Evo in the Times

11.24.2005

Technorati tag:

A few people have asked me about a recent New York Times story on Evo Morales, wondering what my reaction was. I won't go into great detail; you can read the Times piece yourself. But a few quick comments:

First, I thought the article was fairly well balanced, despite being a bit superficial. Here, perhaps, I'm overly sensitive because of my own understanding of Bolivian history & politics.

No, I don't think Evo is as bad as Osama bin Laden, as some hysterics would argue. But if someone makes the claim, it's good journalism to press the issue of why. Not just state that Evo denies being a "bad person". What are the things he's been accused of? Do cocaleros belonging to his organization ambush Bolivian conscript soldiers, often killing them? Do they sometimes attack farmers who refuse to grow coca?

Also, just once, I'd like to see stories about coca growing tackle some serious ecological issues. How good is coca for things like soil erosion? Is the coca grown in the Chapare "traditional" coca grown for ceremonial consumption for centuries, or grown recently since the 1970s & 1980s?

Second, why is there a story on Bolivian politics mentioning the Cuban revolution of 1959, but not the Bolivian revolution of 1952? I mean, just for something about context. Or why not talk about the home-grown (non-Che) guerrilla movements (like EGTK) of the 1960s & 1970s? If you're trying to suggest that Evo isn't just emulating Che/Fidel/Chavez, then why not mention the tumultuous historical context in which Evo was raised?

Third, I'd have liked to see more of a critical evaluation of Evo's policy platform if he won, compared to his rhetoric. What would happen if he did take the presidency, but tried to emulate Lula rather than Che? On that note, did Lula's rhetoric/behavior resemble Evo's before he was elected? How about Allende? Because I don't recall either of the latter calling for armed insurrection & other radical claims in their pre-election political rhetoric. If we're to believe the comparison, then more context, please.

Don't get me wrong, I think the piece was overall fairly well done. But it seemed to take the claims against Evo skeptically, but then didn't extend the same skepticism to the rebuttals. Why should we believe Evo's supporters, but not his detractors? Perhaps we should (though I'd say both exaggerate Evo's badness/goodness), but the story doesn't give us reason to believe one over the other (though there's a slight bias towards believing Evo's supporters, rather than the claims against him).

Personally, I don't think Evo's all that dangerous. Certainly not as dangerous as Felipe Quispe. But his rhetoric is extremely polarizing, and he's mostly used to being in the opposition, where it's easy to criticize. I've grave reservations about his political ability to govern. It's great to say "we need more economic growth" — it's another thing entirely to figure out how to make it happen. Bolivia's biggest nightmare isn't an Evo presidency, it's an Evo presidency that can't deliver on the false expectations Evo's fostered in an increasingly impatient populace.

----
ADDENDUM: Also, new polls are up. The race is tightening, but the by-department spread looks better for Tuto than for Evo, I think.

Posted by Miguel at 12:58 AM

Comments

You are right that the coca issue has been mishandled. I read one article where Morales said he would target narcotraffickers instead of the farmers, but after that one mention there hasn't been much about that since. It's too easy to criticize the real deficiencies in the policy (human rights violations against the military and campesinos, a failed alternative development system, etc.) and not admit fault by those that defend the other side, such as the ecological damage as you mentioned. There's a sense that there is this denial that a lot of the coca grown in the Chapare goes straight to the manufacturing of cocaine. I have yet to hear many of these NGOs admit this fact, which troubles me.

I'm glad you brought up the 52 Revolution. I can't help but think that many of the MNR policies implemented (universal vote, nationalization of the mines) would fit more in line with MAS than any other party today. I wonder why there has been no mention by Morales of the 52 Revolution. Because it was carried out by the MNR?

Posted by: eduardo at November 24, 2005 12:54 PM

There was a good story in La Razón about a year ago about the ecological impact of coca in the Chapare. The article quoted several ecologists from NGOs stating that the coca in the Chapare was of such poor quality (third grade, they put, totally unusable for ceremonial or chewing purposes), but that this was also bad ecologically, since it stripped the soil of minerals, leading to rapid top soil erosion. And because the coca fields yield three or more crops per year, the soil was overworked, ensuring that soon NOTHING would grow there other than coca (since the coca variety used can endure in the harshest conditions). But top soil erosion would have affects for decades, or longer, making other crops (food, particularly) almost impossible to cultivate. Really just an ecological disaster.

I'm not sure why Evo doesn't mention the 1952 revolution, though I suspect that it's because it's so consolidated into the Bolivian conscience. What bothers me more is that OUTSIDERS don't mention it, as if unaware that it ever happened. The Bolivian revolution preceded the Cuban, and was once (along w/ Cuba & Mexico) one of the three most significant Latin American social revolutions. For an outside observer to not mention it in a lengthy article on Bolivian politics means something, but I'm just not sure what.

Posted by: mcentellas [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 24, 2005 04:13 PM

If I remember correctly, Alfonso Reyes, said once: It is a well known little secret among latinamericanists from Latin America to be aware, and to a degree, accept that "Outsiders" (as in not lat am born) make mistakes when writing about LA. Such mistakes can be geographic, historical or purely orthographic errors, like the misspelling of our last names.

This was already said in the 1930s. I guess, it hasn't changed much.

Also, I think this happens even when the "outsiders" live in Lat Am.

Posted by: miguel (mabb) at November 25, 2005 04:39 AM