Bolivia is changing 1

«Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pen,

And keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again.

And don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin,

And there's no telling who that it's naming.

For the loser now will be later to win,

For the times they are a-changing!»

Bob Dylan, The times they are a-changing

Bolivia is changing. Tentatively, uncertainly, but it is changing. And it is changing irreversibly. The change shyly started on April 2000 (with the so called "war of water") and finally became unavoidable on December 18^th 2005.

What is exactly changing? Most of the Bolivian citizens expect the change of the ethnic and status-based distribution system of goods, prestige, honor, and power. That kind of change, of course, requires years or decades of structural transformations. Therefore, it would be a little bit naïve, by now, to demand a deep metamorphosis like that. It can be said, however, that something in the last two years stopped to be the same in Bolivia. At least it is undeniable that the political era changed. Indeed, 18^th December 2005 marks the end of one political era and the starting of another.

The finishing political era lasted 20 years (1985 – 17^th December 2005) and is well known as "la democracia pactada" (the pacted democracy) or as "la partidocracia" (the political parties' rule). According to their ideologists, the "pacted democracy" was the political-institutional arrangement that allow the Bolivian transition to and consolidation of democratic rule. That definition, of course, is an irreflexive repetition of concepts thought for Spanish political process. In Bolivia, on the contrary, "the pacted democracy" was an implicit pact among three major (MNR, MIR, AND) and other seven instrumental and less important political parties (MBL, UCS, CONDEPA, NFR, MRTKL, PDC, FRI) oriented, on one hand, to create a distribution mechanism of jobs at the State and of turns in the government, and, on the other, to build a protection shield for political class impunity.

How did the "pacted democracy" work? It articulated three institutional arrangements of Bolivian political system: absence of ballotage, proportional electoral system (partially modified since 1997 elections), and presidentialism. This is not the place to explain how does each arrangement operate or how does it the combination of all of them. For the purposes of this post, it is enough to evaluate their consequences. And their consequences were the distortion of democratic procedures. The main distortion was the conversion of citizens' electoral decisions in something irrelevant. Please look at the chart to follow the explanation of this phenomenon. You can see there the percentage of votes for Presidents' parties in each election since 1985. During the "pacted democracy" era (1985 – 17^th December 2005), Bolivia had five presidential elections. In three of them, the President's party got less than 25% of citizens' votes. In other words, in 3 Bolivian presidential elections, more than 75% of citizens did not vote for the president finally designated. Because of the absence of ballotage, in case that any party gets the 50% plus 1 vote, the Bolivian president is designated by the parliament (among the three most voted until 1997, among the two most voted since then). Since the composition of parliament reflects, more or less, the percentages of votes obtained by each party in presidential election and, because of proportional electoral system, Bolivia developed a concentrated multipartidism, until 2005 elections there was no chance to designate president by winning party by itself. It required a pact with other parties to obtain the necessary parliamentary votes for their election[1]. This is why the ideologists argued that "pacted democracy" was the responsible of Bolivian transition: it guaranteed political stability allowing the political parties to monopolize, through pacts, the institutions. In these circumstances, the proportional electoral system and the absence of ballotage left the designation of presidents in hands of political parties. Therefore, Bolivia lived the era of political parties' rule. And Bolivian political system is not parliamentarist!!!!!

Bolivia: Percentages of votes for Presidents' parties, 1985 - 2005

Source: Corte Nacional Electoral (CNE), Boletín Estadístico 7: 25 años de evolución electoral en Bolivia. La Paz: CNE.

If Bolivian political parties practically monopolize the president designation, what did happen with citizens' electoral decision? Simply: it didn't matter. The citizens could vote for one candidate, but even if the candidate won the election with less than 50% plus 1 of votes, the political parties in the parliament had the chance to designate another candidate as president. In fact, in 1989 election the president designated (MIR's Jaime Paz Zamora) was just the third most voted candidate. It's not a joke: in any democracy, the third most voted candidate just loses the election, but in Bolivian "pacted democracy" (at least until 1997 election), he/she could be president. Why then would matter the citizens' electoral decisions when parties could celebrate a pact to designate whomever they want as president (among three or two most voted candidates)? In "pacted democracy", the political parties won. The citizens lost.

As can be seen in the chart, in 18^th December 2005 citizens' electoral decision finally mattered. For the first time in Bolivian history, a candidate got more than 50% of citizens' preferences in an open and clean election, namely, in an election where citizens could vote trough a sole and multicolor ballot. With more than 50% of citizens' preferences, there was no chance for political parties to use their monopoly and to designate the president by their own. Bolivian citizens elected directly to our President. To do this, an institutional arrangement transformation was not necessary, but only the crisis of pacted democracy because of the fall of political parties system which sustained it. Pacifically, citizens made their decision matter. The era of pacted democracy were then closed. It began another political era, which still is unclear and hard to describe. Of course, the new political era introduced other distortions to democracy. Nevertheless, the citizens' decision finally mattered. And, unquestionably, this fact represents a change for Bolivia. For the losers before then was 18^th December 2005 to win, for the times they are a-changing. Or... What do you think?

All points of view are welcome...

And don't forget to visit:

CNE for Bolivian electoral results (Spanish)

UNDP for an evaluation of Latin American democracy (Spanish and English)

---

[1] Since 1997, in the absence of pact among two or more parties, the candidate who gets the simple majority (less than 50% plus 1 votes) is designated president if, after two attempts of voting, the members of parliament are unable to elect him/her with absolute majority (more than 50% plus 1).

Dire Straits!

An old lady just told me, with her 200 Bs of her "Renta Dignidad" in her hands: "I will use this to buy some things for my grandchildren" while she marked the calendar for the next month -when she will go to the bank to pick up her next payment- under the timid smiling face of her husband, who was having similar thoughts, though remaining silent while her wife marked also his day in the calendar.

I heard from a school teacher that last year, at her school, all students were attending regularly, and that last year (2007) they had not a single day without normal classes! Can you imagine that?: no teacher's strikes to stop children from going to school. Never heard of it, not since the time I was at school myself and often use to be out of it for reasons I could not comprehend at all.

Just two examples of some of the good current events in the country. The first one talks about the recently approved "Renta Dignidad" (without some cunning efforts of Evo Morales's administration to sign the necessary legal requirements, Law 3791), an allowance for elderly people of Bolivia which became effective in February of this year; a law that, differently than previous regulations (Bonosol for instance), will be granted to all 60 years old citizens. The second one -which marks another cunning move over the board by Morales, involves young students (primary school mainly) who are granted with another allowance, "Bono Juancito Pinto" (Decree 29321 ), which awards all students that have manage to finish their educational fiscal year without skipping days. This bonus encourages the youngsters to remain at school during their required term. It is evident -and there is not discussion about it- that these two measure are not going to solve any social or educational deficiency that is already rampaging this poor country. Nor this measure will improve quality of life of elderly or youngsters at any level, but -and this is something we should grant Morales's office- will start the change of the mentality of Bolivian citizens. Let's see this in a closer way. Students, are not coerced to attend school, but at the same time, if they don't go, they are not allowed to be awarded with this benefit. It may look as some kind of bribery; however, considering the amount of money that is payed to them (200 Bs, or nearly 26.5 dollars a year! -at today's rate) this thought is just nuts! This ridiculous amount of money will not corrupt their minds not those of the families; maybe will not even solve their house problems or debts, social security or nutritional needs (although students are also entitled to have some 'student's breakfast', if they attend school, of course). This allowance will only serve as a inductor material for, firstly, allow the parents to encourage their children to attend to school; secondly, to imprint in the children the need to persevere at school if they want to be awarded with this scholarship -which is its real essence. The real change is going to happen in the psyche of both parents and children and, in the best scenario, will improve educational levels in the long run, if there is cooperation from parents, tutors, teachers, and of course, students.

The other 'bonus', aims to pay some kind of respect to the always forgotten Bolivian elderly people -with a name that includes the word 'dignity' in it. A previous benefit, intended to pay an allowance to all adults older than 65 years (in a country with a life expectancy far from that value, INE). With this measure, Morales not only gained in his favor all the support of those old forgotten citizens that were forced to work or live with all sort of troubles to build a country with no memory for its forebearers; without social security services, no rights for retirement houses or long-term medical treatment. Again, similarly to 'Bono Juancito Pinto', this measure is not going to become a panacea nor the cornerstone of this office. This measure plainly tries to pay some respect, very small, to the old people that built this country undergoing all the despise of previous offices. It would be more illustrative -comparatively talking- if a previous office -say Quiroga, Paz or Banzer- could have had try to tackle this issue before, but the fact is, they didn't do it, and therefore, all the credit falls upon Morales head, as well as the gratitude of thousands of new supporters of the current office plus a slow transformation of those, the non-admirers, who wanted or not are also going to the banks to pick up their bonuses -this include even street beggars of La Paz city, for instance-: an event without precedents!

Now, it is evident that these measures may look as demagogical measures -specially for the opposition which sees demons in all the corners- and it will involve several consequences, economical and social. Prefects and some political leaders have already opposed to these decision as well as try to block them in the parliament with no success -and trying to find all sort of defects saying that to provide food or a whole scholarship is better, a computer or books or many other bright 'ideas'. Are we facing a totalitarian regime? Many opposition parties would like to believe this, but if we also consider the fact that this legitimate office is just practising similar measures played by the now-opposition groups, it would be fair to think that they have their right to do so, specially if Morales' office is at least trying to be loyal to some initial pre-electoral campaigns.

However, if we live in a democracy we should follow democratic rules, non antidemocratic ones, let alone illegal ones. The excuse used by some leaders of the opposition to justify themselves by saying that 'they [MAS and Evo Morales] acted illegally and now we will do the same' (with the approval of a New Constitutional Text and the most recent referenda laws). It is obvious this irrationality must be ruled out. If the opposition wants to set an example the first thing to do is to act according to the laws (assuming that the current office is acting illegally); but this has not happen and does not seem that will happen in the short term.

Unfortunately, recent -and not democratically clean- events in the congress (approval of referendum) are putting more stones to the road of dialogue and democracy in Bolivia; a dialogue that has never been taken seriously by none of the parties, and a respect for democracy that is risking to be destructed by the very self-called their defenders. Gregorio Iriarte speaks eloquently about it, advising that any extreme should be considered as a threat when irrational demands try to satisfy irrational reasons. The point is, are we brave enough to accept these criticisms or are we going to let it pass by and pretend we didn't do it, as always? I believe that the answer to this question should necessary come from the leaders of both of the offenders. We would like to see this starting from the presidency but the opposition would serve to the purpose as well. Are they going to do it?

Poor perfomance or poor imagination? (part 2)

As a former post showed, Bolivian CPI variation for 2007, according to ECLAC's information, was 11,9%. Hyperinflation is an unpleasant ghost in recent Bolivian collective memory. In second trimester of 1985, CPI variation reached 23.500%. The hyperinflation, produced by the irresponsible international debts contracted by Banzer’s authoritarian military government (1971 – 1978) and the “international debt crisis”, accompanied Bolivian economy since late 1970s. But it monumentally rose up in the even more irresponsible UDP government (1982 – 1985), the first of the recent democratic era (1982 – nowadays). To control it, the successor of UDP (MNR’s Victor Paz, 1985 - 1989), implemented what specialized literature calls “structural adjustment” (SA). The “adjustment” was introduced by the today infamous 21060 “supreme decree”, which liberalized and deregulated the economy

 to allow the market, and not the State, to define the prices of good and services.

In a couple of years, the new economic policy controlled the inflation rate variation. Thus, the average Bolivian consumers’ pocket was relieved. But the 21060 decree, in compass with other economic measures, also generated unemployment and “killed” the national mining industry, which was the main income source for Bolivian economy since the foundation of the Republic (1825). For those reasons, inflation (and the possible policies to control it) scares to death the average Bolivian citizen. In this context, a 11,9% CPI variation is taken as the worst economic indicator.

To understand and explain the 2007’s Bolivian inflation rate, however, it is fundamental and necessary to analyze it in the context of the actual, 

and not past, economic events. Two are the key factors that explain CPI variation in 2007:

• The meteorological event of “La Niña”, which razed broad agricultural and cattie territories

• Direct transference of income from public budget to citizens recently entitled with new social rights

“La Niña” contracted the supply; the transferences expanded the demand. Contraction of supply and expansion of demand, in any economy, generate price increases. The largest part of CPI variation (explained by La Niña) was not produced by economic public policy, but by conditions beyond government’s control. None of these condition were present during 2006, when the inflation rate was 4,9%. Evidently, a good government should react opportunely to avoid the consequences of this kind of factors. And there is solid evidence that proves that government was not fast enough to control the 

situation. But government itself did not produce the main factor of CPI variation, as was suggested by poor imagination’s propaganda (here and there). As far as we know, the “Andean indigenous” government still has not developed magical techniques to control the weather, although opposition’s poor imagination seems to believe the contrary.

Nevertheless, even with the slow reaction of the government, the inflation rate could have been worse. All Latin American economies affected by La Niña (see chart) witnessed a significant increment in their consumer prices. Bolivian 2007 CPI doubled 2006’s. The same did CPIs of Honduras, Guyana, Panama, and Guatemala. But Chile's and Peru's 2007 CPI —also affected by La Niña, among other economic events— tripled 2006’s.

Latin America and The Caribbean (7 countries): Consumers Prices

(Percentage variation December - December) a/

Source: ECLAC

a/ Twelve-month variation up to November for 2007

Analyzing this context, the Bolivian 2007 CPI increment was perfectly expectable and understandable, although not very much avoidable. Why then does poor imagination, instead of analyze the context and the causes of CPI variation, prefer to just blame economic policy ? This kind of conclusions is understandable from lay citizens, but it is not from economic annalists. Annalists are supposed to explain phenomena. But in Bolivia it seems like they have become another political actor, which, instead of “analyzing” and explain, are more interesting in producing the opposition’s arguments and ideological tools… very, very poor ideological tools. Don’t you think?

All points of view are welcome…

And don’t forget to visit:

INE for Bolivian official statistics (Spanish)

ECLAC for statistics and papers regarding Latin American and Bolivian socioeconomic issues (Spanish and English)

UDAPE for Bolivian public policies analysis (Spanish)

The Crossroads of History

‘In the Andean region, abides since time immemorial the Aymara Indian, aloof and savage like a beast from the forest, given to his gentile rituals and to farm that sterile land in which, without doubts, his race will soon disappear’[1] (Alcides Arguedas)

This is how in 1910, one of the most important figures of the Bolivian intellectual elite, decreed the end of the Aymara people, and of all the indigenous people of Bolivia. Indigenous people, according to his Social Darwinist perspective,[2] belonged to the lower levels of the human races, and had no other possible end, but to be exterminated by the power of Civilization. Arguedas, never renounced to his vision of Bolivian reality, and at the end of his life, he became a great admirer of Adolf Hitler. His posture and analysis of the of the Bolivian State, must be considered in the historical context of his time, both regionally and internationally. Nonetheless, his ideas have held strong and perdurable in the white and mestizo imaginary of many Bolivians. There are many Bolivians, who still consider, indigenous people as inferior, and that it is that cultural inferiority that keeps the country underdeveloped.

Alcides Arguedas’ arrogance is reflected on and lives within many of today’s white and mestizo attitudes towards President Evo Morales, and the processes of political, social and cultural transformation that Bolivia is going through. Indigenous people however, despite centuries of humiliation and the systematic destruction of their cultures, have always resisted. They have resisted against the Spanish and they have resisted against a state that until 1952 did not even recognize them as citizens.

(Art: Roberto Mamani Mamani - Lago Sagrado)

Indigenous civilizations have not, as Arguedas predicted, disappeared. Their cultures have not become extinct. In fact, the opposite is occurring. Indigenous people are slowly gaining power, and step by step, they are reconstructing and postulating their ways of understanding, feeling and knowing reality. Soon, in a few years, we will see alternatives to western civilization, alternatives that have always existed, but have never been able to show us their identity, their perspective, their reality, in a word, their philosophy.

In 1973, a group of young indigenous leaders gathered at Ayo Ayo, a rural community in the highlands of La Paz. And wrote, what would become one of the most important documents in Bolivian indigenous history. The Manifesto of Tiwanaku. In it, they questioned the status quo, recognized their identity and elevated their demands. I believe it is a great document, and it shows how flawless Arguedas perspective is, and how full of life indigenous cultures are.

‘A nation that oppresses other nations, cannot be free… Us, the Aymara and Quechua peasants, and the other autochthonous cultures of the country, have agreed on something. We feel economically exploited, and culturally and politically oppressed. In Bolivia, there has not been an integration of cultures, instead, the superposition and domination of one culture over the other has been the rule. We have always been at the bottom of that pyramid… We, the peasants of Bolivia, are oppressed, but not defeated!’[3]

The changes we are seeing in Bolivia today, are not new. In the 60’s and 70’s indigenous movements in the rural areas and in the mining towns were extremely important. And these could have become centers of revolutionary activity. The right wing dictatorships of the period on their own, or with the collaboration of regional repressive apparatuses such is the Plan Condor, or the CIA, eliminated many of the leaders of such movements, through repression, exile, assassination, and often desaparición (to disappear people, as in the Chilean and Argentine regimes). Their success however, was only temporary, and the beacon of hope was never shut off, nor could they have destroyed the roads of freedom and equality.

Today Bolivia finds itself at crossroads, those who were confined to be the image on an autochthonous postcard, or were seen as a folkloric ornament, demand their right to actively participate of the Bolivian economy, its society and its culture. Principally, they demand their right to stand up, to be heard, to become democratic actors. ¿Why do people in the high middle and upper classes oppose those demands? ¿Why can’t the upper classes let go of the political power they hold and they have so systematically corrupted?

The upper classes claim that the government neglects their demands for dialogue and negotiations. But they do not look at their own attitudes. They are the ones who refuse to negotiate. They refuse to give up their class privileges. They refuse to understand that Bolivia has changed and is no longer the country they used to manipulate. They refuse to accept that they cannot suck and enrich on the country’s resources anymore, while the great majority lives in poverty or extreme poverty. They refuse to acknowledge that most Bolivians have wakened up, and are willing to demand their rights through democratic processes.

---

[1] Alcides Arguedas’ Pueblo Enfermo. La Paz: Ediciones Isla. [1909 1^st ed., 1936 3^rd ed.] 1979, pp. 39. Arguedas and Franz Tamayo, were the most important thinkers of the early 20^th century. They both debated over the Indian issue at the beginning of the century, and their influence was to have long lasting effects. For Arguedas, the Indian race was destined to disappear because of its inferior nature, he believed that the country was a sick country because it was populated by a majority of Indians whose natural meaningless culture kept the country behind other Latin American countries in the march towards progress, it could be argued that he was a social Darwinist, in the 3^rd edition of his essay Pueblo Enfermo (A Sick People), he even cites Hitler to justify his segregationist views. Tamayo on the other hand believes that Indian people could become civilized, in his most important essay Creación de la Pedagogía Nacional, he praises the Indian race for its strength and argues that its endurance in the course of history shows its racial superiority, ‘the Aymara race will become one of the prominent races of the world’, this also shows the social Darwinist influences of the period. Nonetheless even though Tamayo acknowledges the vitality, and energetic strength of the Indian, he argues that they lack the faculty to think like a westerner. It should be noted that Tamayo, a great poet and political thinker, had an Aymara mother and possibly an Aymara father, although he was adopted and raised by a very wealthy aristocrat. Tamayo, Franz. Creación de la Pedagogía Nacional. La Paz: Ministerio de Educación, [1910] 1944, pp. 110-123.

[2] Saenz, Mario. The Identity of Liberation in Latin American Thought. Maryland: Lexington Books. 1999. There is an interesting analysis of Alcides Arguedas’ thinking and other contemporary Latin American thinkers in this book. I highly recommend it.

[3] Manifiesto de Tiwanaku. 1973. There are probably no English translations of it, and it is very difficult to find one, even in Spanish. The author of this post, will try to translate the whole Manifesto, and post it here on a later date.

Poor performance or poor imagination? (part 1)

I

When ideas and arguments to make intelligent opposition do not come easily, poor imagination tries to show simple and perfectly expectable events, as if they were the worst curse. The interests of the Bolivian economic and political elites, who until very recent times, controlled economic and political systems in the country, are full of poor imagination. We can see this in recent attempts (here and there) to present the Bolivian economic performance for 2007 as an example of unsuccessful policy.

What is wrong with the Bolivian economic performance? Well, according to the poor imagination… everything! Let’s take a look at the “pitiful” performance(*):

• The GDP “just” grew 4% in 2007

• The Gross Fixed Capital Formation as percentage of GDP “just” increased from 13,5% in 2006 to 14,8% in 2007

• The foreign investment “just” grew from $us 237 millions in 2006 to $us 240 millions in 2007

• The exports of goods f.o.b. “just” increased from $us 3,863 million in 2006 to $us 4,211 million in 2007, and exports of services f.o.b. “just” from $us 434 millions to $us 473 millions

• The central government “foolishly” finished the year with a public finances’ 2,1% (as percentage of GDP) surplus.

• Finally, the key symbol of poor imagination: the Consumer Prices Index grew from 4,9% in 2006 to 11,9% in 2007.

Besides the inflation rate, why would the remaining positive numbers be so “disturbing”? The so-called “arguments” to support the thesis are, to say the less, funny, and show how far it is the anti-government propaganda to go in its goal of misrepresentation of reality. The poorest two arguments refer to GDP growth rate and Consumer Prices variation. This post analyses the “arguments” for GDP growth. A later post will examine the “arguments” for Consumer Prices.

II

The Bolivian economy grew by 4,0%, and some argue that there’s something wrong with it? Interesting. Why? Because —poor imagination says— Latin American economic performance was a bit higher than the Bolivian one. Since the Latin American economy as a whole grew by 5,6%, then the 4,0% of Bolivian performance is awful. That is an interesting conclusion. And very, very, very intelligent. Don’t you think?

Let’s take a look at the evolution of GDP growth rate in the last decade. From 1999 to 2003, the Bolivian economy grew annually at a rate near 2,0%. The consequences of the Asian crisis were intense. They affected, of course, the Latin American economies as a whole. However, in 2004 they returned to a path of positive figures. Since then, the Bolivian GDP started to grow at a 4,0% rate. None of the years after 2003, however, the Bolivian economy grew more than Latin American (see chart). Furthermore, in the last 25 years, the Bolivian economy growth was bigger than 5,0% only in three years (1991, 1997, and 1998). It seems that structural limitations affect economic growth in Bolivia, which does not depend on, nor is it able to overcome trough, a one-year set of public policies. Why, then, 2007’s economic policies are worse than those implemented years before? May be because before 2006 the Bolivian president was not “indigenous”? 4,0% of economic growth for a White Hispanic administration is alright, but it is not for Evo Morales?

Latin America and Bolivia: GDP annual growth rates, 1999 - 2007

(in constant 2000 $us dollars) a/

Source: ECLAC
a/ Preliminary figures for 2007

Beyond speculations, the 4,0%, of course, could be better. Social instability and some of the economic reforms implemented by the Morales administration generated uncertainty, which tended to scare foreign investment. Indeed, the foreign investment growth rate for 2007 was minor than 2006’s. But, in this scenario, the 4,0% growth rate means exactly the opposite to poor imagination’s diagnosis. The economy grew 4,0% even with less foreign investment. Moreover, the growth rate shows that the domestic consumption and public expenditure are strong, though not irresponsible. It also confirms that the Bolivian economy entered into an expansive cycle, which probably will finish in 2008. The 4,0% seems to hurt prides and self esteems, perhaps because it appears as a very, very healthy sign… Don’t you think? All points of view are welcome…

And don’t forget to visit:

Nada Particular for more detailed analysis of Bolivian GDP evolution (Spanish)

INE for Bolivian official statistics (Spanish)

ECLAC for statistics and papers regarding Latin American and Bolivian socioeconomic issues (Spanish and English)

UDAPE for Bolivian public policies analysis (Spanish)

________________________________________________

(*) Since data for last year's economic indicators is not already available at INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadística - National Institute of Sttatistics, the public office responsible for official information in Bolivia), all the information for the preset post was taken from ECLAC, Balance Preliminar de las economías de América Latina y el Caribe 2007. Santiago: ECLAC, 2007. All figures are preliminary.

Repetitive Media

Impressed by the unstoppable economic power of the Mass Media -directly reflected upon the public mind- and as a Bolivian citizen exposed to the most irresponsible 'freedom of speech' , unethical behavior and open animosity against a democratically elected office in my own country, I designed a drawing representing the way I picture the Mass Media of Bolivia: a vicious circle of prefabricated 'news' being echoed from the source through all listeners; affecting everyone and thus transforming the general public into numbed broadcasters of unreal 'facts'. My intention, through this drawing, is to criticize all those unethical media that rather than being loyal to their communication principles are just following a personal agenda.

The Un-Renounceable Genesis-Horizon: Democracy

Nevertheless, I love you,
land of clay,
and others love you as well,
and something will come out of this sentiment
Julio Cortazar - The Motherland

Manifesto

The democratic life of our nation has been marked by historical dislocations, without them we would not be able to understand the junctures in which, as a country, we are trying to stand up. The situation of our country is conflictive and information is often manipulated, we feel as if we were in the quicksands, we must climb out of them, and we must solidly create our own firm ground. We believe we will be celebrating the creation of a new country, we know we need it.

We are conscious that the road ahead will be difficult. Many obstacles will constantly cross the path of transformation that we are confronting. But we are even more conscious, that there are 9 million Bolivians living in Bolivia and 3 million Bolivian emigrants that point in one direction, and have one aspiration, one horizon, one dream, one ultimate goal, we all want CHANGES now!

We will do this under the un-negotiable premises of freedom and democracy, cornerstones in the construction of the new State. The essential foundations of our thinking come to life from the shared perspectives and understandings we have, the un-renounceable principles that govern us are: National Unity, Freedom and Democracy.

Under no circumstances we will allow anyone to kidnap the free voice of the Bolivian people. We will not let them transgress the rules, nor the game field, that we as a country, have established for this process of transformation.

We will defend the democratic processes our country is going through, with the energy of our souls and the strength of our voices. The polls will be the ones to have the final say, and we believe we must protect, the right that every citizen of Bolivia has, to participate freely in the democratic processes that will bring change about to Bolivia. We believe it is at the polls that we will celebrate our plurality of perspectives and ideas, the results whatever they signal, must be respected.

To the Politicians: We demand the central government and the regional governors to sit and negotiate. All Bolivians want them to negotiate and to find a path of dialogue and understanding. As a country we have decided to write and choose a new Constitution and regional autonomies. The hopes and sentiments of the Bolivian people are invested in those (im)possible dreams, your duty is to fulfill those dreams.

To you Bolivian citizen and to you Visitor from the World: Say YES to a process that will bring about a new Bolivia. A new country, with social justice as a beacon that guides it. Say Yes to a democratic process that lets the people choose their own destiny, say Yes to a constant dialogue among our leaders, say Yes to Freedom, say Yes to Democracy. We will fill our backpacks with dreams and other necessary weapons: information, understanding, peace, justice, brotherhood and liberty. And we promise that we will use these weapons, to create that which we all want, a new Bolivia, not just for me, not just for you, but for us all.

It shall be like that. We will not give up. Today it can be a great day, let us put it that way. Today it can be a great day, and tomorrow as well.

Colectivo Montoneros
February 9, 2008. Bolivia