Bolivia on the Brink - Part II
May 5th, 2008 by SocProf and tagged Development, Economy, Indigenous peoples, Politics, Poverty, Racism, Social Exclusion, Social Identity, Social Inequalities, social marginality, Social Stratification
Via Liberation, the rich Bolivian region of Santa Cruz has declared its autonomy after a successful - but illegal - referendum. The “yes” obtained around 82% of the votes with 30 to 40% abstention. This autonomy gives the region expanded powers in political and economic matters, at the expense of the central government. In particular, the new status gives Santa Cruz increased power over administration of land policy and the sale of natural resources, especially natural gas. For the government, this is a ploy by the local oligarchy and wealthy landowners to enrich themselves and protect their exclusive interests. However this issue is resolved institutionally, Santa Cruz started a chain reaction: 3 out of 9 regions have now planned to hold their own autonomy referenda.
According to Le Monde, things started with constitutional disputes between the central government and the opposition right-winged prefects of 6 of the 9 provinces.
But as nationalist leader Andres Soliz Rada states, both parties are liquidating the national state: the right-wingers by getting regional autonomy because they do not like governmental policies, and the central government by giving way to extreme multiculturalism with three flags and 36 languages.
But at the heart of this is land policy: the government-sponsored constitutional reform would limit the size of latifundia to 5,000 to 10,000 hectares whereas Santa Cruz lands largely belongs to 40 families. The largest plantations might be redistributed to peasants, something, of course, unacceptable to the local landowning oligarchy (via Le Nouvel Observateur). This result of the referendum is a blow to the government since Santa Cruz generates 30% of the GDP of Bolivia. The bottom line is economic, as stated in the Independent,
“The new constitution is at the source of the regional discontent with the central government. Its strong pro-indigenous and socialist content and the controversial way in which it was approved – inside an army barracks – have made it a rallying point for opposition forces across the country. (…) The reason for the opposition is economic more than anything else, although racist smears have tainted the arguments of both camps. In recent years Santa Cruz has grown from an outback region into Bolivia’s economic powerhouse, responsible for a third of the national GDP. The region boasts 40 per cent of the country’s arable land and one fifth of its gas reserves.
The Morales government is pushing for more control over those resources, claiming the benefits should go to the country’s poor as a whole. The Santa Cruz government says it deserves a larger slice of the profits from fossil fuels.”
And the Bolivian ethnic divisions are very clear: the “white” elite in Santa Cruz was very much in favor and the instigator of the referendum whereas the indigenous populations opposed it. And it can get pretty ugly (via the Guardian):
“The vote also expressed hostility to the government’s championing of indigenous communities which scrabble for survival in the highlands, a very different Bolivia to Santa Cruz and the relatively prosperous eastern lowlands. (…) “My family is voting for autonomy because the Indians want to dominate us,” said Olga Tordolla, a woman in a largely indigenous quarter of Santa Cruz city known as Plan Tres Mil. “They are racist, they hate white people.”"
Ah yes, the Americas’ beleaguered white people, always oppressed, always hated. But in this case, this is truly the revolt of the white elite against an elected president whose policies are too redistributive for their taste. There is reason for the rich ranchers and right-wing militias to be worried after the “pink tide” that is sweeping South America (via another Guardian article).
“Ecuador and Paraguay elected radical outsiders as Presidents, Venezuela continued espousing socialist revolution, and Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay retained left-wing governments.”
The big question now is whether this vote is going to be the first step in stopping Evo Morales’s policies. The answer is not clear. After all, his government just nationalized four oil companies.
This includes three oil companies with foreign capital. The government also has plans to nationalize telecommunications companies.
There is now a stand-off as to which policies will prevail: the quasi-apartheid system that favors white ranchers and right-wing militias, or the socialist mixed with indigenous identity politics of Evo Morales.
To be continued.
Photo Source: Leo La Valle/EPA, in the Guardian.
Posted in Development, Economy, Indigenous Populations, Nationalism, Politics, Poverty, Social Inequalities, Social Privilege, Social Stratification, social marginality |
