Bolivia moves to the left
The leftist surge in Latin American continues. Last week it was Chile. This week it's Bolivia:
In Bolivia's electoral system, if no candidate receives at least 50 percent of votes cast in a presidential election, the new parliament (elected at the same time) picks the new president itself. However, given that third-place candidate Samual Doria Medina has already pledged his support to the top vote-getter, it is almost certain that Morales will "become Bolivia's first indigenous president".
The BBC reports that Morales admires Fidel Castro and that the Bush Administration worries that he may be anogher Hugo Chavez (the populist anti-American president of Venezuela). That may or may not be true. And it may very well be that Bolivia, "South America's poorest state," would benefit more from economic liberalization than from leftist protectionism.
Yet Morales's election makes sense: "Morales, a former coca leaf-grower and union leader, described himself on election day as 'the candidate of those despised in Bolivian history, the candidate of the most disdained, discriminated against'. Bolivia's indigenous people, who make up more than half the population, generally support the man who pledges to legalise the production of the coca leaf, a food staple, although not the cocaine manufactured from it."
He may not necessarily be the right candidate, but he will at least speak for, and represent the interests of, the dispossessed elements of Bolivian society. I certainly think that Bolivia needs ultimately to embrace liberalization, but at least those elements will have a voice for once. That's democracy at work -- and hopefully a step in the right direction.
**********
Elswhere, the BBC examines "Latin America's year of elections": "Latin America's political map could find itself being redrawn as 12 of the region's countries prepare for presidential elections between November 2005 and the end of 2006." Recommended reading.
For more, The New York Times looks at Latin America's leftward shift in light of the Bolivian elections: "The leftist movement that has taken hold in Latin America over the last seven years is diverse." Also recommended.
Exit polls from Bolivia's presidential election suggest a clear victory for left-wing Aymara Indian candidate Evo Morales -- though not an outright win.
Several polls give him 42-45% of the vote ahead of his nearest challenger, former President Jorge Quiroga who, the polls say, got between 33-37%.
In Bolivia's electoral system, if no candidate receives at least 50 percent of votes cast in a presidential election, the new parliament (elected at the same time) picks the new president itself. However, given that third-place candidate Samual Doria Medina has already pledged his support to the top vote-getter, it is almost certain that Morales will "become Bolivia's first indigenous president".
The BBC reports that Morales admires Fidel Castro and that the Bush Administration worries that he may be anogher Hugo Chavez (the populist anti-American president of Venezuela). That may or may not be true. And it may very well be that Bolivia, "South America's poorest state," would benefit more from economic liberalization than from leftist protectionism.
Yet Morales's election makes sense: "Morales, a former coca leaf-grower and union leader, described himself on election day as 'the candidate of those despised in Bolivian history, the candidate of the most disdained, discriminated against'. Bolivia's indigenous people, who make up more than half the population, generally support the man who pledges to legalise the production of the coca leaf, a food staple, although not the cocaine manufactured from it."
He may not necessarily be the right candidate, but he will at least speak for, and represent the interests of, the dispossessed elements of Bolivian society. I certainly think that Bolivia needs ultimately to embrace liberalization, but at least those elements will have a voice for once. That's democracy at work -- and hopefully a step in the right direction.
**********
Elswhere, the BBC examines "Latin America's year of elections": "Latin America's political map could find itself being redrawn as 12 of the region's countries prepare for presidential elections between November 2005 and the end of 2006." Recommended reading.
For more, The New York Times looks at Latin America's leftward shift in light of the Bolivian elections: "The leftist movement that has taken hold in Latin America over the last seven years is diverse." Also recommended.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
10:15 PM
4 Comments:
Democracy at work as long as the United States doesn´t intervene. Yet, what happens when our big northern brother finally decides to act? The war against terrorism was great for Latin America. The movement to the left was allowed to run it´s course without the obstacle of the U.S. Cold War Coup d´etats, thank god for the war on terrorism. But I believe the U.S. will no longer be passive, Bolivia was the final warning bell.
By
Anonymous, at 12:40 AM
I agree that the US needs to chill about these leftist governments and not insist on a conformity of economics, ie, if they don't want neoliberal economics, that's their business. The idea that democracy can ONLY exist hand in hand with American-style free market economics is pernicious and has led to a lot of problems with the US imposing the Washington consensus. In the long run, I suspect these leftist economics will screw up these countries plenty (Venezuela might be a different story to some extent because of it's oil wealth, but the history of oil rich countries is not encouraging), but let's not be complicit in their problems. If Bush really believes in democracy,as opposed to capitalism, he will lay low. There is no need to respond to every anti-American sentiment expressed in Latin America; all it does it play into the hands of populists.
But I have to say I'm disturbed when I hear politicians that are ostensibly democratic paying homage to Fidel Castro, the ultimate Latin dictator. I understand that some of this is tweaking the bully's (ie, the US)nose, but how can you "admire" Fidel Castro and call yourself a democrat? What is it that they admire about him--the political prisoners? the lack of free speech? IMO, Chavez is nothing but another Juan Peron demagogue populist. I know a lot of leftists here are enjoying his standing up to the US and perhaps like his populist economics, but I don't think there is anything to like about the way he is slowly dismantling a functioning, albeit perhaps seriously flawed, democracy. I doubt that Chavez and the others can or will go as far as Castro, but if he is their role model, I think these countries are in for rough times. Moreover, the history of so-called socialism isn't so great--maybe neoliberal economics isn't the solution, but I doubt that populist socialism will be much better in the long run.
By
Anonymous, at 10:03 AM
salut, deniro y amore to Bolivia and the rest of the governments finally allowed to choose their own government. The only good thing coming out of Bush's flawed attempts to control interests in the middle east is that finally democracy is being allowed to flourish in South America. Thank Heavens, the silver lining. Bush has got enough on his blood-stained hands, by the time he realises that his neighbours are not his fascists friends he'll be out of office.
In response to Mark's comments, I think the references to Castro relate to a publically supported figure gaining power against a fascist dictator. I take the point that he's now lost it - but taking prisoners, pursuing policies that benefit the rich, a biased media - wow, it sounds like the rest of the world!
By
Anonymous, at 11:26 AM
I'm not sure what "fascist" friends of Bush you are talking about. You can't serioiusly be saying that the previous governments in Bolivia and Venezuela were fascists. If they were, they wouldn't have left power. They may have been too conservative and too close to Bush for your comfort, but the analogy to Castro and Batista--if that's really the issue-is flawed at best. Let's forget Bush here--obviously, these countries should have the right to choose whomever they want. But I bet you wouldn't be saluting them so much if they had picked someone like Haider in Austria.
By
Anonymous, at 3:43 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home