And now, Tarija
01.25.2005Following the declaration of autonomy from Santa Cruz, Tarija has followed suit. The Santa Cruz cabildo will meet this Friday. That same day, another cabildo will meet in Tarija regarding that region's autonomy. While the Tarijeño movement seeks its own autonomy, leaders have admitted they'll coordinate w/ Santa Cruz.
Still limited reaction from La Paz, although some are starting to call for a crackdown in the context of anti-sedition laws. Why prosecuting people like Mallku or Evo or Solares for similar acts of "sedition" (e.g. public speeches inciting violence against the state, attacking government installations, calling for a popular invasion of parliament to string up legislators from lamp posts in the streets, etc.) was never seriously considered, while it is for cruceño leaders is, of course, an interesting & valid question.
But the hunger strike's been lifted, as various Santa Cruz civic leaders prepare for the assembly convoked by the Comite Cívico. The cabildo abierto ("open assembly") is set to meet outside, on the city's second ring, near the giant Jesus monument. The overall agenda's to set up a regional constitution & elect a governor. Still not entirely secession, but it's pretty close. Since government & military officials in La Paz state they won't recognize any officials not sanctioned by Mesa's government.
There's a bit of a stir already about the first (possible) defection by a high ranking officer. Freddy Soruco, a police general from Santa Cruz, visited the Comite Cívico to express his "friendship" w/ the civic leaders. The director of the National Police subsequently announced legal proceedings against Soruco.
The conventional wisdom coming out of Mesa's government is that regional autonomies should be discussed at the national constitutional assembly. Although no one's quite sure when this assembly'll meet. Nor is anyone shore how members to the assembly'll be elected. At the core, is a debate over whether regional autonomy should be agreed upon by the entire body politic, or by the individual regions — which might be seeking different kinds of autonomy. The question's a prickly one. Especially now since at least two of Bolivia's nine departments seem to prefer the route of autonomy before a national constituent assembly, and they're no longer arguing hypothetically.
Posted by Miguel at 11:40 AM
Comments
I watching part of a program on PBS last night about the assembly in Afganistan to write a Constitution. Present at the meeting were tribal leaders in traditional garb, conservative Muslims, women, Pashtuns, and even very Western-looking men in three piece suits.
I thought of Bolivia, and how a Constituent Assembly might look like. At least there, theoretically, all sectors of Bolivia will be represented from Aymara Indians from La Paz to white European immigrants from Santa Cruz. Maybe they won't be proportionally represented according to economic factors, but at least they will be represented.
I hold doubts that Santa Cruz's cabildo will represent or even consider the desires of a large part of the population (those living in the outskirts of Santa Cruz and those in rural areas).
There is nothing democratic about this process that Santa Cruz is undertaking. And for the record, I believe there was nothing democratic about forcing Goni to resign or kicking ADI out either.
Re: Evo and Quispe. I am not a fan of either, but there is a big difference between talking and acting. I am confident that Quispe would have been arrested if he actually burned ballot boxes during the Referendum. Members of the MST were arrested in Ayo Ayo, when they acted and murdered the mayor.
Let the civic leaders talk all the want, but once they act (although I'm not sure what the tipping point would be), then they should be open for arrest and prosecution.
Posted by: eduardo at January 25, 2005 02:04 PM
Eduardo:
Good points, all. Yes, there's not much democratic about current events in Santa Cruz. If by "democratic" we mean subscribing to procedural, representative norms institutionalized by the state & adhering to the rule of law (or at least something like it). Which is certainly how I think about things being "democratic" or not. I certainly doubt an open-air, mass rally version of a "cabildo" will be institutionally democratic in any real sense (it'll just be a populist mass rally at best).
One of the problems w/ constituent assemblies historically & worldwide is the issue of vetoes. Do certain groups (regional, class, ethnic, etc) get veto rights over specific issues? That question can be very tricky, even in modern European countries like Beligium (which has to intricately balance Walloon & Flemish differences). The US had that debate itself, leading to some awkward solutions like the 3/5 compromise.
As for Evo & Quispe. Yeah, I know you don't like them. And I'll agree that there's differences between them & the Santa Cruz situation. But sedition, if we simply mean talking against the legitimate authority of the state, is still something they're guilty of. And certainly Solares. But Evo wasn't arrested for his role w/ the cocaleros, who've frequently ambushed soldiers, killing several dozens in the last decade or so. There've not been arrests for people who took over buildings, used dynamite against government offices. Heck, the police officers who led the mutiny in February 2003 were barely disciplined. And they launched an outright coup, firing laying siege to & assaulting the Presidential Palace (the bullet holes are still there).
My point there was simply that there's a perception among many in Santa Cruz that: A) our demands are often addressed last, but certainly not immediately and B) the response to cruceño protests is more swift. Mesa didn't militarize El Alto weeks ago, but he did very quickly militarize Santa Cruz. There's a sense that one region/sector's demands are handled very differently by the state. I don't think it's consciously on purpose. But Mesa's behavior lends itself to that interpretation.
Posted by: Miguel at January 25, 2005 04:30 PM
Even though strikes and blockades negatively affect the poorest of society, part of me still understands why it is done. There is a perception that goes back, long before Mesa, that the government only acts when “direct action” is taken. It is unfortunate that it is the last resort in order for grievances to be heard. By now, it has become reinforced that results can be achieved if you blockade hard enough, and has turned into the first resort at times.
I spent some time in a poor, working-class neighborhood in Northern Cochabamba that has been waiting years for its sewer system and an improvement in their water system. The project was approved through Part. Popular, but the Municipality has never acted on it. The head of the Junta Vecinal showed me a stack of letters sent to the Mayor’s office asking for answers. They held regular meetings and even pitched in to dig their own well. However, when I left they were ready to take more drastic measures because they could not wait any longer. Perhaps if they had a more sympathetic ally in the Mayor’s office, things would have worked out differently.
That’s why I have been so disappointed in MAS. I sympathize with many of their gripes with society. The inroads that the political party has made were truly groundbreaking. Imagine, they could have made changes through Congress instead of mobilizations. They were on the verge of capturing their first mayorship in Cochabamba. They could have helped reverse the practice of action only through confrontation. However, Evo can’t decide if he wants to be a democratic or still resort to the direct action. He can’t have it both ways. Does he want to alienate the radical groups or does he want to alienate the middle class? Clearly he doesn’t want the former. I truly think he blew his chance.
El Alto was militarized during the past “Water War II”, mainly to prevent things from getting out of hand. Some say that one of Goni’s mistakes was that he didn’t militarize soon enough and things escalated as a result.
For now, the government has let Santa Cruz do their thing. They have waited and watched the capture of government buildings and a halt in economic activity. Why not dialog? Maybe they don’t know what they really want. Is it the fuel prices? Is it the fear that lands will be distributed? Is it the fear that their role in the Constituent Assembly won’t be proportional to their economic power?
Posted by: eduardo at January 25, 2005 08:57 PM
I believe that the blanco oligarchy needs to give the land to the original peoples of the land. For too long the criollo/blanco oligarhcy have been plundering the lands and resources of the kolla people or native people.
although, most people who live in santa cruz are mestizo, the oligarchs all look like blanco to me.
This is apartheid state, like in South Africa. Take back your lands from this oligarchical peoples in Santa Cruz and give it to the campesinos.
Posted by: Mad Max at January 28, 2005 02:57 PM