying that that Evo is above challenge by the left just because he is poor and indigenous (though, frankly, he probably already stole more money than a cholita has petticoats). Or, to put it another way, as if the only thing the "left" in Bolivia cares about is the poor and indigenous, as opposed to power.
Also, how does this change the dynamics?
Posted by
GS
August 7, 2008 11:15 PM
Oh, no, I don't have a romanticized view of Evo (or anyone else). But many have hailed Evo as a representative of poor, indigenous Bolivians (w/ comparisons to Nelson Mandela, for example). Thus, challenges to him from the LEFT tarnish that image. And that changes the dynamics.
Increasingly, politics anywhere in the world is global. How Evo is viewed internationally matters. If he's seen attacking or being attacked by labor and/or indigenous groups, those on the Anglo-European left who supported him may come to view him more like Mugabi than Mandela. If that happens, Evo may have a harder time w/ the countries Bolivia depends on for foreign assistance.
No worries, I know you don't have a romanticized view of Evo. But judging by your description of a romanticized view, I worry that I may have developed one.... :) Evo, in my opinion, is a long way away from both Mandela (unfortunately) and Mugabi (thankfully).
I would hope that the international community, particularly the international left that you mention, would have a more sophisticated understanding of the Bolivian left and recognize that just because Evo is being challenged by segments of a fractured left doesn't mean that his government is no longer worthy of support.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that the dynamics really change just because Evo is pressured by his, supposedly, ideological kin. You probably know much better than I the factions and dynamics of the Bolivian left. For the dynamics to change in any significant way I would look for dramatic drops in popularity, massive defections from the MAS, and increased reliance on autocratic measures. The military is always the wild card, particularly now given Evo's increased politicization of the FFAA. I was pleasantly surprised by their inaction during the troubles of 2004/2005.
Posted by
GS
August 8, 2008 12:21 AM
Unfortunately, my experience has been that many w/ left sympathies (particularly in the US) often have a very shallow understanding of the internal dynamics of other countries & tend to view events overseas through their own preconceptions (and usually based on their views of their own US government). Not everyone, of course. I mean particularly the young, coffee house intellectuals. And, yes, I was one once, too.
I've known people from all over the political spectrum from all over the world. In any other country, the leftists may hate those in their country who are on the opposite extreme, but they always have a deep love for their own country. But the unique and very sad thing about the American far left is their hatred for their own country. This national self-hatred distorts their view of the rest of the world, to the point that other countries become little more than pawns on their chessboard of flagellation.
Posted by
Frank IBC
August 8, 2008 11:58 PM
I don't think that's limited to the American left. In general, most Americans (not all, mind you) tend to project their fears & ambitions into foreign politics. We're a very self-absorbed society.
Absolutely true. But it's the national self-hatred part that seems to be uniquely American far-leftist.
Posted by
Frank IBC
August 9, 2008 9:23 AM
And it's certainly true that the American right projects its own image of what the rest of the world should be. I remember a recent discussion between a conservative American and a recent Greek immigrant. The American was totally baffled as to why many Greeks harbored resentment towards the USA - his attitude was "but... we saved them from Communism! How could they be so ungrateful?!" Apparently the era of the Colonels was a minor but necessary evil, to him.
