This Time the Angry Mobs Forced the Bolivian President Out

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Bolivia,
the problematic South American country where I live, has been in
the news again recently, worldwide. President Gonzalo Sanchez de
Lozada, better known by his nickname "Goni," was this
time forced to resign on October 17, by the pressure of angry mobs,
after only 14 months in power, and has been replaced by his vice-president,
Carlos Mesa Gisbert. In February of this year, I wrote an article
for LewRockwell.com, titled: "Progressive
Bolivian Income Tax Stopped by Angry Mobs
." The main apparent
cause for their anger this time does not seem to be as compelling:
Opposition to gas exports to California, U.S.A., through neighboring
Chile, and by multinational companies whom, it is thought, should
pay more in royalties. This opposition was the spark that set off
the social explosion. This is not a happy account but it shows what
can happen when sound economic doctrines are either unknown or unaccepted.

Chile
won in a war with Bolivia in 1879 and took the slice of territory
that connected Bolivia to the Pacific Ocean, leaving it "landlocked."
Bolivians are taught early in school that the Chileans invaded Bolivia
and took the land with a much stronger army. Now countless Bolivian
goods enter and exit through Chile, both governments are signing
a free trade pact. Chile is already a big investor in Bolivia and
it is also interested in purchasing much-needed natural gas which
it now purchases mostly from Argentina.

A
principal, underlying cause for the rebellion was the deep material
poverty of the rebels. Also a decisive factor was the influence
of a man you might have read about, Evo Morales, leader of the Movement
Toward Socialism (MAS in Bolivia), and
the representative in the Bolivian Congress for the Chapare region
(where most of the coca leaves are grown). He is 100% Indian, and
Indian in varying degrees is practically all of Bolivia's population,
including this writer whose other family names are local. It was
mostly the pressure of very poor Indians that brought the government
down. The "upper class" of La Paz, mostly mestizo, joined
the rebellion as a group but mostly when it looked like it was going
to win.

La
Paz is the capital city with about a million people, located at
an altitude of approximately 3600 meters, a very exotic place built
literally in a big hole with the huge Altiplano region above it
(a vast expanse of mainly flat, desert-like land), at an altitude
of 4000 meters. Bordering La Paz, is the Altiplano city, El Alto
("The tall one/place"), the poorest city of Bolivia with
a population of about a million also. It is quite a treat to descend
on La Paz at night from its airport – located in El Alto –
and see the La Paz lights below. It is unfortunate that social disturbances
usually concentrate in this capital city.

When
the people in the highlands get angry, watch out. My observation
has been that the people who live at 4000 meters high are much more
moody than the people who live at ocean level.

I
live in the city of Santa Cruz, Bolivia's most prosperous city,
a pacific, fun loving city, part of the oriental and lowland region
of Bolivia (400 meters high). The people of Bolivia's lowlands,
which encompass roughly half of Bolivia, only watched the conflict
in La Paz from afar and did not cause the resignation of the president.
There are strong federalist movements in Santa Cruz and even some
small groups that want the lowlands to become an independent nation.
The differences between the highlanders and lowlanders in Bolivia
are in some ways starker than the differences between, say, Texans
and New Yorkers. Latin Americans are more different amongst themselves
in their characteristics and personality than is commonly acknowledged.

I'll
give you an example of this. I studied at San Diego State University
back in the 80s. Walking through one of the hallways there once,
I recognized the gesture made by a Hispanic fellow who was talking
with someone. It was only a slight nod of the head and an expression
in his eyes that made me recognize him. I could not hear him but
knew, solely based on the gesture (never having seen the man before),
that he was a Bolivian lowlander, either from Santa Cruz, Pando
or Beni and of no other Bolivian location, let alone another Latin
country. I thought I might be the only Bolivian there, plenty of
Mexicans and Central Americans though – racially he could have passed
for one of them easily. Sure enough, he was from Beni. My sense
is that many other Bolivians would have spotted him likewise.

And
the rebels who actually knocked down the government were from El
Alto and from La Paz. Most of the people gunned down by the government
during the uprising (about 82 deaths) were from El Alto and it was
there that the revolution started.
In the end, more than 100,000 of its citizens came down to the "ollada"
(cooking pot), as La Paz is often called, to get the President out
of power. Some foreign journalists called the rebellion a "peasant
rebellion"; urban poor is what it was.

Some
say that if Sanchez de Lozada had ordered the killing of more violent
strikers and marchers, he could have prevailed. Hardly. That would
have made the crowds even more angry. Also, the loyalty of the army
to the president is not traditionally 100% assured. He waited until
the problem became too big for him. The uprising forced the stoppage
of all commercial activities in La Paz; nobody could work at all
for several days. Sanchez de Lozada may have used excessive force
in his final response to the uprising but it was his duty to try
to stop the marchers and strikers that were starving the city of
La Paz, foods being air-lifted into supermarkets during several
days because the main roads were closed by the rebels.

The
European Parliament forgets that now and has branded Sanchez de
Lozada as ineligible for political asylum, only a political statement
since he did not seek asylum from them anyhow. However, it will
not be surprising if the International Criminal Court tries to convict
him later.

Sanchez
de Lozada is often called a "gringo" here because he was
brought up in the United States and returned to Bolivia as an adult
with a strong American accent that he never lost. "Gringo"
is not an insult here and it is even a common and affectionate nickname
for people who look kind of blond. It actually helped Goni to be
a gringo the first time he ran for president in 1993 but this time
his incompetent policies made his accent and his cocky, jocular
ways that seemed charming the first time around, a liability.

Goni
may have had the best of intentions in his political career but
they were always obstructed by his arrogant ways. An Argentinean
journalist described him accurately as "the man with the arrogant
gaze" and if you only see him once on television you'll know
why. Typically, he doesn't even look at you when he shakes your
hand to say good-bye. Coincidentally or not, he owns the biggest
gold mines of Bolivia and always had lots of political power. He
says he is worth 49 million dollars but he probably has much more
money than that.

When
the rebellion began, I was for him completely even though I deplored
his FDR-type policies (I can't really fathom why the international
media calls his policies "free market policies"). I favored
"law and order" in the streets, hoping that he would finish
his term as preordained, in 2007, and I did not like it when most
of the Bolivian media described the unruly mobs as a sign of democracy
in action and attempts to restore order in the streets as "tyranny."

It
looked very much like a planned left-wing revolution, the material
poverty of the crowds on the ground notwithstanding, but perhaps
it was the spontaneous culmination of many previous acts of defiance.
The press was like a serpent circling the president, fanning the
flames of conflict to sell more newspapers and because most of them
didn't like the president personally. One kept waiting for Goni
to use the "bully pulpit" to frame the terms of the struggle.
He never did. I thought he should work to put in jail the leaders
of the violent rebellion that cut off the food supply to La Paz,
he never did that either. Eventually I too preferred that he resign
the presidency. I couldn't help changing my perspective when Goni
and his men proved incompetent before the constitutional crisis,
and it affected me also to know that he sought to duplicate Bolivia's
external national debt in five years.

He
had legislated a fascist program that created a "hospital for
companies" – private enterprise companies. The essence of it
was that the government would somehow determine which indebted companies
were salvageable and it would assist those by buying their debts
and gaining shares in the companies as payback. It would facilitate
the training of management to make sure the companies did not fail
in the future. It would not force companies into the program. That
would be up to the patients to decide. The program never got off
the ground. Too many suspicious patients. Strange economists like
Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, an adviser to Sanchez de Lozada,
endorsed this and other economic follies before a disoriented World
Bank and IMF.

In
retrospective, one Movement Toward Socialism had fought and beaten
another Movement Toward Socialism. I told a friend here seriously – let's hope the mobs in La Paz keep kicking bad leaders out of
power until good leaders come along. Goni fled Bolivia the day of
his resignation, together with his Defense Minister. He declared
after landing in Miami that he was still "recovering from the
shock and the scare." Several of his top aides fled the country
also, admitting they feared for their lives. His economics expert
declared that he would come back to Bolivia from Buenos Aires when
things cool down and explained that their main goal had been to
stimulate the "aggregate demand" but that, once in power,
they found out they didn't have enough money to do that, lamenting
that the international loans were too slow in coming. He also regretted
that they had not tried to raise taxes sooner (than February), "when
we had the people's good will on our side." You can see how
these politicos deserved to be chased out.

By
forgetting or perhaps by not being aware that the State is the only
proper "apparatus of coercion and compulsion," as Ludwig
von Mises described it, invested authorities here lost a sense of
direction and all sense of priorities and became too busy with economic
theories they didn't understand. Like dummies they allowed Evo Morales
to become the undisputed champion of coercion and compulsion. His
example is being followed independently by many others. Now many
poor peasants, in several regions of the country, have began to
invade private lands and it is likely that private property owners
will have to defend their property by themselves. President Mesa
has said that, for ethical and moral reasons, he can not kill a
single person and will not kill a single person; it hurt law and
order that the new president disarmed himself only a day before
he accepted the presidency.

I
hope Friedrich von Hayek is right about "spontaneous order,"
that classical liberalism will take center stage in Bolivia in an
unplanned fashion because liberalism is not even remotely considered
as an option yet. It's socialism, or heavy-handed interventionism
by socialist means, as far as the eye can see, both in Bolivia's
Congress and in all the political parties without exception. Many
sensible citizens here understandably visualize more socialist policies
in Bolivia for at least the next twenty years and also the continued
mass emigration of young Bolivians to other countries.

It
may be a good omen that the people have had it with being poor and
now obviously demand good results from their politicians, as promised
— or otherwise they demand their immediate resignation. It is hard
to justify violent insurrections against democratic systems, and
it definitely isn't civilized to harm innocent bystanders, but frankly,
for different reasons, most Bolivians seem to be greeting with satisfaction
the departure of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, even with the violent
precedent established already causing negative consequences at this
time. Nonetheless, most people are happy he is gone. It would be
unreal to expect all the best motives to coincide. This wasn't a
revolution like that of 1776 in the United States, with a wonderful
balance between reason and force, ideology and action, but people
seem happy that the ultimate goal of the revolt, the ouster of Sanchez
de Lozada, succeeded.

The
matter of the exportation of gas was only the final spark that ignited
the explosion. Bolivia lives in an economic depression for many
years already, one much worse than the Great Depression of the United
States. Most Bolivians are desperately poor even though Bolivia
is a land rich in natural resources. Having brought down a "democratic
government" (Goni got only 22% of the vote and formed alliances
with other parties to get the presidency), you can bet the disenchanted
sectors of society feel that they can do that again any day now
and that the traditional political parties are feeling enormous
pressure to show satisfactory results. I understand this particular
Bolivian rebellion shocked and worried political establishments
all over South America.

Democratic
formalities degenerated drastically after Mesa took over. Evo Morales
commended the good intentions of the new government and gave it
three months to get going and show results, otherwise mass demonstrations
will resume. There was silence from the new government in response
to this threat. Another radical leader – there are several of those
rising — told all congressmen via TV news that if they did not support
the good measures that Mesa may advocate before them, "they
would be swept from the floor of the congress" and I wish you
could have seen his authoritarian demeanor when he said that, I
can assure you that he didn't mean something that would happen in
the next election. No response to that from any congressman either,
but they certainly took him seriously. It will be very difficult
for President Mesa to complete his term in the year 2007. He will
have to be one darn good president – in their view – to survive
politically. He actually already showed a predisposition to call
for earlier elections during his inauguration speech.

Will
the radical leaders install a socialist government like that of
Cuba when their turn at the political controls arrives? I think
Evo Morales will win the next election. Morales, impressively unafraid
of the U.S. drug war and of the Bolivian government and its army,
seems for now more moderate than Castro though still far from economic
reality. He says that charges that he called for seizing private
property during the rebellion, are libelous charges. A friend of
mine, who has known him personally, tells me that Morales is not
a socialist like Fidel Castro and that the term "socialism"
in the movement must be understood in another sense, like as in
the search for equality and justice. His Movement Toward Socialism
may not mean much more than the agenda of the Democratic Party of
the United States. As a saying goes here optimistically, something
is something (algo es algo).

The
right of private property is suffering because the last three Bolivian
presidents — Banzer, Quiroga and Sanchez de Lozada — had smaller
convictions than Morales and were no match for a leader they underestimated.
It is still incredible that he was not placed in jail for his many
strikes which caused millions of dollars in losses, cumulatively,
to the traders who could not transit roads filled by the strikers
with obstacles. Now he is a stronger political leader than ever,
and I gather a popular political figure in Europe. One can only
hope that Evo Morales may become more civilized in the future. He
won't be jailed for his past misdeeds. To the contrary, Goni stands
a bigger chance of being jailed.

Without
Evo's daring and aggressiveness, I have no doubt Sanchez de Lozada
would still be president of Bolivia today. Evo has been accused
of taking money from drug cartels, of being on their payroll, albeit
not ever formally so charged by American or Bolivian legal authorities.
No proof has ever been forwarded by his accusers, and Morales denies
any association with drug cartels. Though he is surely aware that
coca leaves are being used also to produce cocaine, Evo Morales
clearly prefers that the Chapare peasants prosper from that trade
and therefore does not want to hinder it. He proposes to end the
eradication of coca leaves and expelling the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) from Bolivia. Some of us may prove to be nave in thinking
that there is a chance he doesn't take money from the drug capos.
Many peasants earn much more from the drug trade than from raising
fruits and vegetables, that's for sure.

All
considered, it remains troublesome that the principle of presidential
transition through violent means was established here on October
17, breaking the pattern of peaceful democratic transitions that
existed since only 1982, even after acknowledging the reality that
democracy here certainly has been like a false God that a majority
worships excessively, and that it has mostly served as a means to
expropriate wealth. But if all the political options available are
of a socialist nature, perhaps the faster we live through them all,
the better.

In
the near term, there is plenty of racial rancor in Bolivia due to,
in the words of Evo Morales, an exploitation of the Indian (by the
mestizo) that goes back 500 years, which I believe will find an
outlet at the ballot box, where anyway no significant ideological
differences can be found. If a movement toward more socialism wins
and becomes way too radical and chaotic, and unpopular enough as
a result, the army may eventually start longing, too, for the days
of military dictatorships.

Whatever
the politics, I think it is only a matter of time before the punches
and bullets start flying again. A humorous columnist from La Paz
recently tried to encourage foreign investments by inviting all
foreigners to come to Bolivia as tourists now to enjoy "dangerous
adventures" and see some "real Indians." Things are
peaceful right now and you can come visit and not worry about stray
bullets and punches, but three months from now all hell may begin
to break loose again in La Paz and El Alto.

I
am sure that, as a result of the mayhem in those cities, the movements
toward more federalism and autonomy will pick up speed in the lowlands
of Bolivia. There are also signs that the peaceful and productive
citizens of La Paz are becoming intolerant of the constant marches
of protest in their city. Even political secessions are a possibility
if an anarchic state of affairs persists. Hopefully the doctrines
of liberalism will be recognized eventually as the solution to the
problem of poverty.

John
Leo Keenan [send him
mail
] is an economist and translator in Santa Cruz, Bolivia.


        
        

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare