The character of Santa Cruz de la Sierra
Santa Cruz is a different version of Bolivia than the one I had gotten to know in La Paz and, to a lesser extent, in Sucre. The largest city in the country is the capital of its largest department, which shares the same name. I had not known what to expect from the city upon my arrival. In many ways, it is a world away from La Paz and the mountainous West of Bolivia. The climate is tropical, even in winter, with muggy air and a hot sun to go along with the Amazonian vegetation.
Cultural and social differences were visible as well, in both the people and the city of Santa Cruz. Free of high rises and located on a plain, the city stretches for miles of concentric circles that reveal a gradually decreasing level of wealth as you move farther from the central plaza area. The streets and buildings are recognizably Bolivian, but adapted to the city’s climate and economic functioning. Traffic is less frantic, there are many more (and more expensive) private vehicles in the streets, and there are far less people out and on the move.
Santa Cruz gave me the impression of a somewhat diluted Bolivia; a mix between the dynamism and color I have gotten to know and a higher level of commercialization. There are far fewer street vendors or markets, and consumer goods and foods come from stores and supermarkets instead. Shopping seems to be a pastime around the center of the city, and western dress is the norm. In complexion and style, the Cruceño population reflects its location at the junction of the three very different countries: Bolivia, Brazil, and Argentina.
Political Opinions: Expectations and Differences
As for politics, Cruceño pride is visibly omnipresent. I saw one national flag my entire time in the city, while the green and white flag of the department flew from every government building and from many stores, homes, and offices. Banners hung in the central plaza, declaring: “We have our autonomy,” “we will always be free Cruceños,” and “We will continue making history.” May 4th, the date of the technically illegal and democratically open autonomy referendum, has already been converted into a symbolic day of political pride. One interviewee offered a frank opinion of political identity: “There is too much division right now for there to be a national identity. Instead, it is the regional identities that are rising, where everyone realizes they have to look out for their own interests.”
The prefect’s department, the civic committee, and the “Comite pro-Santa Cruz,” have focused all of their political efforts on consolidating support around the issue of autonomy, and on the statutes that were voted on. I got the impression that a solid majority of city-dwellers are indeed in favor of autonomy, but the propaganda efforts of the city and regional governments are clearly intended to give the impression of unified and universal support within the department. The main newspaper, el Deber, is a private institution that is closely affiliated with big business, and its strong pro-autonomy and anti-government slant reflects a high level of responsiveness to Santa Cruz’s economic elite.
Impressions from conversations were much less homogenous than the image of Santa Cruz presented by its political power-holders. To begin with, the city of the Santa Cruz and the department of Santa Cruz are distinct and different in several senses. Ethnic composition is different in the more indigenous rural provinces, lifestyle is more agricultural and less commercial, and politics reflect the predominance of lower social-economic classes outside the city. One analyst described the contrast by saying that opposition support ends at the city limits. (the banner reads: "we are autonomous. Cruceño power! Lets continue making history.")
An increasingly important theme in my research is that generalizations tend to be misleading and reflect bias, but there does seem to be a very real division within Santa Cruz department. Several poorer Cruceños agreed that people in the countryside don’t support prefect Costas, and that he only represents the business interests and the rich. One old man said that Costas had not done a single thing to improve the lives of those outside the city during his term; public projects such as schools, infastructure, and education had all been limited to the cities.
Costas and the autonomy advocates would counter by saying that the campaign for the autonomy vote and statutes, which has occupied the prefect’s term, represents the interests of all Cruceños and is the most important step for bettering their lives. Autonomy is consistently tied to themes of social justice, economic equality, local democracy, and increased wealth for all. A politically active former engineer I interviewed argued the party line nicely: “Those in Santa Cruz who support Evo’s government just don’t realize that autonomy is a union to serve all.” Some of these Evo supporters I spoke to felt differently. One young farmer who could barely read but was diligently studying a crossword puzzle in the plaza described his apathy for the local government, and his support for a central government that allows social and economic freedom to all classes and ethnicities, in a country where indigenous campesinos were not allowed in public squares or offices in the fairly recent past.
Considering the government, in perspective
Criticism of Evo was much as expected. “He doesn’t govern with a sense of country.” “He favors certain groups.” “He neglects areas that don’t support him.” Evo would certainly agree that he does not represent all Bolivians, and that he purposefully ostracizes certain sectors. His long term goal is (to use the phrasing from my original research proposal) ‘to alter that traditional political and economic institutions in favor of Bolivia’s historically oppressed and marginalized indigenous peasant majority.”
Considering the historical context of a conflict or situation is always revealing. Governments in Bolivia have always ruled on the power of the largest minority percentage, and represented that minority group accordingly. The difference now is that Evo’s government represents a majority of the population, with the additional difference being that no part of this majority has ever been one of the groups represented in government before.
With this in mind, it is easy to understand why Evo has no problem being seen to favor indigenous poor over wealthy landholders and businessmen. And there is a good reason Evo does not get personally involved in areas that do not support him: they don’t want him. The racist demonstrations in Sucre that I have described were in response to a visit by the President, and on trips to Santa Cruz he has met similar hostility organized by opposition politicians.
Economic viewpoints, and the vacuum of objectivity
On economic questions, the debate over Evo has gotten more interesting for me. In conversations, I see two very different views of his government. On the subject of jobs, critics say that he has dampened the economic sectors where people need work the most, hurting those he claims to help. On the other hand, when I talk to blue-collar and campesino Bolivians, regardless of region, the overwhelmingly dominant response has been that Evo has created jobs and has bettered the lives of the poor. Inflation and food shortages are blamed on the government or on
the neoliberal opposition, depending on who you ask.
The topic of nationalization and government management remains interesting. Businessmen in Santa Cruz argue consistently that control of the hydrocarbon industry should be returned to international companies, and that the government is mismanaging gas revenues that are robbed from producing deparments in the first place. A blog on Latin American economics presented a very different picture. A graph of government reserves shows the central bank of Bolivia with monthly increasing amounts of international currencies, totally over 7 billion currently, that are the direct result of the hydrocarbon tax and partial nationalization of the industry.
Consider that the Bolivian state bordered on bankruptcy throughout the neoliberal 80s and 90s, when multinational companies backed by the IMF and World Bank had control of hydrocarbons and infastructure. It is clear where all of this money, which is now in the hands of the once-poor central government, used to go. Tension with multinational corporations and the Bolivian economic elite is understandable, considering this monumental shift of resources. Perhaps just as remarkable is that the Morales government consistently operates on a budget surplus, where spending for 2008 is financed without even dipping into incomes from the same year. So, despite openly socialist programs and policies, the government seems to be fiscally responsible.
The weight of these facts, and the fact that they came not from the Bolivian newspapers I have been reading for weeks but from independent bloggers, again reminds me of the importance of sifting through information to find accurate truths. Many an anti-globalization blog rants against the leverage that thinktanks, NGOs, and development agencies use on behalf of multinational interests, and Bolivia is a favorite example. There are many accusations that the US and other organizations are covertly funding the opposition and doing everything they can to sow seeds of division within Bolivia, knowing that economic opportunity often fills rifts in politics. Whatever the relative importance of these international influences, however, the difficult reality is that there are strong and pervasive influences from economic and private interests throughout Bolivian politics and press. But as I have warned before, generalization is misleading no matter which side it comes from.
The dangers of generalization
For this reason, I have to address a troubling pattern I have seen in other blogs on Bolivia. Many observers, frustrated at opposition tactics and sympathetic with the cause of the downtrodden poor, seem to forget that maintaining a critical perspective is essential to any worthwhile analysis. This means that agreeing with Evo’s position should not mean ignoring the government’s shortcomings and mistakes. Equally importantly, it means that caricaturing the opposition is only going to detract from the goal of promoting understanding of the situation.
Rants against the ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ opposition does not do justice to the diversity within the various regional and opposition movements, and it also does not recognize that there are good people with sincere concerns who fall under the opposition umbrella. Racism is most often used to characterize the positions of Santa Cruz and the other autonomy states, but it should more accurately be called regionalism. Race is a factor, and the colonial legacy of social separation along racial lines remains a painful and powerful one in Bolivia. But equally or more important are the economic interests in question and the desire for government to be less distant and less bureaucratic.
Another interesting angle on Bolivian politics is the similarity of themes and issues to those of the US. Several of my diligent readers have commented on this to me, and it is true that the same social and economic ills, as well as political limits and potentials, that underlie American society are just more acutely visible here. Political rhetoric is another striking parallel. MAS and Evo talk about a democratic revolution, about change for all of Bolivia, about a better future. Autonomy advocates also claim to represent change, a “new system, new scheme” for a better government and better lives. I have to ask, though, how credible this second claim for change and newness is, considering that autonomy advocates are calling for a change to the system even as they represent the interests and players that built the system. Is this just a rhetorical ploy, a response to the threat of concrete change by casting the old as the new? It reminds me of the Presidential campaign, where Obama’s groundbreaking “change we can believe in” rhetoric has brought a shift in the Republican camp, to where McCain now claims to represent the change that people want to see in Washington. Politics is politics, wherever you go, and in whatever language they are conducted in.
The referendum of August 10 continues to move closer, with neither side showing signs of compromise before then, or after. It is still unclear how prefects will be removed from office, should they lose, including the prefect of Cochabamba, who remains the only departmental leader who refuses to submit to the vote. Most predictions have Evo winning comfortably, and it remains to be seen what impact this will have on the power of the autonomy movements and the prospects for ratification of the new constitution. Again and again, Bolivians agree that the only exit from the current political stalemate/crisis is through dialogue, but it is hard to foresee that happening soon. As one Cruceño put it, Bolivians do politics the Latin way, with less reason than passion. Until they start thinking with their heads and not their stomachs, things are only going to get worse.
I am currently on hiatus from Bolivia, having departed Santa Cruz for Asuncion, Paraguay, where I am staying with the family of a friend. I have already heard some interesting perspectives on Bolivia, considering their source in a neighbor country, and will likely have some other observations to offer soon. For now, the only thing to do is watch the news for any big changes from Bolivia, that country where anything can happen, and usually does.
Santa Cruz is a different version of Bolivia than the one I had gotten to know in La Paz and, to a lesser extent, in Sucre. The largest city in the country is the capital of its largest department, which shares the same name. I had not known what to expect from the city upon my arrival. In many ways, it is a world away from La Paz and the mountainous West of Bolivia. The climate is tropical, even in winter, with muggy air and a hot sun to go along with the Amazonian vegetation.
Cultural and social differences were visible as well, in both the people and the city of Santa Cruz. Free of high rises and located on a plain, the city stretches for miles of concentric circles that reveal a gradually decreasing level of wealth as you move farther from the central plaza area. The streets and buildings are recognizably Bolivian, but adapted to the city’s climate and economic functioning. Traffic is less frantic, there are many more (and more expensive) private vehicles in the streets, and there are far less people out and on the move.
Santa Cruz gave me the impression of a somewhat diluted Bolivia; a mix between the dynamism and color I have gotten to know and a higher level of commercialization. There are far fewer street vendors or markets, and consumer goods and foods come from stores and supermarkets instead. Shopping seems to be a pastime around the center of the city, and western dress is the norm. In complexion and style, the Cruceño population reflects its location at the junction of the three very different countries: Bolivia, Brazil, and Argentina.
Political Opinions: Expectations and Differences
As for politics, Cruceño pride is visibly omnipresent. I saw one national flag my entire time in the city, while the green and white flag of the department flew from every government building and from many stores, homes, and offices. Banners hung in the central plaza, declaring: “We have our autonomy,” “we will always be free Cruceños,” and “We will continue making history.” May 4th, the date of the technically illegal and democratically open autonomy referendum, has already been converted into a symbolic day of political pride. One interviewee offered a frank opinion of political identity: “There is too much division right now for there to be a national identity. Instead, it is the regional identities that are rising, where everyone realizes they have to look out for their own interests.”
The prefect’s department, the civic committee, and the “Comite pro-Santa Cruz,” have focused all of their political efforts on consolidating support around the issue of autonomy, and on the statutes that were voted on. I got the impression that a solid majority of city-dwellers are indeed in favor of autonomy, but the propaganda efforts of the city and regional governments are clearly intended to give the impression of unified and universal support within the department. The main newspaper, el Deber, is a private institution that is closely affiliated with big business, and its strong pro-autonomy and anti-government slant reflects a high level of responsiveness to Santa Cruz’s economic elite.
Impressions from conversations were much less homogenous than the image of Santa Cruz presented by its political power-holders. To begin with, the city of the Santa Cruz and the department of Santa Cruz are distinct and different in several senses. Ethnic composition is different in the more indigenous rural provinces, lifestyle is more agricultural and less commercial, and politics reflect the predominance of lower social-economic classes outside the city. One analyst described the contrast by saying that opposition support ends at the city limits. (the banner reads: "we are autonomous. Cruceño power! Lets continue making history.")
An increasingly important theme in my research is that generalizations tend to be misleading and reflect bias, but there does seem to be a very real division within Santa Cruz department. Several poorer Cruceños agreed that people in the countryside don’t support prefect Costas, and that he only represents the business interests and the rich. One old man said that Costas had not done a single thing to improve the lives of those outside the city during his term; public projects such as schools, infastructure, and education had all been limited to the cities.
Costas and the autonomy advocates would counter by saying that the campaign for the autonomy vote and statutes, which has occupied the prefect’s term, represents the interests of all Cruceños and is the most important step for bettering their lives. Autonomy is consistently tied to themes of social justice, economic equality, local democracy, and increased wealth for all. A politically active former engineer I interviewed argued the party line nicely: “Those in Santa Cruz who support Evo’s government just don’t realize that autonomy is a union to serve all.” Some of these Evo supporters I spoke to felt differently. One young farmer who could barely read but was diligently studying a crossword puzzle in the plaza described his apathy for the local government, and his support for a central government that allows social and economic freedom to all classes and ethnicities, in a country where indigenous campesinos were not allowed in public squares or offices in the fairly recent past.
Considering the government, in perspective
Criticism of Evo was much as expected. “He doesn’t govern with a sense of country.” “He favors certain groups.” “He neglects areas that don’t support him.” Evo would certainly agree that he does not represent all Bolivians, and that he purposefully ostracizes certain sectors. His long term goal is (to use the phrasing from my original research proposal) ‘to alter that traditional political and economic institutions in favor of Bolivia’s historically oppressed and marginalized indigenous peasant majority.”
Considering the historical context of a conflict or situation is always revealing. Governments in Bolivia have always ruled on the power of the largest minority percentage, and represented that minority group accordingly. The difference now is that Evo’s government represents a majority of the population, with the additional difference being that no part of this majority has ever been one of the groups represented in government before.
With this in mind, it is easy to understand why Evo has no problem being seen to favor indigenous poor over wealthy landholders and businessmen. And there is a good reason Evo does not get personally involved in areas that do not support him: they don’t want him. The racist demonstrations in Sucre that I have described were in response to a visit by the President, and on trips to Santa Cruz he has met similar hostility organized by opposition politicians.
Economic viewpoints, and the vacuum of objectivity
On economic questions, the debate over Evo has gotten more interesting for me. In conversations, I see two very different views of his government. On the subject of jobs, critics say that he has dampened the economic sectors where people need work the most, hurting those he claims to help. On the other hand, when I talk to blue-collar and campesino Bolivians, regardless of region, the overwhelmingly dominant response has been that Evo has created jobs and has bettered the lives of the poor. Inflation and food shortages are blamed on the government or on
the neoliberal opposition, depending on who you ask.The topic of nationalization and government management remains interesting. Businessmen in Santa Cruz argue consistently that control of the hydrocarbon industry should be returned to international companies, and that the government is mismanaging gas revenues that are robbed from producing deparments in the first place. A blog on Latin American economics presented a very different picture. A graph of government reserves shows the central bank of Bolivia with monthly increasing amounts of international currencies, totally over 7 billion currently, that are the direct result of the hydrocarbon tax and partial nationalization of the industry.
Consider that the Bolivian state bordered on bankruptcy throughout the neoliberal 80s and 90s, when multinational companies backed by the IMF and World Bank had control of hydrocarbons and infastructure. It is clear where all of this money, which is now in the hands of the once-poor central government, used to go. Tension with multinational corporations and the Bolivian economic elite is understandable, considering this monumental shift of resources. Perhaps just as remarkable is that the Morales government consistently operates on a budget surplus, where spending for 2008 is financed without even dipping into incomes from the same year. So, despite openly socialist programs and policies, the government seems to be fiscally responsible.
The weight of these facts, and the fact that they came not from the Bolivian newspapers I have been reading for weeks but from independent bloggers, again reminds me of the importance of sifting through information to find accurate truths. Many an anti-globalization blog rants against the leverage that thinktanks, NGOs, and development agencies use on behalf of multinational interests, and Bolivia is a favorite example. There are many accusations that the US and other organizations are covertly funding the opposition and doing everything they can to sow seeds of division within Bolivia, knowing that economic opportunity often fills rifts in politics. Whatever the relative importance of these international influences, however, the difficult reality is that there are strong and pervasive influences from economic and private interests throughout Bolivian politics and press. But as I have warned before, generalization is misleading no matter which side it comes from.
The dangers of generalization
For this reason, I have to address a troubling pattern I have seen in other blogs on Bolivia. Many observers, frustrated at opposition tactics and sympathetic with the cause of the downtrodden poor, seem to forget that maintaining a critical perspective is essential to any worthwhile analysis. This means that agreeing with Evo’s position should not mean ignoring the government’s shortcomings and mistakes. Equally importantly, it means that caricaturing the opposition is only going to detract from the goal of promoting understanding of the situation.
Rants against the ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ opposition does not do justice to the diversity within the various regional and opposition movements, and it also does not recognize that there are good people with sincere concerns who fall under the opposition umbrella. Racism is most often used to characterize the positions of Santa Cruz and the other autonomy states, but it should more accurately be called regionalism. Race is a factor, and the colonial legacy of social separation along racial lines remains a painful and powerful one in Bolivia. But equally or more important are the economic interests in question and the desire for government to be less distant and less bureaucratic.
Another interesting angle on Bolivian politics is the similarity of themes and issues to those of the US. Several of my diligent readers have commented on this to me, and it is true that the same social and economic ills, as well as political limits and potentials, that underlie American society are just more acutely visible here. Political rhetoric is another striking parallel. MAS and Evo talk about a democratic revolution, about change for all of Bolivia, about a better future. Autonomy advocates also claim to represent change, a “new system, new scheme” for a better government and better lives. I have to ask, though, how credible this second claim for change and newness is, considering that autonomy advocates are calling for a change to the system even as they represent the interests and players that built the system. Is this just a rhetorical ploy, a response to the threat of concrete change by casting the old as the new? It reminds me of the Presidential campaign, where Obama’s groundbreaking “change we can believe in” rhetoric has brought a shift in the Republican camp, to where McCain now claims to represent the change that people want to see in Washington. Politics is politics, wherever you go, and in whatever language they are conducted in.
The referendum of August 10 continues to move closer, with neither side showing signs of compromise before then, or after. It is still unclear how prefects will be removed from office, should they lose, including the prefect of Cochabamba, who remains the only departmental leader who refuses to submit to the vote. Most predictions have Evo winning comfortably, and it remains to be seen what impact this will have on the power of the autonomy movements and the prospects for ratification of the new constitution. Again and again, Bolivians agree that the only exit from the current political stalemate/crisis is through dialogue, but it is hard to foresee that happening soon. As one Cruceño put it, Bolivians do politics the Latin way, with less reason than passion. Until they start thinking with their heads and not their stomachs, things are only going to get worse.
I am currently on hiatus from Bolivia, having departed Santa Cruz for Asuncion, Paraguay, where I am staying with the family of a friend. I have already heard some interesting perspectives on Bolivia, considering their source in a neighbor country, and will likely have some other observations to offer soon. For now, the only thing to do is watch the news for any big changes from Bolivia, that country where anything can happen, and usually does.
4 comments:
Andrew,
I recently found your blog. A great blog and good observations.
However, as the maintainer of a 'lefty' blog which rails against the Media Luna and capital plena movements as racist and fascists, I must defend the accuracy of the characterization.
You are very correct to point out that their are honest and good people aligned with these conservative politics, who have genuine concerns about the history of centralized and corrupt government, but you must recongize that these movements are led by elite political and business interests who deliberately use implicit and more often explicitly racist discourses of historically deep regionalised identity. They openly support fascist youth groups that use violence to intimidate political opponents.
The fact that 'good' people find common cause with these movements does not lessen the racist and fascist character of reactionary opposition to Evo Morales. Instead, we are properly drawn to a fuller and more nuanced understanding of how racist and fascist politics actually operate in the real world (as opposed to a textbook), in Bolivia and elsewhere. Exploiting otherwise genuine concerns and popular sentiments for elite driven political and economic interests.
Think about for a while.
peace, Duder
Duderino,
I appreciate both your blog handle and your commentary. You obviously have intimate experience with the situation in Bolivia, which is important, as I beleive personal experience, observation, and interaction within Bolivia is essential for being able to accurately describe and understand the politics and society of such a dynamic place.
My research is open-ended and involves observations and conversations with every type of Bolivian I can interact with, including casual interactions with indigenous campesinos as well as interviews with PODEMOS senators. My goal is to see, and try to understand, all sides, regardless of my own opinions, to try to understand from a political science perspective what is driving developments in Bolivia. My blog is a modest effort to synthesize some of the main points I encounter, and is intended for interested readers whose only other source of information and perspectives on Bolivia is the international news world, whose coverage is spotty, often inaccurate, and generally inadequate.
Let me say that I know there are openly fascist and rascist affiliations with the autonomy and capitalia movements. I understand what happened in Sucre, and the threats and violence that have taken place there and in Santa Cruz. And if you read my posts, I hope you will agree that I acknowledge the reactionary and racist character of aspects of Bolivian society.
I agree that these movements against Evo are manipulated by the political elite to serve their social and economic ends, but as a student my goal is to understand HOW and WHY these movements have the support they do. I am trying to educate myself, through conversations and observations, and most importantly through a skeptical persepctive, as to the causes of political polarization in Bolivia. So, I know that reactionary tactics and rascist undertones are factors in the opposition movements, but I am not willing to let that be the extend of the analysis. It oversimplifies the problem of Bolivian politics, making it easier to understand but ultimately more difficult to remedy.
I appreciate your reading and your close commentary, I have enjoyed reading your blog, it has important things to say, and I hope you dont mind my occasional theiving of information and opinions from it. Hasta la victoria
Thanks for the compliments. Definitely keep up the analytical work of asking
"why" and "how", deeper questions I don't delve into on my partisan blog.
It originally started much like yours but after awhile I felt the need to directly counter the English media bull and denounce with free range Bolivia's racists and fascists because I couldn't find anyone else doing it. So as a consequence, I anonymised it and try not to put up original research, although it sometimes slips in.
All the best from a fellow companero gringo.
Andrew......... Just read your sucre post and the latest one. Great stuff. I think it is critical that you keep an open mind and listen to both sides.
One of the lessons of history is how easy it is to demean, hurt and even kill people you have demonized. Bolivia, like the US, is faced with daunting challenges that are much bigger than anything that can be solved by old-style demonizing.
The new solutiion is going to have to be based around mutual respect, and acknowledgement on everyones's part that "tribalizm" is like a pit bull: useful at times but capable of getting out of control in a hurry with disastrous results.
toodles, pop.
Post a Comment