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.