Click on Links masthead to clear previous query from search box
Recent comments
- Why Washington STILL hates Iran, three decades later
1 hour 4 min ago - Sudan Communist Party backs SPLM move on Darfur
18 hours 5 min ago - CPN (M) Red Star Vol. 1, Issue 14, Sept 1-15, 2008
19 hours 16 min ago - One year after The Shock Doctrine, a response to the attacks
1 day 3 hours ago - Interview with Mohan "Kiran" Baidya - a senior leader of CPN (M)
1 day 5 hours ago - SACP (western Cape) rejects Swazi 40/40 farce
1 day 5 hours ago - Bombs explode on eve of Mswati’s bash
1 day 20 hours ago - Young Communist League of South Africa: Boycott Swazi 40/40
3 days 3 hours ago - 10,000 protest in Swaziland, September 3, 2008
3 days 3 hours ago - Thailand article in US Socialist Worker
4 days 34 min ago
Bolivia: Fraud, violence and mass resistance marks right-wing push
By Federico Fuentes
May 9, 2008 -- A day of violence, fraud and a “grand rebellion” against the Santa Cruz oligarchy.
This is how Bolivian president, Evo Morales Ayma, described the result of the unconstitutional May 4 “autonomy” referendum organised by the authorities in Santa Cruz — which many feared was aimed at dividing Bolivia.
* * *
Click here to watch and hear Bolivia expert Forrest Hylton discuss the background to the situation in Bolivia's Santa Cruz province
* * *
The referendum was the first in a series of proposed referendums to be held in the departments of the so-called Half Moon — Santa Cruz plus Pando, Beni and Tarija, resource-rich departments in Bolivia’s east. The Half Moon remains dominated by the white oligarchy despite the coming to power nationally of Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, on the back of a mass movement against neoliberalism led by the indigenous majority.
Illegal vote
While the National Electoral Court had ruled that the autonomy referendum — which the government had proposed be held simultaneously with a referendum to approve the new constitution — could not go ahead on May 4 due to lack of time and suitable political conditions, the prefecture and civic committee of Santa Cruz, backed by the Santa Cruz Electoral Court, decided to go ahead with what was an illegal referendum.
The referendum revolved around proposed autonomy statutes, drafted by the oligarchy without any discussion, and which less than 15% of crucenos (Santa Cruz residents) had read before May 4. The statutes hand enormous power over to the opposition-controlled prefectures, including control over natural resources, distribution of land titles, the right to sign international treaties and its own police force and judicial system.
On the day, the Yes vote received 483,925 votes, representing around 85% of the votes cast, against 85,399 No votes. However, calls by the social movements and the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS — Morales’s party) national government to abstain led non-participation to rise to 39%, or 366,839 registered voters — more than double the usual abstention rate.
This result was obtained in the face of threats and intimidation by bosses who told workers they would loss their jobs if they did not vote and the menacing patrols of the fascist Union Juvenil Crucenista (UJC) — renowned for carrying out violent, racist attacks on indigenous people.
Oppressed mobilise
However, in the “other Santa Cruz” — such as the popular urban area of Plan Tres Mil and the rural areas of San Julian and Yacapani — organised resistance by the popular civic committee and indigenous campesino (peasant) organisations ensured the non-installation of voting tables.
Despite physical attacks by the UJC, which left more than 20 injured and one dead, in these areas abstention was almost total.
Across the country, massive mobilisations were organised by the powerful indigenous campesino organisations, together with trade unions and urban popular organisations. A week before, Morales had called for demonstrations in all capital cities, except Santa Cruz in order to avoid violence, behind the banner of national unity.
Underlying these events is an intense class struggle, infused with strong ethnic and regional components. The ruling elites are fighting to restore the political power they have begun to lose.
The election of Morales came on the back of five years of intense social struggle by the combative indigenous and campesino movements, which gave birth to an alternative national project based on the demands of nationalisation of gas and a constituent assembly to refound Bolivia.
In December of 2005, unified behind its “political instrument” — MAS — this movement propelled former coca growers’ union leader Morales into the presidential palace.
Since then, Morales has initiated a process of returning Bolivia’s gas to state hands, begun implementing an agrarian reform and organised elections for a constituent assembly that has prepared a new draft constitution to be submitted to a national referendum.
* * * *
Finding this article thought-provoking and useful?
Please subscribe free at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373
Help Links stay afloat. Donate what you can by clicking here.
* * * *
For the oligarchy, particularly those with interests tied to the gas transnationals and agribusiness, these changes are intolerable.
Forced to retreat to its trenches in the east, the elite has run a propaganda line that combines rallying against “La Paz centralism”, tapping into the long held sentiments of a “crucenista identity” and outright racism to regroup and mobilise a section of the white population of the east against the government — whose stronghold is in the impoverished and largely indigenous west. This campaign is receiving heavy funding from the US government.
While it can not be ruled out that the oligarchy could use these social base to move to divide Bolivia through secession, its main plan at the moment is to put a halt on the process unfolding since Morales’ election — aiming to wear down popular support for the government by forcing concessions from the government at the negotiating table and paving the way towards ultimately getting rid of him, via a coup or elections.
Post-referendum struggle
In this context, the results of the May 4 referendum were clearly not a victory for the oligarchy. Forced to rely on fraud and intimidation, the right was unable to get the resounding vote they would have required to turn the results of their illegal referendum into a legitimate mandate.
Yet nor was it a complete defeat — the large Yes vote showed that an important section of Santa Cruz continues to back the oligarchy.
For the popular movements, the important resistance of the “other Santa Cruz” represents a new phase in their struggle.< This was reflected in the high abstention and the emergence of an important middle-class layer grouped around Santa Cruz Somos Todos, who, although not part of the MAS project, called for a No vote and support autonomy within the framework of the new constitution.
The actions of the counterrevolution have pushed those forces in favour of change towards greater unity. This was demonstrated in the May Day rallies where, importantly, the Bolivian Workers’ Central (COB), which had until now been very critical of the government, was on the main stage promoting a united front.
The oligarchy, claiming victory from the May 4 vote, will undoubtedly be calling for a return to the negotiating table to force concessions out of the government to water down the new constitution and insert its autonomy statutes.
However, these two projects are incompatible. The government needs to shift the debate back to the draft constitution by calling the referendum for its approval as soon as possible — as the social movements are demanding.
Any autonomy must be within the framework of what has been democratically decided by the constituent assembly. In this way, the movements can counterpose their autonomy based on social justice and solidarity to that of the Santa Cruz elites and win support among the Santa Cruz population.
Moreover, the government needs to continue to implement its economic program of nationalisations — such as those announced on May 1, which included recuperating majority control of four gas transnationals and total control over ENTEL, Bolivia’s largest telecommunications company.
These moves can demonstrate the role of a strong national state and build the confidence and dignity of the popular movements and middle classes to continue pushing the democratic revolution forward.
These nationalisations, along with agrarian reform and wealth redistribution, are not only crucial to give further momentum to the popular movements — together with a strong campaign to win the hearts and minds of soldiers and officials in the armed forces, it is a vital to strengthen the nationalist wing of the military against those right-wing elements conspiring to overthrow Morales.
In a sign of the battles to come in the near future, on May 8, Cuban newspaper Granma reported that the Senate, controlled by the right, had passed a motion Morales has been pushing since last year to hold a recall referendum for the presidency as well as the nine regional governors.
To ensure that the result of May 4 can become a real victory for the popular forces, it is necessary to continue to develop the unity that has been built over the last few weeks to continue the mobilisation of the masses and deepen the revolutionary process through decisive economic and political measures.
[Federico Fuentes is the editor of http://boliviarising.blogspot.com.]
From International News, Green Left Weekly issue #750 14 May 2008.


Comments
Marta Harnecker: Bolivia -- Who won the May 4 referendum?
By Marta Harnecker (Rebelión)
Translation: Machetera
Following uncertain results, the two conflicting sides claim to have won the
referendum on the autonomy statute held in the Department [province] of Santa Cruz,
Bolivia last Sunday, May 4, 2008. How should the winner be determined?
In order to judge or measure the results of any action, it's essential to
take into account the objective sought by both sides.
* * *
Click here to watch and hear Bolivia expert Forrest Hylton discuss the background to the situation in Bolivia's Santa Cruz province
* * *
The Cruceña oligarchy sought to achieve a massive poll turnout: it was the
only way to diminish the government's arguments about the illegality of the
process; if this objective was accomplished, then it might be argued that
although it was not a legal process, it was a legitimate one because the
people had massively expressed their feelings in regard to the autonomy
statute and the government would have to take popular sentiment into
account.
For its part, the government, the MAS (Movement Toward Socialism) and the
social movements wanted to achieve the largest abstention possible, to
diminish the voting results, where a large "Yes" vote was forecast.
The concept of abstention promoted by official propaganda came together in a
slogan to vote "NO," a slogan that some sectors promoted, thinking of the
pressures that the [autonomy] opposition was using to force people to go and
vote.
Although the available figures are not official and probably never will be,
because there was no neutral body observing the process and furthermore,
ballots pre-marked "Yes" were discovered, if we take the latest figures
provided by the media and used by the government, it can be said that the
abstention rate was larger than expected: in Santa Cruz, the abstention was
17% in the 2006 autonomy referendum and now it amounts to 39% and this
figure, a total of the "No" and null votes, represents a little less than
half the electorate; some 48.3%. For every 10 people who should have voted,
around four did not or could not, and one voted "No" or canceled their vote.
From this analysis, the government and its followers can feel satisfied.
However, one must ask if one can really speak of victory when a little more
than half the Cruceña population expressed itself as opposing the country's
direction, represented by Evo Morales, and either consciously or under
manipulation, supported the large oligarchies that dominate the region
economically, ideologically and politically.
One must also ask oneself if this result can solely be attributed to the
Machiavellian actions of the local oligarchy, supported by imperialism.
It seems more likely that the government's own mistakes and weaknesses, and
those of MAS, its key policy instrument, played a role.[1] Didn't Evo
Morales not call for a "No" vote in the 2006 autonomy referendum, held at
the same time people were being chosen to make up the Constituent Assembly,
leaving the autonomy banner in the hands of reactionaries (something which
the MAS leaders themselves later acknowledged)? Weren't organisational
schemes and criteria applied in the eastern part of the country that were in
conflict with the lowlands' own idiosyncrasies? Hasn't there been a tendency
to group the secessionist oligarchs with all those who, following a sense
developed over generations, have manifested themselves to be in favor of
autonomy; ignoring the contradictions that exist between the large
pro-imperialist oligarchs and a significant part of the urban white sector
which, although critical of specific policies and actions of the present
government, generally support it because it means dignity at last for the
indigenous people and an affirmation of the country's sovereignty?
Yet while the outcome of the election can be debated, with each side
claiming victory based on various arguments, it is indisputable that the
country's agenda, headed by Evo Morales, emerged strengthened. The majority
of Bolivia's popular sectors, especially the indigenous campesino movements
and the workers in the cities, managed to understand that the Cruceña
oligarchy was behind the vote and was using the banner of autonomy as
demagoguery. Important professional and technical sectors had the same
reaction. It was especially significant that the group "Santa Cruz Somos
Todos" (All of Us Are Santa Cruz), risking their physical well-being and
that of their families, raised a dissenting voice from the belly of the
beast, and called for a "No" vote.
What the oligarchy sought and continues to seek is the toppling of Latin
America's first indigenous president, in order to regain control of the
immense wealth that surrounds the region and has begun to be controlled by
the state, which on May 1 ratified the government's decision to move ahead
with the recovery of control over four transnational oil companies and the
nationalisation of ENTEL, the telecommunications company. It's an oligarchy
that never understood the call for a real agrarian reform and more equitable
distribution of Latin America's wealth, such as that made nearly half a
century ago by the President of the United States, John Kennedy.
One must bear in mind that the person who made this call was a liberal
bourgeois who could never be classified as a communist and who made it to
halt the advance of revolution in our América.
But the [Bolivian] people not only understood what was at stake, they felt
the need to articulate their struggles in order to hit back for once at a
tiny elite which, supported by the United States, sought a reversal of the
democratic and cultural revolution happening in the country. Since Evo
Morales was elected, this was the first May 1 in which the workers'
movement represented by the legendary Bolivian Workers Central, presided
over by its Secretary General, the miners leader Pedro Montes, participated
along with the indigenous campesino movements in the same mobilisation, and
this made everyone believe that this gesture of unity, coming as it did on
top of the natural differences and contradictions between various groups,
signified that the interests of a Bolivian homeland were here to stay.
The popular Bolivian organisations appear to have understood that unity
between all sectors defending the country's agenda of humanity and
solidarity, respectful of differences and respectful of nature, represented
by Evo Morales, is the only way to make it irreversible.
And speaking of unity, I'd like to recall the words of Fidel, the great
architect of Cuban unity:
``I also belonged to an organisation. But the glories of that organisation are
the glories of Cuba, the glories of its people, the glories of all. And one
day, I ceased to belong to that organisation. What day was it? It was the
day when we'd made a revolution greater than our organisation.And on the
march through towns and cities I saw many men and many women; hundreds,
thousands of men and women in their black and red uniforms of the July 26th
Movement; but many thousands more had uniforms that were not black and red,
but the shirts of workers, and campesinos, and humble men of the town. And
since that day, frankly, in the depths of my heart, I went, from that
movement that we cherished, under whose flags we fought as companions. I
went to the people; I belonged to the people, to the revolution, because
really, we'd created something higher than ourselves." [2]
[1] Very soon a book about this "sui generis" political organization will be
released at this website: Bolivia's MAS IPSP - ``A Party Built on Social
Movements'', by Marta Harnecker and Federico Fuentes.
[2] Speech, Fidel Castro, May 26, 1962 in "Obra revolucionaria" No. 11, May
27, 1962, pp. 36-37. Text cited in "La estrategia politica de Fidel. Del
Moncada a la victoria," various Latin American editions; see
www.rebelion.org, Autores, Harnecker
Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic
diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains
unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.
Post new comment