I’m Miguel Centellas, a political science professor at Mount St. Mary’s University. I post regularly on Bolivian politics. But I also occasionally discuss interesting books, pop culture, and daily life in Baltimore.
Bolivia’s constitutional referendum is Sunday, January 25. The referendum is, by now, only loosely based on the work of the Constituent Assembly elected in June 2006 or the actual draft text approved in December 2007 (in a meeting in Oruro, rather than Sucre, that excluded most members of the opposition). Throughout most of 2008, the country was in political turmoil. Late in October 2008, opposition & MAS legislators forged an agreement—which included a substantial rewrite of the draft constitution (CPE, for “Constitución Política del Estado”)—and set the stage for the upcoming referendum. Could 2009 offer a new beginning for Bolivia?
The short answer: Unlikely. During 2008, Bolivia became even more polarized—and in interesting ways. Evo survived a recall referendum (w/ 67% of the vote), but so did the Media Luna prefects (w/ 58-66% of their department’s votes). Evo’s margin of victory was substantially bigger than his margin during his election (54% of the vote), but his share of the vote in the eastern & southern departments dropped considerably. And although voters rejected opposition prefects in La Paz & Cochabamba, they also rejected a MAS prefect in Oruro & elected an opposition candidate in Chuquisaca. Regional political identities are emerging, dividing the country in previously unexpected ways (the rise of a strong “autonomy” movement in Sucre is surprising, since the city was long a base of leftist parties like MBL & voted for MAS throughout 2005-2006).
It’s not surprising that the CONALDE (the organization of the opposition prefects) is calling for a “No” vote two weeks from now. Even though the revised draft CPE includes significant recognition of regional autonomy, these are not enough to satisfy many in the autonomy movement. (It’s likely that this is just a knee jerk reaction.) But the move certainly showed a division between the legislative opposition (PODEMOS) & the autonomy movement.
As the date of the referendum approaches, new political divisions are emerging. A number of organizations are actively campaigning for a “No” vote, and some are more surprising than others. Last week, Bolivia’s Evangelical movement came out against the new draft CPE, who suggest the document encourages abortion & homosexuality. The Catholic Church in Bolivia has been more neutral, limiting itself to asking voters to “vote their conscience” & calling for national unity. Only about a fifth of Bolivians identify as “Christian” (i.e. Protestant), but that isn’t insignificant. Evangelicals have made strong inroads (as they have throughout Latin America) among the poor. There is even a considerable indigenous Evangelical population. And, unlike Catholics (many of whom are “nominal” or “cradle” church members), Evangelicals (as they do everywhere) tend to be highly conscious of their faith. Savina Cuéllar (the new prefect of Chuquisaca) is known to be an Evangelical (she converted sometime after moving to Sure from the rural countryside).
Only recently, Bolivian Evangelicals supported Evo (in part because of his attacks on the Catholic Church). Concertación Nacional (CN), a political vehicle of Evangelicals organized by Bolivia’s Methodist Church, campaigned during the 2006 Constituent Assembly election as a political ally of MAS. It faired respectably: CN won 6% in Chuquisaca, 3% in La Paz, 5% in Cochabamba, 9% in Oruro, and 4% in Santa Cruz. Despite running in only 5 of 9 departments, it won 5% of the national vote. Because of disproportional vote-to-seat formulas, it only managed to seat five delegates (2% of the body). But that give it more seats than APB (the political vehicle that had elected Ruben Costas prefect of Santa Cruz), MOP (an indigenous movement), AYRA (an Aymara movement), and a number of smaller political vehicles. What will the open defection of Bolivia’s evangelical movement mean? Who knows; it’s too early to tell.
Two other “No” campaigns are even more surprising. Bolivia’s landless movement (MST) has begun a campaign instructing its members to vote against the new constitution. MST has long been one of the key social movements in the broader MAS alliance. And though other groups affiliated w/ MAS are pushing for a “Sí” vote, MST is calling on its members to reject the new draft CPE, citing that the document doesn’t go far enough to ending large estates (the so-called latifundios). It’s unclear how much electoral weight MST has, since it has never waged an independent campaign. But it does signal fissures w/in the MAS alliance.
Somewhat less surprising, perhaps, is an indigenous “No” campaign headed by Savina Cuéllar, Chuquisaca’s indigenous female prefect. But her movement is joined by Alejo Véliz, Rufo Calle, Marcial Fabricano, and Víctor Hugo Cárdenas (Bolivia’s first indigenous vice president & founder of the katarista MRTKL). The inclusion of Véliz isn’t surprising, since he broke w/ Evo a long time ago (both co-founded the ASP-IPSP, the organization that went on to become MAS). But the inclusion of Fabricano (an important figure in the lowland indigenous movement) is. As is Calle, currently the executive secretary of the CSUTCB (the country’s largest indigenous organization). The group pretends to be organizing indigenous (and other “popular”) social movements not (or no longer) aligned w/ MAS. But the ideological differences between a “radical” like Véliz (a former member of Bolivia’s Communist Party) who thinks the draft CPE doesn’t go far enough & a “pluralist” like Cárdenas (Goni’s running mate in 1993) who thinks it goes too far. So it’s unclear how successful such a movement is likely to be. But it does show that Evo’s list of enemies extends well beyond the “elite.”
Today, La Razón published a number of short commentaries on the CPE from a wide range of political analysts & activists. What is surprising is how diverse a number of opinions are, even from Evo supporters. Roberto De la Cruz (a member of the El Alto city council for M-17 & a key social movement leader during the October 2003 “Gas War”) is ambivalent, because the document is “too neoliberal.” De la Cruz also recently accused Evo of being too closely tied to (foreign-funded) NGOs. Ana María Galindo (a member of the radical femnist Mujeres Creando) is also conflicted, citing the growing role of the military & police in the document). Felipe Quispe (a long-standing Aymara political leader & another important leader during the Gas War) is calling instead for a boycott, continuing his longstanding attacks on Evo as a “puppet” of white interests.
There are also smaller “No” campaigns, such as that of a union of international transport drivers. Of course, w/ a document as long as this one, almost anyone could find something to disapprove of. Which is precisely why a legitimate Constituent Assembly would have been preferable. At this point, the draft CPE has been tarnished w/ the image of partisan negotiation (echoes of “partidocracia”). This could come back to burn Evo, who’s staked much of his political capital on a “Sí” victory. It may all depend on what motivates voters—and the introduction of yet a new religious cleavage shows how complicated such voter calculations are likely to become.
I haven't been following enough to see that many groups with indigenous members are supporting the "No" vote. I know many middle class voters see Alejo Veliz as more moderate, but wonder whether he is envious of Evo.
If there are many groups voting for the "No", I wonder whether they have been approached by the autonomy and Conalde group to appear in their ads. "See, not everyone who opposes the Constitution are the wealthy landowners."
The Evangelical angle is very interesting. I didn't realize that there was such a strong presence in Bolivia.
And the new autonomy referenda - Reyes-Villa must be rolling in his (political) grave to see that happening now.
Hopefully any craziness from the voting season will subside in time for Carnaval. :)
Posted by
Frank IBC
January 12, 2009 12:40 AM
@Eddie: I agree; I'm not sure how many indigenous voters/groups will actually move to the opposition. But it's interesting that at least several prominent ones have, including some (e.g. Veliz & Cardenas) who have little in common, politically. Some of it may certainly be sour grapes, of course. Or the kind of personalist power struggles of the past. We'll see.
@Frank: I think most Bolivians want autonomy (MAS raised the issue in its platform in the 2002-2004 period, and leading up to the 2005 election). But it's the *kind* of autonomy that differs. As for Evangelicals ... yes, they have a strong role in Bolivian politics, though an often under-the-radar kind of roll. It's interesting to see them now take a much more front-and-center position.
Have you read the interview Alejo Veliz gave to Los Tiempos shortly ago? No signs of the the radical commuist you mention.
He speaks against "justicia comunitaria" while stressing the importance of maintaining private property, seeking foreign investment, and pursuing profits. Most surprisingly of all, he says that kicking out the DEA was a colossal mistake.
If he keeps up with this rhetoric, he might indeed have a political future.
@Anon: Yes, I found Veliz's current rhetoric out of character w/ him. Not sure what happened there (though stranger flip flops have happened). If you want to see a left-wing critique of Morales by Veliz, check out this link (sorry, Spanish only):
Nice balanced analysis of the anti-referendum actors, which mimics the biased Bolivian newspaper coverage of all things related to MAS.
Based on the information in this post one would think that there should not be a vote at all given the landslide of opposition. My hunch is that it will pass, if for not other reason than the fatigue factor, but we will see. It seems that you hope it does nor pass?
I think you exaggerated when you wrote that the revised CPE is only loosely based on the first version. 90% of the original is intact, but it is true that the changes affect the most controversial subjects. Many of the changes are positive ones. Dare you say something positive about the new CPE and/or MAS and/or Morales?
There are strong private property protections especially in urban areas, which should help assuage the unfounded commie-pinko concerns of some of the middle class.
The autonomy issue is addressed, but it seems to me that new CPE largely punts on that issues as the details are relegated to a to be determined status.
The extraordinary rights granted to Indians in the first version through vaguely defined PIOCs are reduced and lumped-in with the general autonomy recognition provisions. Again probably a good change, since there was a lot of criticism that the extraordinary rights were akin to reverse racism.
Otherwise, many of the changes basically improve the writing and clarity of the document. Am I missing something... Where are the huge concessions that render the document barely anything close to the first version?
Otherwise, to the extent that the indigenous are considering voting against the new CPE it is not because of some affinity with the white-elite autonomy movement in the east, rather it is because it is not radical enough. To that end, the opposition might want to be careful with what they ask for in opposing the revised CPE.
Mis dos bolivianos...
Posted by
Miguel de los Shanqueros
January 16, 2009 12:35 PM
@Shanqueros: I'd invite you to read my blog more carefully. First, I'm only reporting that a number of "unexpected" opponents have popped up in recent weeks. So there perhaps I'm mimicking mainstream media coverage. Second, some of your "corrections" are noted in my own post (e.g. that some groups are opposing the draft CPE because it is not radical enough) or elsewhere (especially in my comments at MABB's blog).
But to address your specific question about what I think about the new draft CPE. I've already written about how I think it's a much improved compromise from the original draft, and my critique of it mostly parallels your own. On the whole, it's a decent enough document. Then, again, so were the 1995 & 2004 constitutions. We'll see if this one somehow magically "fixes" everything. Bottom line: Overall, I think the referendum will pass, I think the draft CPE is good enough (I see nothing horribly objectionable about it, which is as good as one can get from a lengthy document like that), but I don't think it will appease die hard MAS opponents.
Actually, I can see how someone could misinterpret my statement that the current draft CPE is only "loosely" based on the draft CPE approved in Oruro. After all, about 3/4 of the articles remained untouched, and many of those changed were not "major" changes (though, as Shanqueros points out, most of the "big ticket" articles were radically changed).
But, in my defense, the 2007 CPE draft was itself largely based on the 2004 CPE (which, of course, was largely based on the 1995 CPE). So many of the 3/4 articles that remained untouched are, from what I can tell, also untouched from a previous CPE. What matters, to me, is that the MAS draft CPE approved in 2007 was radically changed to a "compromise" CPE.
For what it's worth, I figure a compromise that makes almost everyone angry is probably as close to a true compromise as we can get. But it's also now tainted because it was fixed by the legislature (or, rather, a special committee of legislators balanced between MAS & opposition). Which contradicts the spirit of a constitutional convention (though voting on a draft while barring opponents from the floor also violates that spirit, of course).
So. The 2008 compromise draft CPE is on the whole rather similar to the 2007 draft CPE, except for nearly all the controversial articles, which have been softened (or "punted" as Shanqueros describes) to appease MAS opponents.
