Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

A wealthy minority in Bolivia seems determined to thwart the changes demanded by a majority of the population.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bolivia: Can the Majority of People Vote for Change and Actually Get It?

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet. Posted August 27, 2008.


A wealthy minority in Bolivia seems determined to thwart the changes demanded by a majority of the population.
Advertisement

Evo Morales changed the history of Bolivia when he was elected in December 2005 as the country's first indigenous president, and the first to get a majority of 54 percent. On August 10, he expanded his mandate considerably in a referendum, with 67 percent of voters opting to keep him in office.

The conventional wisdom in Washington -- where the foreign policy establishment is decidedly not sympathetic to Morales' populist agenda -- has been that the referendum would settle nothing. Bolivia remains divided, say the pundits, along geographic (eastern lowland states versus the west), ethnic (indigenous versus non-indigenous), and class (rich versus poor) lines.

Maybe so, but apparently it is less divided than when Morales was first elected, an event that was widely celebrated as a milestone akin to the end of apartheid in South Africa. Was that election also meaningless?

Bolivia's indigenous majority had previously been excluded from the corridors of power, and the results can be seen in their lower living standards: indigenous Bolivians have less than half the labor income and forty percent less schooling than non-indigenous.

Morales had promised to regain control over the country's hydrocarbon -- mostly natural gas -- resources. This was accomplished and has brought in an extra $1.5 billion of revenue to the public treasury. (For comparison, imagine an extra $1.6 trillion, or four times the current U.S. federal budget deficit, in the United States.)

Morales and his party had also promised a new constitution, and that is where things got bogged down. The main stumbling blocks revolve around the distribution of the country's most important natural resources. These are the hydrocarbon revenue and also Bolivia's arable land.

In developing countries throughout the world that are dependent on hydrocarbons (oil or natural gas), these revenues generally belong to the central government, not the place where they are located. Bolivia is unusual, in that half of the hydrocarbon revenue goes to the provinces and local governments.

But the four eastern lowland provinces -- sometimes called the "Media Luna" or "half-moon" because they form a crescent along the eastern half of the country -- wanted even more control over these revenues.

These provinces produce about 82 percent of Bolivia's natural gas, and get nearly three times the gas revenue per person as do the other five provinces. The Media Luna states have a per capita income that is about 40 percent higher than the other five states. Their population is also much less indigenous: ranging from 16 percent (Pando) to 38 percent in Santa Cruz, as compared to 66-84 percent in the other states.

The Media Luna states also have the big landholdings that give Bolivia one of the most concentrated land distributions in the entire world. Well under one percent of landowners have two-thirds of the country's farm land. These include the big soybean producers of Santa Cruz, Bolivia's largest province and bulwark of the Media Luna alliance. Some of the big landowners are leaders of the political opposition.

Land reform is understandably a central political and economic issue. With forty percent of the labor force in agriculture and more than three-quarters of rural Bolivians in poverty, a redistribution of arable land is not only a central demand of the voters, but an important part of an economic development strategy that can boost employment and income in the countryside.

The referendum this month shows that the Morales government has increased its mandate to a landslide margin, by delivering on some of the changes that the electorate had voted for, and offering the majority of Bolivians a realistic hope for a better future. It casts doubt on the claim that this government has simply pursued its own, polarizing, leftist agenda, without regard to the concerns of the broad electorate. Its victory is all the more impressive in that it has been handicapped by an overwhelmingly hostile Bolivian media.

Unfortunately, despite the landslide victory for Morales' government, and the new electoral gains it received in almost all departments, the wealthy opposition in the Eastern lowlands seems determined to oppose any change in the way Bolivia's most important natural resources are distributed. Just a week after the referendum saw strikes, bombings, roadblocks, and violent protests in several of the Eastern departments. Some of the most prominent opposition leaders have been linked to the violence, and others -- including prefects who survived the recall referendum -- have negated Morales' victory, proclaiming Bolivia to be as divided as ever. Much of the international media coverage has seemed to echo this theme.

Bolivia is South America's poorest country, with 60 percent of the population living below the poverty line, and 38 percent in extreme poverty. The voters have overwhelming decided that they want their government to do something about that. This should be possible, even if it means redistributing some of the country's most important natural resources.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bolivia, evo morales, natural resources

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
An Opportunity To Do The Right Thing
Posted by: gradioc on Aug 27, 2008 4:57 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To my way of thinking this exactly the sort of Democracy the United States should be supporting at every turn. It should not matter which way, left or right, the electoral winds blow. The right of the people to estabish a government pleasing to themselves is the principle our founding fathers staked everything upon. The US Government, as now constituted, has done its best since the end of WWII to stifle the will of the people of former colonies and European dominated states to set up their own institutions of government as they see fit. The fateful decision by FDR to help the English, French, and Dutch regain their Asian colonies after the defeat of Japan, rather than helping those people form their own governments on democratic principles, has echoed every since down through the decades, through Vietnam, Iran, Chile, and Panama. The one crime I will never be able to forgive of Nixon is the murder of Salvedore Allende and the end of, what was then, the second oldest democracy in the Americas in Chile. We have to do better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Evo
Posted by: praedor on Aug 28, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should start arming the poorer members of the country. Let's see the rich oligarchs stand up to the majority of the population that is angry and armed.

Since they think they can simply negate the supermajority of the voters by rich man's proclamation, let them do so with a supermajority of guns pointed at them. What can't be wrested from them by democratic means should be simply taken from them. THEY are the aliens in Bolivia, not the natives themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes and no. Posted by: Coleman
The natural flow of things
Posted by: paulorico on Aug 28, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bolivia is going now through a re alignment which in essence is political but also socio economic. There are very few free countries now and through history where the minority of the population ruled and had everything and the majority worked for subsistence without hope to better themselves. Where it has happened, it was unjust and time has proven it again and again and in the end,the majority of people took control of their own destinies, sometimes without shedding much blood, sometimes at grave costs. The rich will try to keep it’s reaches and in Bolivia that makes him/her unfair most times. Some people will lose but in the end we will have the majority of Bolivians enjoying the riches of their country. The only question is if it will take lots of blood to get there or if it can be done in a civilized way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Different Kind Of Neighbor
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 9, 2008 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to deal with these countries respecting who they are and what they are and stop expecting that everyone else conform to our worldview. A great place to start would be to publicly supporting the duly elected governments of Latin America and respecting them for a change instead of trying to undermine them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How quickly we forget....
Posted by: SillyQuestion on Sep 14, 2008 3:19 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How quickly we forget that the minority have rights too. The idea that the majority should rule is as cruel and insane as letting the strong rule, or the rich. Bolivia is in the process of trying to become another Zimbabwe. In the name of one man one vote they chose to take from those who had and give to those who want, nothing more than licensed plundering. A democracy is not the same as Mob-rule. What is needed is equality of education, rights, and oppertunities, not the wholesale plundering of those who have worked for generations and whose ony crime is that they were successful.

Also the term "indigenous" is being used to misslead and distort. Are we to believe that only citizens who are indigenous to a country have rights and that people who are citizens of any other nationality are inferior and have less rights? ? The correct term is "citizen", and no one citizen should have more rights than another regardless of where their Great Grandma was born.

In light of the above it is easy to see that Evo Morales is nothing more than a racist who does not believe in equal rights for all of the people of Bolivia, as such he needs to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How quickly we forget.... Posted by: SillyQuestion
A total lack of perspective based on inadequate research
Posted by: IPF on Sep 14, 2008 5:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we have another gringo - read educated and inrusive white man - coming to "backwards" & "banana" republic, to proffer his saving analysis to the poor and downtrodden of Bolivia.

The real truth is the research done for this article is poor, misguided, shallow and definitely done with an agenda in mind( some of the numbers are just plain false: 45% of the population is white & mestizo, not 15%).

For straters, the nationalization of Bolivia's hydrocarbon industry is still going on - not over yet, 2 years later. Why, when it is one of the smaller producing nations with only a handful of multinationals involved in the production of oil and natural gas? Bungled and mismanaged. (Do I smell a diversion of funds to private pockets?)

Bolivia ranks right down there as one of the countries with the least private investment and one of the poorest populations in the entire American continent. I wonder - is there some correlation between the two?

Perhaps the reasons behind such poor economic performance is because this is the third time the country has nationalized the petroleum industry since serious oil exploitation began in 1916. At some point, socialists should realize that stealing under ANY guise, is still stealing. And the stealees (as opposed to the stealors - or thieves), have a nasty habit: they learn and remember who steals. Go figure. Small wonder there is very little private investment - the government ends up stealing your investment, and the investors realize it.

Is it perhaps time for the socialist international to come to the realization (DUUUH! would probably fit here well) that the same idiosincrasies that affect human nature in a capitalist environment signify doom and gloom to the nth degree in a socialist/comunist environment, since there is much less to go around, and more idiosincratic government people(read idiotic & corrupt administrators) to control your everyday activity and even spending trends.

Secondly, now returning to the article's review, this author is trying to make a case for the re-distribution of arable land, namely soybean producing land. But, wait a minute, soybeans are and industrialized crop, one that requires mechanization and vast tracts to cpompete in that market. Yet he advocates redistributing this export crop (read foreign currency generating or cha-ching for the local economy) to hundreds of thousands of farmers who will then grow corn, a few chickens and maybe a dog or three. In otherwords, let's ruin the little exports that Bolivia now has. Yet again, more interference by white gringos with little to no adequate information that will screw up the locals so they will end up hating the USA.

Finally, riots, blockades and civil unrest is not associated with the elites, but rather the poor. The problem mainly rests with Evo Morales' penchant to do everything pro indigineous groups. Unfortunately for both him and this article's author, the indigineous - though long mistreated - do not make the great majority - 55%. So the government has to please several groups - wow! what a concept (Hard to wrap your head around that when you have an axe to grid - socialism anyone?).

Respect for private property has been proven in the last few thousand years to engender a system that provides opportunity for improvement and a free market that will come to you should you have what it seeks - in this case Oil, gas, mining and soy beans. But trying to steal property when prices increase will only make your country less palatable, and in the end, very poor.

Advocating more of the same - as this article does - and celebrating the stealfest of yore, is just plain irresponsible, nefarious and downright anti-social. I suggest you do some real research next time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]