|
|
|
| home
| about IDEAs | contact
| archives |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Bolivia:
On the Threshold of a New Future |
|
|
|
The presidential
election held on 30 June 2002 in Bolivia brought into
focus the growing disillusionment of the Bolivian people
with the direction in which their country is moving.
With the exception of ex-president Gonzalo Sanchez de
Lozada, who is known to be a proponent of free market
reforms, most of the presidential candidates who gained
political ground in the pre-election campaign did so
on the basis of a promised move away from the existing
free market economy and towards greater government investment.
They include the populist leader Manfred Reyes Villa
of the 'New Republican Force' and former president Jaime
Paz Zamora of the 'Movement of the Revolutionary Left'.
Reyes Villa has gone on record saying that he favours
a "social revolution" and "moving beyond"
the country's free market system, although he has not
specified how exactly this is to be achieved.
The results declared until now (based on all but 0.3%
of the votes which is yet to be counted) shows Lozada
at the top with 22.46 per cent of the votes, but obviously
very far from an outright majority. More significantly,
the results showed that the second place in the presidential
race and 20.92 per cent of the votes have been captured
by the native Indian, leftist leader Evo Morales, of
the 'Movement Towards Socialism', who has been in the
forefront of the struggle for the rights of coca growers
in Bolivia. Contrary to expectations generated by the
exit polls, he has actually beaten Reyes Villa, the
candidate who was tipped to come second, by 700 votes.
Morales's rise has in Bolivian politics had already
been clearly established by the results of the exit
polls. Votes in his favour, it has been reported, rose
from 4 to 12 per cent during the pre-election campaign.
Thanks, partly, to the irresponsible and arrogant statements
of the US ambassador Manuel Rocha, who threatened to
cut aid to Bolivia if someone like Morales is voted
into power, the exit polls registered a further increase
in his share of the vote – taking it up to around
16 per cent. The latest results mark a new trend in
Bolivian politics, as the native Quechua and Aymara
Indians, despite forming the majority, have held very
few congressional seats before this election. Once the
final results are declared, it will give Morales at
least 6 seats in a 27-member senate. This, coupled with
the 5 per cent votes that the former leftist and native
Indian guerrilla leader, Felipe Quispe, is likely to
garner, will ensure that the radical left has
a substantial presence in the Bolivian senate.
A political turnaround of this kind may be viewed as
an inevitable fall-out of the economic policy that Bolivia
has pursued over the last twenty years or so. Since
the 1980s, when Bolivia faithfully adopted the economic
reforms programme pushed by the Washington Consensus,
the country has been zealous in its pursuit of the free
economy capitalist path under successive governments.
This includes the recent ones under the previous president
and current presidential candidate, Gonzalo Sanchez
de Lozada, and the present government, led by Hugo Banzer
and Jorge Quiroga. But the opening up of the economy,
despite the initial gains, failed to improve the lot
of the ordinary Bolivian. Today, Bolivia is the poorest
country in Latin America, with 70 per cent of its population
living under the poverty line. It has faced severe economic
recession over the last four years. The Asian crisis
of 1997 and the devaluation of the currency in neighbouring
Brazil, Chile and Peru contributed to worsening this
process of impoverishment, the roots of which had been
sown much earlier.
As a result of the recession, private companies in Bolivia,
especially in the mining sector which is the major source
of employment in the country, have had to resort to
large-scale job cuts. Although reactivization plans
initiated by the government over the last two years
have focused on restructuring the debt burden of these
struggling private companies, due to the fact that these
schemes were ill-planned and not followed through, companies
that were in dire need of funds have been forced to
close down. There has been a big demand for state subsidies
to stall such closures, but the government has refused
to interfere with the free market set-up. As a result,
the unemployment rate in the country has risen to 10
per cent. In addition, it is estimated that 13 per cent
of the working population are underemployed, meaning
that they earn less than the national minimum monthly
wage of 400 Bolivianos (about £44, US$61).
Again, Bolivia is rich in natural resources like tin,
natural gas, silver, gold etc. But most of the resources
have not been exploited properly due to lack of resources.
So possible employment generation has not been made
possible by the running of the economy the way it has.
The unemployment situation deteriorated further with
the government's decision to ban the cultivation of
coca, a plant traditionally produced by large sections
of the native Indian population. Coca is a basic ingredient
of cocaine, the trading in and production of which the
US has been trying to regulate. In 1998 'Plan Dignity',
aimed at total eradication of coca production, was implemented
in Bolivia at the behest of the US. Following this,
Bolivia was hailed as an important ally of the US in
its fight against global drug trafficking. But this
was of little consolation to the thousands of coca cultivators
who have suffered major losses of incomes and have been
offered little by way of alternate means of livelihood.
At present 90 per cent of the farmers in the Bolivian
countryside live in conditions of extreme poverty, in
freezing huts, without electricity or water. The flow
of aid that was promised by the US as compensation for
the eradication of coca cultivation has been insufficient
to provide them with other sources of income and employment.
The beneficiaries of American assistance are actually
much fewer than the numbers listed officially.
Cultivation of coca, which is a plant that flourishes
easily and is not susceptible to rotting or disease,
ensured levels of income that cannot be matched by alternatives
such as pineapple, banana, orange and macademia nuts.
Compared to coca, the latter products suffer from several
disadvantages, including lack of adequate and reliable
infrastructure to transport them; volatile international
prices and protectionism in many countries that have
failed to ensure steady market access and decent prices;
and low income generation ability. Further, the US has
failed to reciprocrate with adequate opening up of its
own economy and provision of full market access to products
from Bolivia.
The banning of coca cultivation has also had cultural
and other impacts. Coca has been a part of the traditional
Indian way of life, and is regarded as a cultural heritage
as much as an economic one. Its medicinal qualities,
and specially its strong hunger-assuaging qualities,
had made it a necessity for the people who live in dire
poverty.
For all the reasons cited above, the ban on coca cultivation
led to violent protests in Bolivia. Opposition to the
recent closure of Sacaba, a major market in coca, resulted
in the death of 6 persons. Over the last six months,
10 coca growers and 4 soldiers have been killed, and
more than 350 persons injured or detained, in similar
clashes.
The rise of a leader like Evo Morales has to be seen
against this background. He has led the struggle for
a reversal of the ban on coca cultivation in the absence
of suitable alternatives. He has vehemently opposed
US interference in Bolivia that takes the form of establishing
economic domination over the country. He has led protests
against the forces of imperialism, neoliberalism and
globalization. He has been able to convince poor Bolivians
that a restricted economy with greater government intervention
and one that recognizes the rights of its indigenous
cultivators is the only hope for the people of this
counry.
Bolivians are clearly tired of the kind of democracy
they have had for the last 20 years: a democracy that
has meant independent votes at home but dependence on
and subservience to big economic powers like the US.
More so since it has not improved their living conditions.
6 out of every 10 Bolivians across the country, and
9 out of 10 in rural areas, live in conditions of poverty.
Violent crime, including bank robberies, kidnappings
and bombings, are now a common phenomenon in a once
happy and peace-loving nation. Even if Gonzalo Sanchez
de Lozada forms the new government, he will have to
reach agreements with Morales on key issues such as
the ownership of gold, silver and natural gas deposits
that lie beneath Bolivian soil, and on ways in which
the economy will be restructured.
One thing is clear. New forms of governance will have
to ensure a reduction of poverty, greater rights for
the cultivators, and greater protection for the miners
and workers. Bolivia can no longer function as a subservient
nation that can be exploited at will by the lure of
aid from developed nations.
July 09, 2002.
[Sources:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1400000/1400337.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_2116000/2116977.st
'Who's Counting? U.S. plan to eradicate coca crops in
Bolivia fails miserably' by
Benjamin Kunkel and Lisa Kunkel (In These Times, April
13, 2002)
'Free markets lose their enchantment for ordinary Bolivians'
by Paul Keller
(Financial Times, June 28, 2002 )
'Mayor, Ex-President Lead Bolivia Vote - Exit Polls'
By Alistair Scrutton, July 1, 2002
(www.Reuters.com)
'Bolivia Elects Newcomers to Gov't”, by Vanessa
Arrington( Associated Press Writer),
July 1,2002 (http://story.news.yahoo.com)] |
|
|
|