I’m a political science professor who posts regularly on Bolivian politics. I also occasionally discuss interesting books, pop culture, and daily life with a toddler. I’ve recently moved to Oxford, Mississippi.
It’s been more than a month since my last update. Wow. Partly, a lot of my short, running commentary has now moved almost entirely to Twitter. But I’ve also just been keeping my head down working on a number of projects. I’ll try to remember to set some time aside for more posts, both personal & otherwise.
Bolivia’s election is still on schedule for next week. There hasn’t been much to report, frankly. Evo has a commanding lead in the polls, and looks set to win easy reelection. This is partly because of a number of missteps from his opponents (stretching back the last two years at least). But it’s also a product of Evo’s deft handling of some internal issues, particularly to try to send signals to the moderates that he’s not out to get them. And, to be fair, Evo’s Bolivia is not Chavez’s Venezuela. Not by a long shot. Troubling signs? Yes. But this is par for the course in Bolivia, particularly as the country has returned to its populist traditions (Manfred & SDM are just as “populist” as Evo). So in many ways the election has turned rather “boring,” unless you like the he-said-she-said soap opera that the campaign has become. But there’s been little, if any, real substance.
Two things really bother me about this election. First, there’s not been enough polling (at least publicly available) for me to get a better sense of what’s going on. Yes, Angus Reid has been posting polls on relatively regular basis. But these are national aggregate reportings, not the kind of stuff that’s helpful. Why? Because what really matters in this election is whether MAS wins control over the Senate. All national polls do is confirm that, yes, Evo still leads by 20-30 points over Manfred.
Only yesterday did La Razón finally post another IPSOS poll w/ regional breakdowns. Surprisingly, Evo has become more competitive in the Media Luna than I had expected. MAS (Evo) is now virtually tied w/ PPB-CN (Manfred) in Santa Cruz & Pando w/ roughly a third of the vote. The latter is not surprising, since Evo’s government recently moved thousands of peasants to the sparsely populated battleground department. MAS is also only slightly behind PPB-CN in Beni. Most surprising, however, is the news that MAS is leading in the polls in Tarija.
Now, polls are tricky, especially in Bolivia. But if those numbers hold (there are still a lot of undecideds out there), along w/ the hefty MAS leads in the Andean departments, Evo might not only wrest control of the Senate away from the opposition, but even impose on it a 2/3 supermajority! Clearly, the failure of the opposition to put together a single electoral platform was a disaster. There are nine departments, each (under the new constitution) w/ four Senate seats. The way the new electoral rules work, the plurality winner could get all four seats, depending on the margin of victory. So far it looks like MAS could win most of the seats in six of nine departments. Even if MAS only won 3 of 4 seats (on average) in those six (La Paz, Oruro, Potosi, Cochabamba, Tarija, and Chuquisaca), that would give it 23 seats. If MAS manages to win (on average) 2 seats in Santa Cruz & Pando, and only 1 seat in Beni, that would give MAS a total of 28 seats. That would translate to a 3/4 supermajority.
None of that might matter too much, however. Why? Because the new constitution transitions Bolivia into a semi-federal state (a centralized state w/ protected autonomies). The newly formed autonomous governments would include a governor (no longer called “prefect”) & a legislative body. Of course, MAS could try to use its supermajority to rescind autonomy. But that seems unlikely to happen, since voters in Andean departments are now also preparing to approve autonomy in a referendum. (Voters in the Media Luna approved autonomy in 2006 & in their own 2008 “wildcat” referendums.)
The second reason I don’t like this campaign is that there’s been no debate. Prior to 2005 (there was no debate that year, too) Bolivian campaigns had (since 1989) established a tradition of holding presidential debates. These televised debates gave voters a chance to see the various candidates answer a host of questions from a moderator, as well as answer each other’s questions. Instead, now it’s just rallies, television & radio spots, and graffiti. That reduces political discourse to the lowest possible common denominator. I hope debates will one day again be part of Bolivian campaigns.
Fundamentally, the sense I get from Bolivia’s election is that the country is limping along. It’s not in a stable, consolidated position like Uruguay. Nor is it in an absolute crisis like Honduras. Both countries had elections last Sunday. In Uruguay, it was a second-round election that gave Mujica (a former leftist guerrilla) the presidency. But this won’t send a shockwave through Washington. Mujica is an old leftist, who’s turned to democracy long before the 1990s. Morever, he’s succeeding another leftist in Uruguay (Tabare Vasquez) who was one of America’s closest friends in the region (it signed an FTA deal). In Honduras, the election came in the midst of a dragged out crisis following a military-backed coup of Mel Zelaya, a friend of Chavez. Hardly any government will recognize the Honduras election, which will just prolong the crisis. But its also clear that no one will do anything about it (not Obama, not Chavez, no Lula).
So there you have it. My take on the Bolivian election is that it’s primarily been a boorish (though not necessarily boring) affair. I still plan to write a paper about it, of course, for April’s MPSA. But most of that will have to wait for actual election results. That means roughly a week from now.
Miguel,,,
Thanks for the IPSOS polling link—pretty cool news,,,no?
But we differ as is often the case, as per: (Your words in quotes, mine follow.)
“This is partly because of a number of missteps from his opponents (stretching back the last two years at least).” Yeah,,,missteps allegedly including murders, supporting assassinations, graft and corruption—simple missteps like those and people getting abused and stolen from that they then readily forget. And Evo’s efforts really weren’t rewarded with support for him at all, including his efforts toward needed judicial reform that will put the accused behind bars. (They’ll go to Miami, I’ll bet. Maybe charter a flight with the other golpistas…like Santos and Marinkovic—perhaps the Larsens, too?)
“Troubling signs? Yes. But this is par for the course in Bolivia, particularly as the country has returned to its populist traditions (Manfred & SDM are just as “populist” as Evo).” Yeah,,,with the previous world record of coups well in hand, this is troubling indeed—for the rapists, that is. This my friend, establishes you as an anti-populist at the very least. On the other hand, saying that “Manfred & SDM are just as populist as Evo”, is just plain ridiculous—and might establish something else, too. I mean--look at how they governed for crying out loud! Their populism extends only so far as attempts at buying votes in return for promises of 1000 (was it b’s or $??) per family head if elected. That’s populism—not!
“Surprisingly, Evo has become more competitive in the Media Luna than I had expected.” Might this be revealing a past anti-Evo/MAS bias or simply a lack of awareness now being thankfully awakened? Or some other reason? (You’ll be even more surprised at the coming election results, Miguel—and for the same reason—whatever it is.)
“The latter is not surprising, since Evo’s government recently moved thousands of peasants to the sparsely populated battleground department.” Yeah. Why don’t they simply gerrymander, just like we do it here in the US? How many thousands do you suppose were moved, and were they moved in time to register to vote? I think it won’t make much of a difference in the long run, except in the lives of the moved indigenous of course, who either for the first time in their lives now own land, or who were forced from their lands due to climate change and then legally relocated onto lands previously illegally held or unproductive/idle. It is an indication of change where now (at long last) the indigenous and mixed-race poor, at least have a chance.
We agree that gaining a supermajority is a distinct possibility. I think he’ll get it, and unlike you, hope so, too..
We also agree that it is too bad Evo chose not to debate with his opponents, although undoubtedly for different reasons. (BTW,,,Did his opponents debate among each other, each taking turns firing salvos at Morales? Or like a circular firing squad? I haven’t heard of any really serious debates—have you?) In any event it is a good thing for them that Evo declined—Evo has an amazing sense of simple clarity and honest speaking style that would assure him of a landslide. He’d make mincemeat of them.
“Fundamentally, the sense I get from Bolivia’s election is that the country is limping along. It’s not in a stable, consolidated position like Uruguay.” HUH??? Limping along with the best economic situation in the history of Bolivia? And consolidated position? With no mention of the US role in shaping the Uruguayan governance with the USOPS in 1965, and ever since? Does Dan Mitrione ring a bell? SOA/WHINSEC? WB/IMF manipulations/collar-control ever since then? Wouldn’t ‘governmentally compliant’ be a more fitting description? Amazing how our views differ, isn’t it?
“Nor is it in an absolute crisis like Honduras.” Oh--you mean like the USAID’ed Honduran “election” complete with a SOA/WHINSEC graduate at the helm of the coup? The one that put the control of the country back into the hands of the military/corporatists who benefit directly from Honduras remaining as another US ‘lily-pad”? The CP and NP were the Honduran equivalent of the Reps and Dems up north—both complicit in malgovernance. Divide and conquer. To avoid that happening in Bolivia is precisely why Evo threw out the USG interventionistas—to avoid what happened to Zeyela. (Bolivia’s ‘recovery’ of 1000 automatic weapons from the less than 50-strong DEA was merely a double-bonus (worth something like a million or so)! But the USA wouldn’t interfere, would it?
“In Uruguay, it was a second-round election that gave Mujica (a former leftist guerrilla) the presidency.” Yeah,,,Mujica,,,nasty leftist. BTW,,,to be consistent, why didn’t you similarly label Manfred as an ex- rightist general? You know—you included not one mention of right/rightist in your blog, and four left/leftist references—doesn’t that paint some kind of a picture all by itself? It is a perception-shift kind of thing--like there is no ‘right’—that any not designated as ‘leftists’ are therefore reasonable centrists? Or am I reading too much between the lines, here?
Enough constructive deconstruction exercise for now. You'll show me where I'm wrong, I hope, and provide some more fodder in the future.
Regards,,,John
Posted by
locojhon
December 1, 2009 9:38 PM
I would not over emphasize the importance of autonomies. Yes, the country is shifting to a semi-federal state. Yet if you look at the competencies of regional governments, they really don't afford the regions much leverage. They have little taxation powers (not to mention that levying new taxes in Bolivia would be an unwelcome gesture from the regions) and few--and i would add, unimportant--competencies. If anything, the constitution managed to centralize power in the national Executive. So much for autonomies.
Posted by
Luis A
December 2, 2009 9:56 AM
You're right, of course. I don't meant to overstate the importance of autonomies. But I think it will be very difficult for any Bolivian government to be as arbitrary about regional administration in the new constitutional framework. Of course, the average lifespan of a constitution is less than 10 years ... so even that might change. But my sense is that there will be more (perhaps even too much?) decentralization in the future, not less.
Locojohn: I think part of your misunderstanding of my positions stems from your misunderstanding of the language of political science. There's nothing wrong w/ that; it's very common.
Yes, I'm an anti-populist. Why? Because populism is typically associated not w/ a particular set of policies that are "for the people" but rather aimed at being "popular." Note that commentators regularly include Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Rush Limbaugh in the "populist" category. Populism doesn't mean left or right, it means a style of politics. And, yes, Evo, Manfred, and SDM are equally populist in this sense.
The only other issue I want to clarify is why I'm surprised the Media Luna is backing Evo according to the latest polls. This has nothing to do w/ personal bias. If I only used bias to predict results, that wouldn't do well for my career, would it? People want to see accuracy, not ideological dogma. But my surprise comes form the previous polls, which gave Manfred 50% in Santa Cruz & put Evo in the low 20s across much of the Media Luna (but not Pando). That polls 5-6 weeks later show a toss-up is a surprise. Either the previous polls were wrong, or the current polls are, or Evo has gone up & Manfred has gone down. I'm curious to understand why, of course.
Finally, not sure why you're ranting against my statements on Honduras. I think I've been pretty clear/consistent in calling what happened in Honduras a coup. Hence, my use of the term "crisis" and pointing out that elections didn't (and shouldn't!) fix it.
