Bolivia

[2952-0-0]

Well, it looks like a domino effect of left-wing Ukraines/Georgias/Kyrgyzstans is going through Latin America. Not long ago we had Ecuador's president throwing the axe, demonstrations in Nicaragua and now we're seeing this. I wonder what our best-known socialist on this forum is thinking now...


LA PAZ, Bolivia - Lawmakers planned an emergency session to fill a power vacuum after the president's resignation, hoping to quell violent street protests by the country's poor Indian majority intent on wresting power from the wealthy white ruling class.
 
President Carlos Mesa, a U.S.-backed free-market supporter, survived only 19 months in office before offering to step down Monday, his government buckling in the face of weeks of protests by a coalition of Indians, miners and union members.

The resignation — expected to be put to a vote in Congress on Thursday — could ultimately usher in new elections, raising the prospect of Bolivia becoming the seventh Latin American country to move to a leftist government opposed to U.S. policies in the region.

The crisis pits Indian and labor groups from the poorer eastern highlands, including the capital La Paz and its impoverished satellite city of El Alto, against the ruling class from Santa Cruz in the east and the oil-rich gas fields to the south.

Also at issue are the divides created by the U.S.-backed war on drugs: One popular opposition leader draws his support from farmers who grow coca-leaf, the raw ingredient for cocaine.

Mesa's offer to resign is expected to be accepted by Congress if it can convene an emergency session. Authorities said the session would be held in the historic formal capital of Sucre in southern Bolivia because of security concerns in La Paz.

On Tuesday, riot police in La Paz fired tear gas canisters and sent thousands of demonstrators fleeing down the cobblestoned streets of the old colonial center. Miners in brown hard hats responded by blasting dynamite sticks.

Ambulances sped away with the injured and a major public hospital said it had treated 12 people. Most had been felled by tear gas and rubber bullets, but the hospital said one miner lost a hand in a dynamite explosion.

A group of helmeted officers dragged miners out of the yellow dump trucks they had used to converge on the city, beating some of the protesters as others regrouped amid the biting tear gas that wafted over downtown La Paz for hours.

Urging Bolivians to "put an end to this craziness," Mesa went on national television late Tuesday to urge lawmakers to move quickly to call early elections for president, vice president and other posts, saying it was the only solution to the crisis.

Despite the resignation offer, opposition leaders have said they will not relent in the daily protests which, coupled with road blockades, have caused shortages of food, gasoline and water in the capital and shut down public transportation and most business activity.

During Tuesday's protests, thousands of anti-government demonstrators voiced their opposition to both of the congressional leaders in line to succeed Mesa: Senate President Hormando Vaca Diez, who is next in order of constitutional succession, and House leader Mario Cossio, who is second in line. Both hail from discredited traditional parties that Indian leaders have vowed to drive from office.

Vaca Diez said he expected Mesa to at least stay on until Congress decides on a political transition.

House deputy Evo Morales, who leads a leftist party whose power base is drawn from Indian coca-leaf farmers, warned that thousands of his supporters would move to prevent either Vaca Diez or Cossio from assuming the presidency.

"We will not allow them to take power. Now is when the national majority has to govern the country," Morales said.

A possible third-in-line, Eduardo Rodriguez, the president of the Supreme Court, enjoys wider political support and could serve as a caretaker president until early elections are held later this year.

Meanwhile, Washington has been watching Bolivia's unfolding political crisis with concern as Mesa's free-market policies have fallen out of favor after failing to ease the grinding poverty that affects nearly two-thirds of Bolivians.

Many in the poor Indian majority say they prefer a candidate from a non-traditional party like Morales, an avowed admirer of Venezuela's populist President Hugo Chavez who has clashed frequently with Washington.

The anti-government protests have steadily increased since Bolivia's Congress last month raised taxes on foreign oil companies that have descended on the country to develop its natural gas reserves — the second largest in South America after Venezuela.

The tax increase touched off fresh demands for the nationalization of the oil industry and a new constitution giving more power to Aymara and Quechua Indians. Those two groups make up more than half the population.

[Colin]

Well, it looks like a domino effect of left-wing Ukraines/Georgias/Kyrgyzstans

Left-wing? I looked it up on Electionworld. Most of Victor Yushchenko's parties are either conservative, right-wing, or European liberal while most of Victor Yanukovich's parties are left-wing, neo-communist or social democratic. In Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili's party is labeled as a centrist party. The leftist parties in Georgia are not even represented in the Parliament. The only opposition is a small contingent of right-wing parties. In Kyrgyzstan the ousted President Askar Akayev was supported by two parties the Communists and another personalist party. I cannot really tell what party the new leadership belongs to so I cannot give their political ideology. But the popular revolutions in all these countries were not driven by left-wing forces. They were mostly driven by right-wing and liberal, European kinda of liberal not the American type, parties. So you are wrong, these revolutions were not left-wing in their nature and usually it was the left that was in power at the time of these revolutions.   

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed Bolivia's third largest city's water to be privatized for the benefit of American corporations that only ended after the people basically revolted and several protestors were killed in the process. Under the plan, the company running their water systems would even have the rights to rain water and people would have to pay for a basic need that many of them can't afford. f**ck that. Let's hope a hard line far left extremist government takes over like those that have taken Venezuela, Brazil and pretty soon, Mexico.

[Beet]

Latin America has been a development disaster. Many Latin American countries were better off on an absolute level in the 1970s then they are now.

[angus]

not good.  the woman below me (and who currently has a bunch of stuff I loaned her) is boliviana, and is spending the summer in La Paz.  And always has trouble getting back in to the USA after something like this.  Actually, I'd been to LaPaz as a tourist on vacation for about a week.  In one week, there were three separate huelgas, replete with riot police with big arms.  One for taxes, one for jobs, and one that I never could figure out.  Note that in its 180-year history, Bolivia has had something like 150 presidents.  Apparently the life span for a bolivian president is so short that no insurance companies won't insure them.  Mesa probably was forewarned of impending assasination, in old Roman fashion.  Not very manly (or bolivian!), but I'd guess he chose to step down rather than face the usual Bolivian president's tenure denial:  a bullet or a rope.  Basta!  No mas impuestos!  Actually, latinamericans can get pretty worked up over taxes.  I've seen this in Peru and Guatemala as well. 

[ag]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed .

Perhaps you should learn something about Bolivian politics before talking. The guy who now resigned (Mesa) has been in power for less then 2 years, having come to power after the resignation of this predecessor. Until then he was a vice-president (without much power), and before that, I believe, a fairly neutral and well thought-off journalist. All his time in office he has been trying to hold the country together - well, now we'll probably have a civil war there.

Bolivia is sharply divided. The east (lowland) part of the country has oil and gas and is, relatively, wealthy (at least, potentially). The Western (highland) heartland of the country is dirt poor, populated by the traditionally disenfranchized native majority. Coca production is a major industry there. The east wants to produce and export oil. The west wants to nationalize oil (which, in practical terms, means leaving it in the ground, since the government does not have resources to invest in the exploitation).

The current president fell, having been sandwiched between the unreconcilable demands. The Congress passed a law, imposing (retroactively) high (50%) taxes on oil companies. The president disagreed, but let the law come into force by not vetoing it (neither did he sign it, to show what he thinks of it, but Bolivian Constitution makes all unsigned bills accepted, unless vetoed). However, for native leaders from the highlands this is not enough - the industry has to be nationalized. The problem is, the East  (mainly, Santa Cruz and Tarija provinces), which actually has the oil, is already demanding greater autonomy. Were the nationalization to pass, the East would, probably, instead demand independence.

At the very least, the country is ungovernable (left or right).  The country is so fractured, that any conceivable leader is entirely unacceptable to a large majority. A very bloody war is a very distinct possibility. One thing to be said for sure - there aren't going to be any winners

[Platypus]

I'm amazed at how little media attention it's getting here in Australia; is it much better in the US? (ie, have you read more then 3 or 4 newspaper articles on it in the last few months?)

[angus]

I'm amazed at how little media attention it's getting here in Australia; is it much better in the US? (ie, have you read more then 3 or 4 newspaper articles on it in the last few months?)

very little on television here.  NYT had a story in the first section, somewhat buried, but a well-done piece.  not sure about other sources.

[WMS]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed .

Perhaps you should learn something about Bolivian politics before talking. The guy who now resigned (Mesa) has been in power for less then 2 years, having come to power after the resignation of this predecessor. Until then he was a vice-president (without much power), and before that, I believe, a fairly neutral and well thought-off journalist. All his time in office he has been trying to hold the country together - well, now we'll probably have a civil war there.

Bolivia is sharply divided. The east (lowland) part of the country has oil and gas and is, relatively, wealthy (at least, potentially). The Western (highland) heartland of the country is dirt poor, populated by the traditionally disenfranchized native majority. Coca production is a major industry there. The east wants to produce and export oil. The west wants to nationalize oil (which, in practical terms, means leaving it in the ground, since the government does not have resources to invest in the exploitation).

The current president fell, having been sandwiched between the unreconcilable demands. The Congress passed a law, imposing (retroactively) high (50%) taxes on oil companies. The president disagreed, but let the law come into force by not vetoing it (neither did he sign it, to show what he thinks of it, but Bolivian Constitution makes all unsigned bills accepted, unless vetoed). However, for native leaders from the highlands this is not enough - the industry has to be nationalized. The problem is, the East  (mainly, Santa Cruz and Tarija provinces), which actually has the oil, is already demanding greater autonomy. Were the nationalization to pass, the East would, probably, instead demand independence.

At the very least, the country is ungovernable (left or right).  The country is so fractured, that any conceivable leader is entirely unacceptable to a large majority. A very bloody war is a very distinct possibility. One thing to be said for sure - there aren't going to be any winners

Excellent analysis, pretty much supported by Stratfor.

Evo Morales is a far-left authoritarian - he refuses to allow other parties to campaign in his strongholds - and just rabid. He is not a social democrat. If his forces somehow come to power, you WILL see civil war and possible partition of Bolivia.

Morales' opponents are far from perfect and have plenty of problems, but at least they support democracy more that the tyrant-in-waiting Morales will.

What a mess.

[Beet]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed .

Perhaps you should learn something about Bolivian politics before talking. The guy who now resigned (Mesa) has been in power for less then 2 years, having come to power after the resignation of this predecessor. Until then he was a vice-president (without much power), and before that, I believe, a fairly neutral and well thought-off journalist. All his time in office he has been trying to hold the country together - well, now we'll probably have a civil war there.

Bolivia is sharply divided. The east (lowland) part of the country has oil and gas and is, relatively, wealthy (at least, potentially). The Western (highland) heartland of the country is dirt poor, populated by the traditionally disenfranchized native majority. Coca production is a major industry there. The east wants to produce and export oil. The west wants to nationalize oil (which, in practical terms, means leaving it in the ground, since the government does not have resources to invest in the exploitation).

The current president fell, having been sandwiched between the unreconcilable demands. The Congress passed a law, imposing (retroactively) high (50%) taxes on oil companies. The president disagreed, but let the law come into force by not vetoing it (neither did he sign it, to show what he thinks of it, but Bolivian Constitution makes all unsigned bills accepted, unless vetoed). However, for native leaders from the highlands this is not enough - the industry has to be nationalized. The problem is, the East  (mainly, Santa Cruz and Tarija provinces), which actually has the oil, is already demanding greater autonomy. Were the nationalization to pass, the East would, probably, instead demand independence.

At the very least, the country is ungovernable (left or right).  The country is so fractured, that any conceivable leader is entirely unacceptable to a large majority. A very bloody war is a very distinct possibility. One thing to be said for sure - there aren't going to be any winners

Excellent analysis, pretty much supported by Stratfor.

Evo Morales is a far-left authoritarian - he refuses to allow other parties to campaign in his strongholds - and just rabid. He is not a social democrat. If his forces somehow come to power, you WILL see civil war and possible partition of Bolivia.

Morales' opponents are far from perfect and have plenty of problems, but at least they support democracy more that the tyrant-in-waiting Morales will.

What a mess.

Why is this all coming to a head now? IIRC, Bolivia was the site of a much-hailed monetary stabilization program in 1985-86 after the Latin American debt crisis. This program led to high growth in the country from 1990-97, and was recently hailed just last year as a "success story" in Jeff Sachs's The End of Poverty. By 1997, the country's economy had nearly recovered to its 1980 size. Since then, very little news had come out of the country until now.  Evidently there was support for privatization for 10 years, but now it has collapsed.

[WMS]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed .

Perhaps you should learn something about Bolivian politics before talking. The guy who now resigned (Mesa) has been in power for less then 2 years, having come to power after the resignation of this predecessor. Until then he was a vice-president (without much power), and before that, I believe, a fairly neutral and well thought-off journalist. All his time in office he has been trying to hold the country together - well, now we'll probably have a civil war there.

Bolivia is sharply divided. The east (lowland) part of the country has oil and gas and is, relatively, wealthy (at least, potentially). The Western (highland) heartland of the country is dirt poor, populated by the traditionally disenfranchized native majority. Coca production is a major industry there. The east wants to produce and export oil. The west wants to nationalize oil (which, in practical terms, means leaving it in the ground, since the government does not have resources to invest in the exploitation).

The current president fell, having been sandwiched between the unreconcilable demands. The Congress passed a law, imposing (retroactively) high (50%) taxes on oil companies. The president disagreed, but let the law come into force by not vetoing it (neither did he sign it, to show what he thinks of it, but Bolivian Constitution makes all unsigned bills accepted, unless vetoed). However, for native leaders from the highlands this is not enough - the industry has to be nationalized. The problem is, the East  (mainly, Santa Cruz and Tarija provinces), which actually has the oil, is already demanding greater autonomy. Were the nationalization to pass, the East would, probably, instead demand independence.

At the very least, the country is ungovernable (left or right).  The country is so fractured, that any conceivable leader is entirely unacceptable to a large majority. A very bloody war is a very distinct possibility. One thing to be said for sure - there aren't going to be any winners

Excellent analysis, pretty much supported by Stratfor.

Evo Morales is a far-left authoritarian - he refuses to allow other parties to campaign in his strongholds - and just rabid. He is not a social democrat. If his forces somehow come to power, you WILL see civil war and possible partition of Bolivia.

Morales' opponents are far from perfect and have plenty of problems, but at least they support democracy more that the tyrant-in-waiting Morales will.

What a mess.

Why is this all coming to a head now? IIRC, Bolivia was the site of a much-hailed monetary stabilization program in 1985-86 after the Latin American debt crisis. This program led to high growth in the country from 1990-97, and was recently hailed just last year as a "success story" in Jeff Sachs's The End of Poverty. By 1997, the country's economy had nearly recovered to its 1980 size. Since then, very little news had come out of the country until now.  Evidently there was support for privatization for 10 years, but now it has collapsed.

There's a continent-wide reaction against the pain caused by privatization, especially among the indigenous tribes who are radicalizing. It's my Undeveloped Country Conundrum: just how do you raise up these places? Nothing seems to work.

Also, there was enough of a time lag that people have forgotten how bad the hyperinflation of the 1980s was, when other policies were followed.

Finally, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez have sensed an opportunity and are flexing their muscles throughout Latin America, stirring up trouble all over the place, aided by Bush Administration inattention to the region.

I had hoped privatization would work better, but as a World Economic Systems textbook from my graduate years mentioned, it's difficult to do privatization correctly.

As I said before, what a mess.

[minionofmidas]

Part of this is due to regional and ethnic tensions as well.

[WMS]

Part of this is due to regional and ethnic tensions as well.

When is that not part of Latin American events?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed .

Perhaps you should learn something about Bolivian politics before talking. The guy who now resigned (Mesa) has been in power for less then 2 years, having come to power after the resignation of this predecessor. Until then he was a vice-president (without much power), and before that, I believe, a fairly neutral and well thought-off journalist. All his time in office he has been trying to hold the country together - well, now we'll probably have a civil war there.

Bolivia is sharply divided. The east (lowland) part of the country has oil and gas and is, relatively, wealthy (at least, potentially). The Western (highland) heartland of the country is dirt poor, populated by the traditionally disenfranchized native majority. Coca production is a major industry there. The east wants to produce and export oil. The west wants to nationalize oil (which, in practical terms, means leaving it in the ground, since the government does not have resources to invest in the exploitation).

The current president fell, having been sandwiched between the unreconcilable demands. The Congress passed a law, imposing (retroactively) high (50%) taxes on oil companies. The president disagreed, but let the law come into force by not vetoing it (neither did he sign it, to show what he thinks of it, but Bolivian Constitution makes all unsigned bills accepted, unless vetoed). However, for native leaders from the highlands this is not enough - the industry has to be nationalized. The problem is, the East  (mainly, Santa Cruz and Tarija provinces), which actually has the oil, is already demanding greater autonomy. Were the nationalization to pass, the East would, probably, instead demand independence.

At the very least, the country is ungovernable (left or right).  The country is so fractured, that any conceivable leader is entirely unacceptable to a large majority. A very bloody war is a very distinct possibility. One thing to be said for sure - there aren't going to be any winners

Excellent analysis, pretty much supported by Stratfor.

Evo Morales is a far-left authoritarian - he refuses to allow other parties to campaign in his strongholds - and just rabid. He is not a social democrat. If his forces somehow come to power, you WILL see civil war and possible partition of Bolivia.

Morales' opponents are far from perfect and have plenty of problems, but at least they support democracy more that the tyrant-in-waiting Morales will.

What a mess.

Why is this all coming to a head now? IIRC, Bolivia was the site of a much-hailed monetary stabilization program in 1985-86 after the Latin American debt crisis. This program led to high growth in the country from 1990-97, and was recently hailed just last year as a "success story" in Jeff Sachs's The End of Poverty. By 1997, the country's economy had nearly recovered to its 1980 size. Since then, very little news had come out of the country until now.  Evidently there was support for privatization for 10 years, but now it has collapsed.

There's a continent-wide reaction against the pain caused by privatization, especially among the indigenous tribes who are radicalizing. It's my Undeveloped Country Conundrum: just how do you raise up these places? Nothing seems to work.

Also, there was enough of a time lag that people have forgotten how bad the hyperinflation of the 1980s was, when other policies were followed.

Finally, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez have sensed an opportunity and are flexing their muscles throughout Latin America, stirring up trouble all over the place, aided by Bush Administration inattention to the region.

I had hoped privatization would work better, but as a World Economic Systems textbook from my graduate years mentioned, it's difficult to do privatization correctly.

As I said before, what a mess.

While there is no question that free enterprise increases the supply of goods and services in an economy whereas socialism merely redistributes them, many countries have a problem converting to a relatively free economy in that there is no domestic base of would be enterprisers.

This is NOT a new phenomona.  Malaysia was dependent upon the ethnic Chinese, who were resented by the native population for their productivity.

So, outside enterprisers who actually increase a country's prospetity are resented.

[WMS]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed .

Perhaps you should learn something about Bolivian politics before talking. The guy who now resigned (Mesa) has been in power for less then 2 years, having come to power after the resignation of this predecessor. Until then he was a vice-president (without much power), and before that, I believe, a fairly neutral and well thought-off journalist. All his time in office he has been trying to hold the country together - well, now we'll probably have a civil war there.

Bolivia is sharply divided. The east (lowland) part of the country has oil and gas and is, relatively, wealthy (at least, potentially). The Western (highland) heartland of the country is dirt poor, populated by the traditionally disenfranchized native majority. Coca production is a major industry there. The east wants to produce and export oil. The west wants to nationalize oil (which, in practical terms, means leaving it in the ground, since the government does not have resources to invest in the exploitation).

The current president fell, having been sandwiched between the unreconcilable demands. The Congress passed a law, imposing (retroactively) high (50%) taxes on oil companies. The president disagreed, but let the law come into force by not vetoing it (neither did he sign it, to show what he thinks of it, but Bolivian Constitution makes all unsigned bills accepted, unless vetoed). However, for native leaders from the highlands this is not enough - the industry has to be nationalized. The problem is, the East  (mainly, Santa Cruz and Tarija provinces), which actually has the oil, is already demanding greater autonomy. Were the nationalization to pass, the East would, probably, instead demand independence.

At the very least, the country is ungovernable (left or right).  The country is so fractured, that any conceivable leader is entirely unacceptable to a large majority. A very bloody war is a very distinct possibility. One thing to be said for sure - there aren't going to be any winners

Excellent analysis, pretty much supported by Stratfor.

Evo Morales is a far-left authoritarian - he refuses to allow other parties to campaign in his strongholds - and just rabid. He is not a social democrat. If his forces somehow come to power, you WILL see civil war and possible partition of Bolivia.

Morales' opponents are far from perfect and have plenty of problems, but at least they support democracy more that the tyrant-in-waiting Morales will.

What a mess.

Why is this all coming to a head now? IIRC, Bolivia was the site of a much-hailed monetary stabilization program in 1985-86 after the Latin American debt crisis. This program led to high growth in the country from 1990-97, and was recently hailed just last year as a "success story" in Jeff Sachs's The End of Poverty. By 1997, the country's economy had nearly recovered to its 1980 size. Since then, very little news had come out of the country until now.  Evidently there was support for privatization for 10 years, but now it has collapsed.

There's a continent-wide reaction against the pain caused by privatization, especially among the indigenous tribes who are radicalizing. It's my Undeveloped Country Conundrum: just how do you raise up these places? Nothing seems to work.

Also, there was enough of a time lag that people have forgotten how bad the hyperinflation of the 1980s was, when other policies were followed.

Finally, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez have sensed an opportunity and are flexing their muscles throughout Latin America, stirring up trouble all over the place, aided by Bush Administration inattention to the region.

I had hoped privatization would work better, but as a World Economic Systems textbook from my graduate years mentioned, it's difficult to do privatization correctly.

As I said before, what a mess.

While there is no question that free enterprise increases the supply of goods and services in an economy whereas socialism merely redistributes them, many countries have a problem converting to a relatively free economy in that there is no domestic base of would be enterprisers.

This is NOT a new phenomona.  Malaysia was dependent upon the ethnic Chinese, who were resented by the native population for their productivity.

So, outside enterprisers who actually increase a country's prospetity are resented.

The lack of a native entrepreneurial class is a pretty hard obstacle to overcome, whether on a countrywide or regionwide level...

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well said.

So long as the culture disdains economic achievement, poverty will continue despite the presence of mineral resources of great value.

[WMS]

Well said.

So long as the culture disdains economic achievement, poverty will continue despite the presence of mineral resources of great value.

As we will eventually see in the oil-rich countries once the money spigot goes away.

I'd say the extent to which corruption is tolerated in the culture has a lot to do with how developed they become as well.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Agreed!