Evo and Capitalism
“I see myself now in a position of homage to him. For me Che is my leader, ” he says. “What he did cannot be forgotten.”
By Matt Kennard on Wednesday, December 9th, 2009 - 867 words.
Yesterday Bolivia’s socialist President, Evo Morales, stormed to victory in the country’s election with 67 percent of the vote. The FT now calls him “one of Latin America’s the most popular leaders”. But who is this guy?
Morales has been at the helm since January 2006 when he became the first indigenous president of a Latin American country. His asencion didn’t command the same volume of magazine splashes afforded to America’s first black President, but in Latin America there was a feeling of euphoria amongst indigenous communities similar to the African-American sentiment in the States on Obama’s rise.
President Morales grew up dirt-poor, left high school before he graduated and went to pick coca leaves. In the film Cocalero, a documentary about the Presidential election that first bought him to power, he talks about how he became obsessed with trade unionism to the point his dad called him a dog because he “only came home to eat and sleep”. From this base he went on to become a central part in what many have called the “pink tide” that has streaked across Latin America, leaving Alvaro Uribe as the only center-right leader south of Panama.
Morales has not been in the news as much as that other lefty Latin American, Hugo Chavez. His style is not as abrasive and he doesn’t court publicity in the same way – although their ideas are along the same lines.
Here’s Evo interviewed in the New Statesman on Ernesto “Che” Guevara:
“I see myself now in a position of homage to him. For me Che is my leader, ” he says. “What he did cannot be forgotten.”
Now, paying a little homage to El Che is par for the course for leftist Latin American leaders. But here’s Evo in a speech to the UN in 2007. Apparently he doesn’t like capitalism too much, either:
“I think that that capitalism is the worst enemy of humanity and if we do not change the model, change the system, then our presence, our debate, our exchange, and the proposals that we make in these meetings at the United Nations will be totally in vain.”
But what Evo has actually done in Bolivia over the last three years does not completely bare out his rhetoric.
His most radical act was to nationalise the hydrocarbons industry, which irked neighbour Brazil and Spain as well, the two countries with the biggest economic interest in the sector. Morales did pay for the assets. Allbusiness.com at the time said the action was “surprising” to international investors, who expected a more “moderate policy” – whatever a “moderate nationalisation” might look like.
Bolivia had been rocked in 2000 by what the so-called “Water Wars”, centred in Cochabama. The water industry had just been privatised and was run now by US corporation, Bechtel. Average prices sored and police were even instructed to arrest people collecting rain water to bypass the new prices. The indigenous community was up in arms – literally, and Bechtel had to leave. Evo and his movements genesis can be put somewhere around this point.
The backbone of Morales’ reform programme was the creation of a new Bolivian constitution, which was ratified by a public referendum earlier this year, and can be read here in Spanish (it hasn’t been translated yet). President Morales has signalled that he will make the implementation of the new constitution his main legislative priority at the start of his second term.
In a country that is often compared to apartheid South Africa, as the stark divisions of poverty and inequality are marked along racial lines, many see this constitution as representing Bolivia’s ‘Freedom Charter’.
But what does Morales victory mean for the future? Well, depends who you talk to. Mary O’Grady over at the WSJ says, straight-faced:
“A dictatorship that fosters the production and distribution of cocaine is not apt to enjoy a positive international image,” she writes. Then continues, “In fact, it will mark the official end of what’s left of Bolivian liberty after four years of Morales rule.”
Her sentiment is not atypical of the American Right, maybe still smarting from the fact Morales kicked out their ambassador last year.
The actual reporting of his election triumph in the WSJ was also amusing and unique:
“Bolivians appeared to re-elect President Evo Morales by an overwhelming majority on Sunday, bucking a recent trend away from the left in much of Latin America and giving Bolivia’s first indigenous president further authority to dismantle the country’s existing government framework.”
According to Ana Arendar on the Comment Factory:
“Morales’s reform have seen Bolivia record a fiscal surplus for the first time in 30 years, the country has been predicted a higher growth rate this coming year than anywhere else in the Americas, and poverty levels have dropped continually since MAS came to power.
This has prompted praise from the unlikeliest of quarters as even the head of the IMF’s Western hemisphere countries unit praised the Morales government for what he referred to as its “very responsible” macroeconomic policies.”
According to the FT his plans are “unclear” but will probably include:
“[L]arge-scale industrialisation of key wealth sectors, including cement, paper, dairy, lithium, fertilisers, steel; a continuance of direct subsidy schemes for Bolivia’s poor; and support for greater regional autonomy that many critics say will prove to be almost ungovernable.”
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...One Comment
Leave a Reply
Matt Kennard
26London
Matt Kennard graduated from the Journalism School at Columbia University as a Toni Stabile Investigative scholar in 2008. He now works for the Financial Times in London. He has written for the Guardian, Salon, The Comment Factory and the Chicago Tribune, amongst others. In 2006 he won the Guardian Student Feature Writer of the Year Award
mattkennard@thecommentfactory.com
Articles by this author
-
Chavez, Morales and Correa must speak out on Iran
As I said some months ago, when I get depressed about the state of the world I’m always cheered to think of the movements in Latin America that are genuinely empowering the hitherto marginalised sections of those societies. This movement has the power to make itself felt throughout the world – but it needs to apply itself consistently. That can even take the approach of Lula who stopped short of denunciation and just put forward an offer of sanctuary in an effort to shame the Iranian regime
-
The Observer's Chomsky fetish
Chomsky is big enough to put up with this kind of rubbish, but can the Guardian or Observer, the most influential left-wing journal in the English-speaking world, really not find one journalist who doesn’t have a visceral dislike of Noam Chomsky? Sadly, but maybe predictably, for a newspaper made up of liberals pickled in the self-righteous playfields of Oxbridge liberalism, I guess they don’t
-
The fight to preserve Latin America's democratic revolution
For Prof Anderson the template of Spain after Franco’s destruction of civil society “has become the general formula of freedom: no longer making the world safe for democracy, but democracy safe for this world.” Through a confluence of historical factors, Latin America is the crucible where the last chance to make a world safe for democracy is being fought. The importance of this battle shouldn’t be underestimated: if it fails, we might not get another chance
-
Jan Nederveen Pieterse on Globalization and Empire
The fundamentals of American weakness are its shrinking share of world manufacturing, its gargantuan consumption, low savings rate, faulty policies (massive military spending, massive war spending, deep tax cuts) and gigantic financial deficits. Some problems are structural (high American health care costs are a function of lack of restraint on pharmaceutical industries and reflect the large influence of business interests); this prompts outsourcing, which further weakens the American economy. The military interventions are destabilizing (increase risks for others) and costly (adding to American economic problems) and erode American legitimacy. So the problems are not merely overstretch
-
Massive Attack on influences, war and the cult of fame
I think a lot of it is damaging and I feel there has to be at some point a change in the way we deal with different peoples situations and development. I hate double standards more than anything – I hate the current row over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and whether they should be allowed to have nuclear technology or even nuclear energy. It seems to me that our history is littered with hypocrisy and I find that quite hard to live with being a British citizen
-
Matt Kennard on Russia Today extended: 'US Army sent 'hardcore' neo-Nazi troops to Iraq and Afghanistan'
Under the Bush administration, the U.S. military allegedly started to recruit neo-Nazis and gang members to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Investigative journalist Matt Kennard talks to RT about his researh into these allegations and other problems in the US military.
-
Tony Benn on the EU, Cuba and Islam
Well I don’t think it helps to go around saying, “Try Blair for war crimes,” if you’re trying to persuade Labour MPs to vote against the war and they are told they’ve got to arrest and see Blair and Cherie locked up. It’s ridiculous. I said this to all the people… I mean it’s mad… I can understand peoples anger, but it is crazy
-
Hilary Benn on aid, the US, Iraq, and Tony Blair
The truth is: The real answer to the question why did we take the decision that we did, is because on the 18th March 2003 a majority of the House of Commons voted to do it
-
Johann Hari on Chomsky, Hitchens, Iraq, and anarchism
But I think Hitchens arguments are so well put and one should engage with them and take them at face value. He says Saddam was intermeshed increasingly with Islam. Zarquawi, for example, was already in Iraq before the war. I don’t agree with his argument on that. Ba’athism and Islamism are different things, and should be opposed for different reasons
-
Polly Toynbee on Iraq and New Labour
No I think it’s very difficult to navigate because for one thing even if you more want to bring democracy to the Middle East more than you want to take the oil – which I think probably is the case now – but such is the fear of fundamentalism that you wonder if you knock over the Saudi’s who takes over? Is it even stronger Wahhabist, and is that even more dangerous, and even less democratic? It’s very difficult
-
Noam Chomsky on the US Empire and hopes and prospects
They hope that China will organize a coalition of peace loving states to stop the militarism and aggressiveness headed by the US and its British ally. Well it's interesting that they have such contempt for American democracy and British democracy: they don't even dream of it coming from within. I don't agree with it - I don't think we have to wait for China to save us from all doom - I think we can do it ourselves
-
Professor Michael Mann on America's incoherent empire
The most you can have is a kind of informal imperialism where the state remains sovereign - you don’t try to interfere in it but you limit its options. This is what, typically, the US has done in Latin America when it is not intervening. The US is formidable. People contrast so-called multilateralism to unilateralist and they think of the United Nations. The US runs the UN and had run the UN for most of the 1990s and that’s what the US can do because the US provides certain resources that no-one else can provide. Nothing much is going to happen in the way of international activity unless the US is part of it and leading it and that’s what the US can return to again. What I think it cannot do is to reconstruct foreign countries on its own without having considerable local support
The Wall Street Journal piece was demented.If this is what the US right are thinking I would advise Morales to develop nuclear weapons to keep the US at bay as they have probably already added Bolivia to their list of countries which need ´democracy´brought to them via bunker busters and ´civilian contractors´ i.e. paramilitaries for when they next con the US electorate.
The Democracy Centre (a Bolivian charity) recently had their guy, Jim Shultz, dismantle O Gravy´s lunatic piece on his blog – or at least as much as he could be arsed to contend with.
I can remember when Murdoch took over the WSJ and they all made great waves about the fact they would not interfere in the content or editorial policy as it was a valuable, historical publication.
So did they historically employ lunatics back in the day then, do you reckon?
Or have they just brought one in?