Was it worth it?
10.19.2003Here's an excerpt from an editorial in Sunday's La Razón by Augstín Echalar (my translation):
Let’s go in parts, the strike organized by Felipe Quispe in Omasuyos and nearby originated in a demand that had no moral support. It asked the freeing of a local authority that had abused his power, causing the death of two people. Of course, the other side’s version, that of the side that came out on top, was that an injustice had been done to communal justice, since a cattle thief deserves torture, abuse, and death.
The conflict spread, first because gas shouldn’t be sold through Chile, later because it shouldn’t be sold, and because on top it should be industrialized in the country, finally because Yacimientos [the oil company] should be nationalized.
That these are the deaths that forced Sánchez de Lozada to resign, say even the graffiti that call him an assassin. But let’s remember that those who died in Warisata, whether they died fatally finding themselves in an exchange of fire, or because a stray bullet hit them, died defending the right of a community to torture and kill a thief, and for the strange right to leave a section of the country isolated.
The dead man from Ventilla, who blew himself up with his own dynamite, died defending the right to unconscious self-immolation. And the one who died in Zofri died defending the right to enter a restricted zone like an assailant.
The rest, with the exception of the victims of the gasoline station’s explosion, possibly died to defend the gas, because Evo told them that if things were managed the way the government did, the country would only gain 50 million dollars a year, while according to his studies, the country could receive 1,300 million. In short, they died so that Bolivia would receive 1,250 million a year, money they were about to siphon.
We may almost say it was worth it, of course, if Evo can honestly demonstrate that those figures reflect reality. If not, the people will have died simply because they were manipulated by criminally irresponsible politicians.
Posted by Miguel at 11:23 AM
Comments
If Goni was forced to resign over a few people, who were not afraid to use force for their cause, I have two questions.
Where were the people who supported him? Why did they not speak out in support?
If the silent majority remains silent, then they will never be heard and the small vocal (or violent in this case) minority will always get its way.
I am not advocating violence in anyway. Just wondering how can the other side be heard through other channels?
Posted by: sam at October 20, 2003 01:16 PM
That's the question I keep asking myself. At highest estimate, only about 20% of the national population protested against Goni, mostly concentrated in El Alto. So, essentially, once very active sector of the population brought down a constitutionally elected president. Goni's supporters did speak out, but they didn't roam the streets breaking windows, beating passersby, or setting fire to buildings. So I guess they didn't count.
Posted by: miguel at October 20, 2003 03:59 PM