Inequality, Reform, Autonomy: Bolivia´s Future

With the aforementioned delay of a constitutional referendum, the political battle here in Bolivia has recently moved to other fronts. At the center of the struggle, however, are the same issues that make the new constitution so important. The proposed policies of land redistribution and hydrocarbon taxation, which are both recognized by independent analysts as the essential first steps necessary to reduce economic inequality, are part of the reason a stronger central government looks to be necessary. In order to break down the social and racial barriers in Bolivia that have developed along regional lines, a more centralized government is also needed. These positions, held by the majority coalition led by the MAS party and supported by most international analysts and observers, are in sharp contrast to the positions of the eastern departamentos.

The states of the media luna, where the vast majority of the country´s resource wealth and arable land is concentrated, is the centre of Morales` opposition. The governors of these departamentos are members of the traditional social elite that has controlled economic and political affairs in Bolivia since colonial times. Their regions, in addition to being the wealthiest, are home to Bolivia´s mestizo and white minority. With complicity from the governments of the 80s and 90s, these regions have used resource revenues and foreign investment to build a commercial and public infastructure vastly disproportionate to the relative development of the rest of the country. As my guidebook put it, “Santa Cruz has more in common with Miami Beach than with the altiplano”. This contrast is sobering, considering the inequality that it represents in a country that has the lowest life expectancy, literacy, sanitation, and GDP per capita of any country in the Western Hemisphere besides Guatemala and Haiti.

The paradox of Bolivia´s generous resource wealth and crushing poverty is the product of the political and economic systems that have supplied the elite with power and wealth as the poor indigenous majority scrapes out a living in the margins of society. In the face of the Morales government´s reform agenda, however, the departamentos of the media luna are struggling to maintain their priveleged economic status. Rejecting the idea of nationwide distribution of oil tax revenues, the leaders of Santa Cruz and the other states argue that resource wealth should remain in the region where it was generated. Imagine if, say, California declared that it was so patriotic and democratic that it would no longer be subject to the US Constitution, and decided not to allow revenues from all economic activities and natural resources to be included under federal taxation or benefit any programs outside the state. This is a far less severe version of the potential economic impact sought by the autonomy movement here.

Morales´ economic policies are not strictly socialist: he wants a mixed economy built on a model of so-called “Andean-Amazonian Capitalism”, with the goal of maintaining efficient productivity while benefiting social welfare. To the power-holders of the eastern departments, however, anything less than complete control of their own resources is termed a “violation of democracy”. Under the leadership of opposition governor Ruben Costas, Santa Cruz held a referendum on autonomy on May 4, 2008. The vote had already been declared unconstitutional by the National Electoral Court, and was unrecognized and deemed illegal by the EU, the OAS, and the South American Union. Nevertheless, an 80% majority voted yes at the polls. Similarly high majorities voted yes in Beni, Pando, and most recently, Tarija, whose vote was just this past Sunday.

These numbers are misleading, however, because of the high levels of abstention from voting. If the no votes and the abstentions are taken together, the Si vote in favor of autonomy is no longer the majority. While generally recognized by Bolivian television news programs and newspapers I have seen, these abstention rates did not register in the international news world. What reports I have seen failed to mention the percentage of non-participating voters, and even a high-quality political analsis I recently read made no mention of the abstention rates in several paragraphs of discussing the vote results. As one paceño (La Paz resident) told me just this morning, “the international news people don´t recognize the abstentions, so it is good propaganda for the pro-autonomy people.”

The autonomy votes represent very different things, depending on your perspective. Comparing them to the battle over states rights and federalism that defined early US politics, the assertion that autonomy is about de-centralization and direct democracy makes sense. But considering the actual situation of Bolivia, the claim that economic seperation and independence of autonomous regions from the new constitution would help Bolivia as a whole is a dubious one. From what I have seen and read, it seems clear that autonomy is only likely to widen the social and economic gaps that plague Bolivia´s people.

From conversations here in La Paz, I have gotten the impression that people here see the autonomy votes as Morales does: political manipulations to benefit the social elite. With their wealth and control of most private media sectors, the political leaders of the autonomy departments paint the economically-motivated movement as a struggle for democracy. Paceños are skeptical, however, and have told me that they see the autonomy votes as the elite´s method for protecting their economic interests and those of the multinational companies invested in the eastern regions.

Analysts have pointed out that there are different versions of autonomy. Evo is not strictly anti-autonomy; he supports political autonomy for both regions and for indigenous communities, but rejects claims for economic independence. Costas and the pro-autonomy leaders ignore the push for indigenous rights, and the points of their autonomy statute have everything to do with preservation of the economic status quo in their regions. According to many people here in La Paz, the eastern elite are used to having control, both economic and political, and the transparency and reform demanded by the new government has upset their priveledged niche. The opposition, in the words of one paceño, is afraid to lose what it has spent so long building for its priveledged group.

While the practical impact of the autonomy votes remains unclear, the political temperature in Bolivia continues to rise. Originally proposed by Evo, then mandated by the Congressional opposition after a confidence boost from the autonomy vote, a nationwide recall referendum has been scheduled for August 10. This legally sanctioned “confidence vote” could mean more ammunition for the opposition, or a strengthened Morales Administration, but a lot can and will change between now and August 10. Despite the fact that their party voted the recall into law, the governors of the eastern states announced this week that they would not participate in the referendum. Instead, they called for early departmental elections, but it is clear that their previous confidence is fading in the face of popular support for reform.

I hope this entry has been a decent mix of fact and opinion, as these issues are so dynamic that it is often uncertain which is which. I will continue discussing the developments surrounding the constitution, autonomy, and el revocatorio (recall) in future posts. Now that I have gotten the bulk of the background out of the way, I will also start in on my personal experiences since I´ve been here.