As more results from rural areas flood in, last Sunday’s recall referendum keeps looking better and better for Evo Morales and his Movimiento a Socialismo party. After having won the Bolivian presidency in 2005 with approximately 54% of the popular vote, Evo surprised everyone by not only winning the recall referendum convoked by the right-wing opposition, but by winning big, with the Bolivian daily Los Tiempos reporting him taking almost 67% of the vote as of 10 AM Wednesday. Commentators that had lamented Evo’s loss of support by his “frightening of the middle class” and “loss of the urban vote” were left surprised that Evo was able to not only consolidate his support in rural Bolivia to near unanimity, but make substantial inroads in urban centers such as Cochabamba, in which vocal anti-Morales sentiment is frequently heard. He even captured about 40% of the vote in Santa Cruz, the heart of the autonomist movement, and a 53.88% majority in Chuquisaca, where just weeks ago he was violently prevented from entering its capital Sucre. A minor opponent of the government, Jose Luis Paredes, the governor of La Paz, was easily recalled, as was a major opponent, Manfred Reyes Villa of Cochabamba.

It is extremely likely that, as he announced in his victory speech, Evo will use this as a mandate to push more aggressively for his project of social transformation – a new, indigenous-centered constitution, nationalization of formerly-privatized industries, and a pursuit of land reform in Eastern Bolivia. He would be correct in doing so – with his achievement of such a clear mandate, it may be now or never for his government to act decisively. However, he needs to be conscious of numerous pitfalls along the way.

Government Support in Autonomist Regions Surprisingly High

Looking at the bright side, Evo’s surprising approval in the autonomist states suggests that the opposition to his government voiced by regional leaders and the press does not represent significant sectors of society in the so-called “Media Luna” of opposition. He appears to have won a slim majority of 52.7% in the peripheral but Santa Cruz-aligned state of Pando and nearly 49% in the important oil-rich state of Tarija. Despite the radical opposition voiced to his government in his two years in power from these areas, this percentage represents a significant increase over the level of support he got there in 2005. However, the easy margins of victory for the opposition governors suggest that the application of any kind of assertive policy that affects elite interests will be bitterly contested. While the right-wing is likely to wince at the magnitude of Evo’s victory and some of its ideologists may have held millenarian ideas of recalling him and restoring the order that had been broken by the “indio’s” victory, it is quite possible that defeating the president outright was never part of their strategy.
 
After the discrediting of neoliberal economic policy and the growing assertiveness of indigenous movements in the 1990s, the Bolivian right wing and traditional political structure realized that it had to prepare to lose hegemonic control over the national government. They were a predominantly white minority in a society still rife with colonial elements and an ideology of racial distinction, and a minority whose ideas of development and Bolivian society had long failed to resonate with the predominantly indigenous population. Thus, instead of waging the losing battle of contesting national control, they undertook, quite successfully, a project of regional consolidation in Eastern Bolivia, a wealthier region of the country with significant natural gas deposits and an export-based economy that grew under the neoliberal free-marketeers as its Andean neighbors struggled. A folkloric sense of “Santa Cruz-ness” which incorporated even recent migrants from highland Bolivia recast the question of power in regional terms in the universalistic language of a “struggle against centralism and dictatorship”.

The results of the referendum confirm this struggle for them, and they will continue unabated in their confrontational discourse. It is likely that despite winning a level of support unheard of for a Bolivian president in the democratic era, Evo will still be unable to visit 5 out of the country’s 9 states unless he is willing to use force to subdue violent right-wing youth groups, actions which could spark a wider conflagration. The tone of his latest speech was conciliatory to the victorious opposition prefects and called for dialogue, but as it becomes increasingly clear that they will agree only to a dialogue that preserves their rights to rule the East as their private fiefdoms, the government may have to become more aggressive.

Cochabamba in the Balance

The most proximate struggle will be over the blowout loss of Manfred Reyes Villa in Cochabamba, who got crushed by an almost 65-35% margin, but has repeatedly refused to accept the results of the referendum. The regional left-wing and MAS have a visceral hatred for Manfred, and will remove him by violence if he refuses to go quietly.

In January 2007, MAS tried to force Manfred to resign, angered after he attempted to call a second autonomy referendum after the question had already once been defeated in the state. They occupied the central square, and Manfred-sponsored goons from the upper-middle class areas of the cities descended on them, eager to “beat up some Indians”. Two MAS backers from rural areas and one upper-middle class teenager were killed in the conflict, the state building was briefly set on fire, and Manfred came off as the defender of democracy against an unruly mob.

This time, the democracy card is on the side of MAS. The question of the day is whether the right-wing opposition will circle its wagons to defend its ally in Cochabamba or decide that he is a lost cause and consent to a potential MAS takeover of the heartland of the country. As of Wednesday, Manfred has not officially renounced, but has “stepped away” from the governor’s office and left daily responsibilities in the hands of his chief of staff. For the moment, he appears to have decided that he would no longer benefit from provoking a conflict.


Dialogue or Confrontation?

 

The rhetoric of the mainstream political commentators in Bolivia have always sought to call the left and right wings to a “dialogue”, in which their widely divergent visions of the country could be made compatible. This type of idea is reminiscent to that pushed by former Bolivian president Carlos Mesa, who valued the idea of “social peace” by trying (and ultimately failing) to maintain a centrist politics between the indigenous left and the autonomist right. The goals of Evo Morales, however, involve the deepening of the revolutionary process of indigenous empowerment, which is inherently a process that creates conflict when it hits the wall of the entrenched resistance of privileged classes. Dialogue there may be, but it is extremely unlikely that either the government or the opposition can compromise on their core positions. For Evo to forego the pursuit of land reform in the East would be to break his promises to transform the social structure of the country; for the autonomists to allow it would challenge the very foundations of their power. Dialogue can and will happen, but it is not to be viewed as a universal panacea that will accommodate everyone.

 

The Bolivian daily La Razon described the situation thusly. “If we were tied 1-1 [before the vote], now we have returned to a tie, but a 3-3 tie. What use will these actors get from their victories?” This is an analysis that doesn’t take into account the very real boost that Evo and his supporters will take out of these elections, but it does capture the idea that both the left and the right wing have won, at different scalar levels of the Bolivian state. After a great deal of theater and the dispatching of some minor characters, we are left with both the heroes and villains standing emboldened as the dust settles.

 

However, it seems that the opposition is numerically smaller than its significantly loud barking and dramatic spectacular manifestations have made it seem. The level of support that Evo has achieved was not predicted by almost anyone, and is reminiscent of his actual 2005 election landslide, in which the most surprised person may have been Evo himself. Let us make no mistake – in the great soccer match that is Bolivian politics, MAS is up a goal. The autonomists may continue to retain their bases of power, but they can no longer credibly blather on about a “corrupt dictatorship” on the national level. These are historic times, and it is time for Evo to make a move.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.

Donate
Donate
Leave A Reply

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

Institute for Social and Cultural Communications, Inc. is a 501(c)3 non-profit.

Our EIN# is #22-2959506. Your donation is tax-deductible to the extent allowable by law.

We do not accept funding from advertising or corporate sponsors.  We rely on donors like you to do our work.

ZNetwork: Left News, Analysis, Vision & Strategy

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

THE WIND CRIES FREEDOM

The Wind Cries Freedom, the new book from Z co-founder Michael Albert, is a sweeping oral history of a future American revolution.

Through thirty interconnected chapters, it draws out the strategies, failures, turning points, and hard-won wisdom of a movement that called itself the Revolutionary Participatory Society. These are not the polished memoirs of politicians: they are the unfiltered accounts of people who organized in neighborhoods, hospitals, universities, stadiums, courthouses, and places of worship, and kept a shared vision alive through cynicism and exhaustion.

The result is speculative political fiction that reads like history: messy, human, and quietly hopeful in the way that only real experience and long thought can produce.

Get your copy and peruse more features on the book’s website below.

“Read it, argue with it, but don’t look away. The future it recalls is one we must still fight to deserve.”

Yanis Varoufakis

“The most unusual and intriguing combination of prophecy, manifesto, and movement building manual that I have ever encountered.”

Bill Fletcher Junior

“This work fills a huge gap in our social movement literature.”

Cynthia Peters

You've just read your article on Z this month.

DOES Z'S SURVIVAL MATTER?

You keep coming back for a reason: serious political analysis, movement reporting, and debate beyond the priorities of corporate media. Today, Z is in a precarious financial position. If Z is part of how you understand the world, help keep it going. The readers who give monthly are the reason this work survives between fundraisers.

Z is in a precarious financial position. If it’s part of how you understand the world, help keep it going.

Number of donors717
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Already a sustainer? Click here and we won’t ask again. Thank you!

Your reading count is stored only in your browser and is never sent to us.

Sound is muted by default.  Tap 🔊 for the full experience

CRITICAL ACTION

Critical Action is a longtime friend of Z and a music and storytelling project grounded in liberation, solidarity, and resistance to authoritarian power. Through music, narrative, and multimedia, the project engages the same political realities and movement traditions that guide and motivate Z’s work.

If this project resonates with you, you can learn more about it and find ways to support the work using the link below.

Z is in the most precarious financial position in its history.

Z is a place to think beyond the limits of the present.

For decades, Z has brought together political analysis, movement reporting, debate, and visions of a different future from writers and activists around the world. That work is more than journalism. It is movement infrastructure: movements need places to develop ideas, test arguments, learn from experience, and imagine what comes next.

In the first two days of this fundraiser, 19 donors and 8 new monthly sustainers stepped up. Help us reach 1,000 donors who keep Z independent, for everyone.

For decades, Z has published the analysis, debate, and visions movements need, free of paywalls, ads, and billionaire owners. If that work should continue, Z needs your support now.

Number of donors717
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Subscribe

Join the Z Community – receive event invites, announcements, a Weekly Digest, and opportunities to engage.

Exit mobile version