I’m Miguel Centellas. As a political science professor, academic interests are a significant part of my personal life. I post on Bolivian politics, interesting books, pop culture, and daily life in a Baltimore.View my (old) academic pages at Dickinson College.
This page contains an archive of all entries posted to Pronto* in the “Current Events” category. They are listed from newest to oldest. For a list of other category archives, see the right sidebar; you may also look through the archives or search by keywords.
Back from vacation (and only now w/ cable/internet restored). Still catching up w/ news, email, work, etc. More later.
But some startling news from Tarija: An explosion at a Canal 4 installation in Yacuiba, Tarija. The department of Tarija is today wrapping up its own autonomy referendum election. At least one suspect (who has admitted to complicity) w/ ties to the presidential palace was rounded up: Lt. Georgef Peter Nava Zurita is identified as a member of the presidential guard. Another 19 civilians were arrested in connection. While Evo’s government denies any connection to Nava (though La Razón reporters who called for information pretending to be his cousin were given the opposite impression), opposition leaders are claiming this is a sign of Evo’s “state terrorism.”
Tomorrow will bring preliminary results of Tarija’s autonomy referendum. This now makes four such votes. Evo’s government has rejected all such referendums as illegal, and pro-MAS supporters have mobilized to prevent voting in each of the four regional referendum elections.
While all attention is currently on Santa Cruz, it’s important to look ahead to June 22. That’s when Tarija will hold its autonomy referendum (making it the 4th department to hold such a vote). Santa Cruz leaders will wait until then to negotiate collectively w/ the central government.
The Santa Cruz departmental electoral court (CDE) website has updated official counts, as they’re processed. They’re using the same software/process (SIRENA) as the national electoral court (CNE)—which is the software/process used by each of the regional electoral courts during national elections.
The official count will be made public by Friday. But this morning’s reports show that “Sí” (pro autonomy) won by 86% to 14% in yesterday’s Santa Cruz autonomy referendum. It seems unlikely that these figures will change significantly. Some brief analysis:
Tomorrow, Santa Cruz goes to the polls in its autonomy referendum. The central government is still adamantly opposed, of course. On the eve of the election, it’s also clear that there is little that can be done to stop it. But what will happen?
The problems stemming from Colombia’s incursion into Ecuador a few days ago (when Colombian armed forces killed a leading FARC rebel leader) continue. Much of the problem stems from two counts:
Boz has an interesting thread on “who wins?” in a possible Venezuela-Colombia war. There is no reason (yet) to believe a war is imminent, of course. But the possibility of inter-state warfare in Latin America shouldn’t bee too hastily dismissed.
Latin American politics sometimes takes on broad, regional patterns. About two years ago, many began proclaiming or denouncing (depending on ideological bias) the “new left” in Latin America. Whether that trend is leftist or “populist” or something else, or whether that trend is continuing, or even whether it’s one trend (as opposed to divergent trends) is still a matter of discussion, of course.
First, let me be clear: the two cases are not similar in some critical & fundamental ways. But what is interesting is the political international repercussions that a secession implies.
Fidel Castro has (finally) stepped down, officially. I’m not sure what that actually means for US policy towards Cuba, Cuba’s policy towards the US, or international relations more generally. After all, unlike Generalissimo Franco, Castro isn’t dead. Castro is instead scheduled to resume writing his political column full time. But I’m hopeful that this will mean a transition to some form of democracy—and w/ it, a more rational US-Cuban relationship.
By now most people have commented on the defeat of Chávez’s constitutional reform proposal in yesterday’s referendum vote. The fact that Chávez came out quickly to accept the defeat is a positive signal. It means that Venezuela is not as “authoritarian” as some of its harshest critics would suggest. Hopefully, this will push Chávez to reconsider some of his ambitions (i.e. his desire for indefinite reelections)—especially since he made the constitutional referendum a personal issue (a vote for or against himself).
When did this kind of power-grabbing come back en vogue?
Yes, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez wants to have indefinite reelection for president (but not for governors or mayors) in the new constitution. Seems pretty consistent for that administration. Bolivia’s Evo Morales wants indefinite reelection for presidents (but not for prefects or mayors—why does this sound so familiar?) put in that new constitution as well. So does Ecuador’s Rafael Correa.
The Argentine presidential elections are coming up tomorrow (Sunday, 28 October). It’s highly likely that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the wife of current president Néstor Kirchner, will win the presidential race. The latest Angus Reid poll puts her at 47%—w/ her nearest rival (Elisa Carrió) pulling in barely 16%.
I’m extremely interested to see if Stephen Colbert does, in fact, end up on the South Carolina primary ballot—and what effect that has on the presidential race. A stunt? Perhaps. But then, so are the “candidacies” of the likes of Mike Gravel, Tomas Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Dennis Kucinich, and at least a few others in the over-crowded primary fields.
Washington Monthly editor Paul Glastris was on last night’s Colbert Report discussing his magazine’s college rankings. The issue sparked by interest, because Dickinson’s president (Bill Durden) is a leading champion against the US News college ranking system, which has recently come under criticism.
I wasn’t entirely impressed w/ Evo’s performance on The Daily Show. From a PR point of view, he did well. He stuck to his talking points, he remained diplomatic, he was calm & eloquent. But it wasn’t funny.
If you haven’t already heard, Jon Stewart announced that Evo Morales will be on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show tonight (11pm EST). This is quite a coup for the show, which is fast becoming more of a “serious” news show than mainstream news (but does anyone think CNN, FOX, etc. are “serious” news networks anymore?). Needless to say, I’ll be tuning in.
---- PS. Both The Daily Show & The Colbert Report have recently become the subject of a number of political science conference papers & journal articles.
I briefly mentioned the recent Belgian crisis in class today, while discussing the different historical paths towards democracy in 19th & 20th century Europe. The potential (though unlikely) disintegration of Belgium (as a state) is a stark reminder that states are not permanent, anywhere in the world. Something Bolivians should pay careful attention to. Because a “velvet divorce” is one thing, a bloody one is another thing altogether.
Looks like Fujimori is finally going to be extradited back to Peru to face charges related to the abuse of power during his 1992-2000 semi-authoritarian regime. He had been living in Japan for several years; he was recently aprehended, while in Chile.
I covered Fujimori as one of my four cases (the others were Perón, Várgas, and Chávez) of populist Latin American leaders in my “Heroes & Villains: Populism in Latin America” course last semester. These are the materials we used:
It’s perhaps fitting that today—on the anniversary of “9/11”—my Democracy & Democratization class is reading the first chapter of Samuel Huntington’s The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (1991). It’s fitting because “9/11” is both the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 2001 and of the US-supported (if not directly “backed”) Chilean military coup of 1973.
While Huntington’s work has been controversial, he’s made some important insights that aren’t easily dismissed—and shouldn’t be overlooked. One of them is this snippet on pages 29-30:
“… the future of democracy in the world is of special importance to Americans. The United States is the premier democratic country in the modern world, and its identity as a nation is inseparable from its commitment to liberal and democratic values. Other nations may fundamentally change their political systems and continue their existence as nations. The United States does not have that option.”
Most of the class discussion will focus on the Huntington’s introduction to the idea of “waves” of democratization, which they’re reading alongside Dankward Rustow’s 1970 classic article, “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model.” But I hope we have a chance to parse out this Huntington nugget (which closely follows an argument that increased democratization throughout the world may bring more peace & less violence). Because what Huntington notes in this passage is that US political identity is wrapped up in our belief in liberal, democratic values. The US isn’t only the premier democracy (for all its faults), but the world’s premier case of “civic” (as opposed to organic, ethnic, or cultural) nationalism.
The US wasn’t founded on the belief that “the American people” should govern themselves (in the way that, say, the Serbian nation-state is explicitly Serbian and not for others in Serbian territory—this example could be applied to a host of “ethnic” nation-states), but on the belief that people should. Re-read the first line of the Declaration of Independence; it clearly implies a universal scope. And it suggests that the US has a founding mission to promote the spread of democracy.
Perhaps if we paid more attention to the struggle for freedom & democracy around the world, we wouldn’t be so surprised in international relations. And we may need to constantly remind ourselves that our first priority—or “prime directive”—as a state is to act in ways that promote democratic values around the world. Perhaps the last question made before any policy decision should be this: “Will this policy hinder or advance the cause of freedom in the world?”
The Bloguivianos blogging conference is underway in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Three El Alto bloggers, sponsored by the Rising Voices grant gave presented the Voces Bolivianas project. Looks exciting. There will even be Aymara & English subdomains, which I hadn’t yet realized.
It seems some people are offended by recent beer ads by Annheiser-Busch (a swill I detest, for the record) because it uses Spanglish
Tan bueno como encontrar un parking en frente al building
in its ad campaign. The objections seem to be pedantic & based on not realizing that A) not all people speak the same Spanish, B) Spanglish is spoken by millions of people, and D) languages evolve in multicultural environments. I myself have used parquing and bilding when speaking Spanish (not Spanglish!). The simple rule of Spanglish is this: use the word w/ the fewest syllables (so “parking” beats “estacionamiento” hands down).
Not surprisingly, Venezuela’s legislature unanimously approved changes to the constitution that would (among other things) extend the presidential term from six to seven years & allow for unlimited reelection of presidents. Essentially, Hugo Chávez could be president for as long as he wishes (he’s currently been president for almost ten years).
Stories like this make me glad I decided to add Frank Foer’s How Soccer Explains the World to the reading list for next semester’s comparative politics course. It’s a story about Iraq’s national soccer team (by Time magazine’s Tony Karon), which plays tomorrow (against Saudi Arabia) in the Asian Cup final. Could a victory help bring an end (even a temporary one) to the violence? The Ivory Coast’s civil war ended in similar circumstances last year. The combination of sports (and other elements of pop culture) & politics is often underappreciated.
Last night’s Colbert Report featured a segment on a bill proposal to make English the official language of the United States. The US is one of the few countries in the world that doesn’t have an official language (in large part because of that whole First Amendment thing). The law would require all US government business to be conducted in English (which, I suppose, would mean that translations of court documents or other legal materials would not need to be provided to non-English speakers, which poses problems for that whole “due process” thing). Of course, English is the de facto language of the United State, but it is not the legal language. For the record, English is also not the official language in England, either.
That said, I would support an English-as-the-official-language proposal. But only under the following five conditions:
I suppose I should comment on the controversial FIFA ruling that disallows soccer matches at high altitude. The decision means that World Cup (and other important) soccer matches can’t be played in La Paz, Bolivia (the ban applies to other locations as well). It would also apply to other cities at “high” altitude. I understand the indignation, but the issue, sadly, has become another distraction taking away from larger social, political, and economic issues.
I don’t usually use my blog for “advocacy” links. But I’ve decided to post a “Free RCTV” logo on the main page. There are numerous other causes I could be supporting, but I’ve chosen this one. In part, because I worry about the future of democracy in Latin America. Venezuela’s “partidocracia” (party-ocracy) of the 1970s-1990s was problematic, to be sure; like many, I was hopeful when Chávez was elected in 1998. The 1980s “lost decade” were very difficult on Venezuela’s poor, and it was clear that the existing parties were no longer capable of solving the political, economic, and social crisis. Many were pleased to see Chávez abandon golpismo (coup-making) in favor of electoralism; we hoped he had become a democrat. Since then, he has slowly concentrated powers in his hands—and I mean his personal hands, not his party or movement.
It’s nice when you can say that your little brother is (frequently) an inspiration. He recently posted a link to this letter from the president of U of Delaware. There was an incident during a Cinco de Mayo party at U of Delaware, basically involving a fraternity & Hispanic/Latino stereotypes (ironically, it was a co-ed honors fraternity). Andy worked w/ the Campus Alliance de La Raza, which organized a town hall meeting to deal w/ the issue directly. Nice.
I’ll admit that I didn’t openly talk about the Virginia Tech murders, neither in my classes (as some of my colleagues did) nor among friends/colleagues. In part, frankly, because I’m never sure how one is supposed to (publicly) deal w/ such matters. In part, because I think the issue (cf. the Columbine murders) is often framed in a way I find socially distasteful. In short: social-collective masochistic entertainment.
