The country's citizens rose up
having been forced into becoming the silent majority, officials in
Bolivia are in danger of letting history repeat itself
4 days ago
Although I am for over a
decade a staunch supporter of Evo Morales, I must
admit that, after reading about the confusion after Morales’ disputed electoral
victory, I was beset by doubts: did he also succumb to the authoritarian
temptation, as it happened to so many radical Leftists in power? However, after
a day or two, things became clear.
Brandishing a giant
leather-bound bible and declaring herself Bolivia’s interim
president, Jeanine Añez, the second-vice president of the country’s Senate,
declared: “The Bible has returned to the government palace.” She added: “We
want to be a democratic tool of inclusion and unity” – and the transitional
cabinet sworn into office did not include a single indigenous person.
This tells it all: although
the majority of the population of Bolivia are indigenous or mixed, they were
till the rise of Morales de facto excluded from political life, reduced to the
silent majority. What happened with Morales was the political awakening of this
silent majority which did not fit in the network of capitalist relations.
They were not yet proletarian
in the modern sense, they remained locked into their premodern tribal
social identities – here is how Alvaro Garcia Linera, Morales’ vice-president,
described their lot: “In Bolivia, food was produced by Indigenous farmers,
buildings and houses were built by Indigenous workers, streets were cleaned by
Indigenous people, and the elite and the middle classes entrusted the care of
their children to them. Yet the traditional left seemed oblivious to this and
occupied itself only with workers in large-scale industry, paying no attention
to their ethnic identity.”
To understand them, we should
bring into picture the entire historical weight of their predicament: they are
the survivors of perhaps the greatest holocaust in the history of humanity, the
obliteration of the indigenous communities by the Spanish and English
colonisation of the Americas.
The religious expression of
their premodern status is the unique combination of Catholicism and belief in
the Pachamama or Mother Earth figure. This is why, although Morales stated that
he is a Catholic, in the current Bolivian Constitution (enacted in 2009) the
Roman Catholic church lost its official status – its article 4 states: “The
State respects and guarantees the freedom of religion and spiritual beliefs, in
accordance to every individual’s world view. The State is independent from
religion.”
And it is against this
affirmation of indigenous culture that Anez’s display of the bible is directed
– the message is clear: an open assertion of white religious supremacism, and a
no less open attempt to put the silent majority back to their proper
subordinate place. From his Mexican exile, Morales already appealed to Pope to
intervene, and the Pope’s reaction will tell us a lot. Will Francis react as a
true Christian and unambiguously reject the enforced re-Catholisation of
Bolivia as what it is, as a political power-play which betrays the emancipatory
core of Christianity?
If we leave aside
any possible role of lithium in the coup (Bolivia has big reserves of
lithium which is needed for batteries in electric cars and it has featured in a
number of theories about what brought down Morales), the big question is: why
is for overt a decade Bolivia such a thorn in the flesh of Western liberal
establishment? The reason is a very peculiar one: the surprising fact that the
political awakening of premodern tribalism in Bolivia did not result in a new
version of the Sendero Luminoso or Khmer Rouge horror show. The reign of
Morales was not the usual story of the radical Left in power which screws
things up, economically and politically, generating poverty and trying to
maintain its power through authoritarian measures. A proof of the
non-authoritarian character of the Morales reign is that he didn’t purge army
and police of his opponents (which is why they turned against him).
Morales and his followers
were, of course, not perfect, they made mistakes, there were conflicts of
interests in his movement. However, the overall balance is an outstanding one.
Morales not Chavez, he did not have not oil money to quell problems, so his
government has to engage in a hard and patient work of solving problems in the
poorest country in Latin America. The result was nothing short of a miracle:
economy thrived, poverty rate fell, healthcare improved, while all the
democratic institutions so dear to liberals continued to function. The Morales
government maintained a delicate balance between indigenous forms of communal
activity and modern politics, fighting simultaneously for tradition and women
rights,
To tell the entire story of
the coup – and I am in no doubt it is a coup – in Bolivia, we need a new
Assange who will bring out the relevant secret documents. What we can see now
is that Morales, Linera and their followers were such a thorn in the flesh of
the liberal establishment precisely because they succeeded: for over a decade
radical Left was in power and Bolivia did not turn into Cuba or Venezuela.
Democratic socialism is possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment