Open veins

Why are top Democrats shielding Goni?

I have had the following post published in the weekly, the San Francisco Bay Guardian. My final edits didn't get through into the final piece so if you want to use it, please use the version below.

Top Democratic Party pollster Stanley Greenberg rolled into San Francisco last month to promote his latest book, Dispatches from the War Room – In the trenches with five extraordinary leaders (2009, St. Martin’s Press). The slight, bespectacled man spoke at the Commonwealth Club, sharing what he hoped were “honest and frank” accounts of working with leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Bill Clinton.

While he happily pontificated on the lessons these experiences held for President Barack Obama, he was a bit more defensive on why he had proudly featured in the book Gonzalo “Goni” Sanchez de Lozada, former President of Bolivia who is currently wanted for his role in a massacre of 67 people in October 2003.

Elite backlash

What do you do if you are living in a country where a government looks like taking back thousands of acres of your land (most of which you stole but hey you have been allowed it up to now)? Or perhaps you are a business leader who has proudly had government in your pocket, yet now they pay little attention to you and keep doing things that just don't make "good business sense." Or perhaps you are white and a small minority in a largely indigenous country but have always had members of your family in power, and suddenly the government is taken over by loads of ignorant people who look frighteningly like your sweet housemaid.

Well I guess you might look at changing the national government, but they have received more votes than you ever did, so you opt to take control of local government which is a bit easier. Then you push for more power and autonomy. When the government doesn't look like giving you what you want, still keep their money on the purse strings on which your local power depends, and worse of all threaten to deepen their programme of changes, you start to get desperate. Maybe you decide to organise some strikes, marches, pay bands to write cheesy lyrics about freedom, hope bit by bit you can make the central government's work impossible and that their supporters will start to wane.

Then you have a referendum, and you can't believe how stupid your own countrymen are because they vote in ever larger numbers for the government - even goddamit from your own region. Hey, isnt democracy meant to be on my side? Isn't that what Bush promised? What is one to do?

May 4th referendum

Just imagine if Cornwall decided that it had had enough of Gordon Brown, decided to write its own constitution declaring it had right to control exports and negotiate international treaties related to the region, control land distribution and agricultural policies, and run its own police force and that it would hold a referendum to pass it. Then when that was declared illegal by the national courts decided it would go ahead anyway. Well that is the picture in Bolivia – although obviously with a very different history and context – as the eastern region of Santa Cruz pushed through a referendum that won more than 80% approval for its autonomy statutes.

The victory has been hailed as the start of a new era for the jubilant Right across the country who understandably see the Evo Morales chances of delivering “radical change” running into serious difficulties, whilst the government has pointed to the large abstention rates (40% which is very high when voting is compulsory) which combined together with No and Null votes meant the majority was more like 50%. It is a clear victory but unlikely to be what the Santa Cruz elites hoped for given the amount of resources they put into the campaign in the region where they have the most support.

The reality is that the referendum probably doesn’t change very much. The fight which has reached an apparent stalemate between the rightwing prefects and the government which has been going on for more than a year looks likely to continue. The government is opposed by a majority in Santa Cruz and right across the east of the country and there are doubts as to whether the government can even effectively exercise state power in these regions without risking violence – most incredibly the Vice-Minister of land was recently kicked out of Camiri by landowners with guns as he tried to hand out land titles to indigenous Guaranis. Yet the huge march I witnessed here in Cochabamba of hundreds of thousands of mainly campesinos and indigenous people on Sunday against the votes shows that Evo Morales still has strong support and his powerful and mobilised bases behind him. Internationally, the autonomy vote has received no recognition shown in the complete lack of international observers (bar a few rightwing thinktanks). Neighbouring governments and the Organisation of American States have clearly backed Evo Morales which means that independent attempts to control hydrocarbons resources or exports in the province are unlikely to flourish.

There is an enormous amount being written on blogs and websites about the statutes, of which I would particularly recommend Upside Down World. I have just spent more than a week in both the city and the countryside of Santa Cruz, so thought I would share my observations based on four stories.

Bolivia's elites push for autonomy

My partner Juliette has recorded another piece on the autonomy movement in Santa Cruz for Free Speech Radio News that you can listen to here.

Way of conflict

The caller onto the La Paz radio programme had an over-the-top american accent. "Hey I am yamando de los Estados Unidos and I want to get hold of that great luchadoor you have....yeah the one that punched that other Congresista.  Yeah we want him for our next Rambo movie." It was my second day back. A spoof comedy show was happily milking the week's main news event which involved a fistfight between various parliamentarians that even appeared as a story in the Guardian.

Unfortunately the fight seemed to reflect much bigger tensions bubbling under the surface. While I had been away, a huge struggle had surged apparently out of nowhere about where the Capital of Bolivia should be.

I remember being in Sucre when the Right parties introduced the issue into the assembly suggesting all the powers be moved to Sucre (currently the Supreme Court is in Sucre with the Legislature and Executive in La Paz). It was clearly a spoiling tactic and I didn't think it would work. I talked to various peoples in Sucre who said we don't want the capital, that just means we will suffer all the protests. But in my almost two months away, the demand had gathered growing momentum and opposition with a march of more than a million people in La Paz, a hunger strike in Sucre and attacks on assembly members which had stopped the work of the Constituent assembly.

Then in my first week back, a partial strike was held across six out of Bolivia's nine departments to call for the capital to be in Sucre. During the strike, small fascist-inclinated groups were responsible for acts of violence against those who didn't want to observe the strike. MAS in response promised that it would mobilise 100,000 people to Sucre to defend the constituent assembly and the "revolution." They openly accused the US of funding and fomenting the protests.  The International Crisis Group (ICG) in a report said "Bolivia is moving dangerously toward renewed confrontation and violence" and suggested all players take a series of steps towards dialogue and building consensus.

Polarisation as I have felt before seemed to be reaching fever pitch. Then just as suddenly yesterday the tension dissipated and talks of compromises filled the airwaves.  It is not the first time I have seen this. Bolivia seems to have a knack for heading towards cliffs and stepping back. Which has got me thinking. Has the ICG got it right when it suggests building dialogue and consensus will resolve things? Or is Bolivia's way of conflicts, confrontations and partial resolutions perhaps both indicative of deeper historical and cultural currents and perhaps the only way for change to happen?

Winds of change

Here is an article I never posted on the blog that I did for the Autumn edition of World Development Movement's In Action magazine on changes in Latin America

In a vibrant red T-shirt, mother-of-three, Gladys, tripped over her words as she explained the changes in her small, impoverished hillside community of Caricuao on the outskirts of Caracas. Her stumbled enthusiasm was bolstered by interruptions from a large group of women who huddled in close to hear.Behind them stood a small, modern health clinic, part of a sweeping programme of healthcare, education, subsidised food and social welfare that has unfurled across Venezuela since President Chavez’s election in 1999.

"We vote for Chavez because he has voted for us," beamed Gladys. "Finally we have a President that is committed to treat us all equally regardless of wealth, skin colour or background." But more impressive than the concrete of new health facilities or the glossy literacy kits in the school, was the palpable energy of her community who give up their time to support social change in a country where ten percent of the country own 50% of the wealth. "This revolution is not dependent on Chavez. As we say here, the struggle goes on, Bolivar lives," Gladys asserted, referring to the 19th Century independence fighter who championed a vision of a united Latin America.

Rethinking democracy

I have just had the following article published in the March edition of Red Pepper magazine. One of the many reasons, Bolivia is an intriguing place to be in is the way that people engage with politics and the different visions that emerge from its diverse cultures. It has a lot to teach us in Britain where I feel democracy has become an empty word - parties that sell the same product, a politics dominated by big business, and little real engagement or debate. So this article hopes to provide some food for thought.....

As the middle class men surged across the bridge in the centre of Cochabamba and started laying into campesinos (farmers) with baseball bats, sticks, golf clubs, they spewed forth racist rhetoric. ‘Get out of our city, dirty peasants. Death to the Indians.’ The clashes in Cochabamba in January 2007, that led to two deaths and hundreds injured, traumatised much of Bolivia and unveiled a deep-rooted racism that often lurks silently here. Yet also noticeable was the name the group of young fascists had given themselves: Youth for Democracy.

One year on

A year ago, I stood outside the ancient ruins of Tiwanaku craning to see Evo Morales standing in the doorway of the temple at his inauguration. I was surrounded by indigenous people, dressed to the full in striking clothes and robes, jubilantly waving indigenous flags (wiphalas) and the Bolivian tricolour. There was a huge buzz of occasion and a sense of history in the making.

Over a week ago, I went to hear Evo speak again, this time in the main square in La Paz, standing on a platform in front of a giant banner blazoned with the words "First year of the Democratic and Cultural Revolution". It was just as packed with a mixture of campesinos, party activists, and indigenous musicians but the air circulated with a sense of slightly worn determination rather than grand hopes. The fact that some musicians from Evo's birthplace hadn't been able to attend because of blockades in El Alto spoke of a much more complex political picture than a year ago.

I remember being full of hope last year at the change of Government. The arrival of the first Indigenous President was clearly historic, but I also knew many people, who I admired, who were entering Government determined to make a difference. A year on, I still feel hope but I also realise now how difficult it is to change countries with deep structural inequalities and how parties or even movements are rarely either equipped or organised in a way to be truly accountable to those who put them there.

Reform or revolution

"There are two ways to take power: firstly elections which are controlled by the bourgeoisie or secondly armed insurrection. And it's the second option that we are working towards now," explained Jaime Solares as if was announcing a simple union recruiting drive. Behind the head of the leader of the Central Workers Union (Central Oberera Boliviana or COB) a giant technicolour banner image of Che Guevara appeared to smile approvingly.

The Central Workers Union is the equivalent of the British TUC, but I found it hard to imagine Brendan Barber advocating armed revolution. However Solares is not a man to mince his words, calling Evo Morales "mediocre, incapable, anti-worker and reformist" and proclaiming "scientific socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat" as the only solution to Bolivia's problems.

It is easy to dismiss Jaime Solares: even my lefty friends laughed when I recounted his comment saying that he is always mouthing off and had little real backing. This seemed to be confirmed when a few days after the interview, his call for a general strike and a march failed miserably with only 200 taking to the streets of La Paz to face wolf-whistles and cries of "let the Government work." His boast of representing two million workers sounded rather hollow.

But as Evo Morales marks 4 months in power, Solares' comments have received some echoes from key social movement organisations such as the Coordinadora (who led protests against water privatisation in Cochabamba in 2000) and CONAMAQ which represents a significant sector of "originarios" (indigenous peoples). The argument these groups make is that Evo has done little to indicate that he will fundamentally restructure or refound Bolivia. An NGO thinktank on labour issues, CEDLA, harshly named their recent analysis of the first few months of Evo's government: "Legitimising the neoliberal order: 100 days of Evo Morales' Government."

From an analysis of the first 120 days does it look like Evo will only tinker with the system? Will this lead to resistance from social movements? Does Bolivia need reform or revolution? What should the response of solidarity movements be?

Colonialism

Colonialism (def.): "The political, social, economic, and cultural domination of a territory and its people by a foreign power for an extended time."

Bolivia declared its independence from the foreign power of Spain in 1825. In a letter, the leaders for Independence wrote a powerful letter saying they had maintained a "silence close to stupidity" against the abuses of the Spanish empire. The fervour for national pride and dignity suggested an ending to colonialism.

Let's jump forward 180 years. Evo Morales, an indigenous leader, presides in a European-style presidential palace surrounded by portraits of European-looking generals who led the struggle for Independence. But let's look behind the pictures and listen to some of the stories emerging from the conversations with those who have entered the corridors of power.