• Listen to this segment

GUEST: Dr. Waltraud “Trudi” Q. Morales, Professor of Political science at the University of Central Florida. She is the author of “Bolivia: Land of Struggle” and more recently “A Brief History of Bolivia”

Bolivia’s wealthiest province voted for autonomy from the central government yesterday. Santa Cruz, populated by a wealthy elite of largely European descent, has defied attempts by Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales, to centralize the economy in order to share its benefits more equally. Morales declared the vote illegal, unconstitutional, and dictatorial. Three more states out of a total of nine, plan to hold autonomy votes next month. If these wealthier Eastern states declare autonomy, it would split the country, leaving a poorer population in the Western Andes region. The autonomy measures come at a time when Bolivia’s constitution is being rewritten to give more land and national wealth to its indigenous population. In that vein, last Thursday Morales made the May Day announcement that his government was taking control of the national telephone company and some foreign-owned energy companies. Bolivian soldiers and police took over the installations being nationalized after Morales pronounced that “Bolivia wants partners, not owners.” The move is part of an on-going two-year nationalization process.

Rough Transcript

Sonali Kolhatkar: what exactly does autonomy mean for Santa Cruz? Does it mean simply control over the economy, or also their own military and police?

Dr. Waltraud Morales: Yes, that is a big question. You know, what the autonomy means. They have planned to have their own state police, a state legislature, which would be elected directly, a governor, which would be elected rather than appointed by the President as is currently the case constitutionally. They would have control over their immediate resources in the department, oil and gas in particular, but also there is a lot of investment in the Santa Cruz department, and another big issue is land and property rights. There are huge agro-business firms and the current constitution and promises on which the Morales government was elected was that of land reform. So there is fear that the territory of those large owners would be constricted and the farms would have to be broken up into smaller sizes. There is also even a discussion that they would be able to negotiate their own contracts with foreign transnational corporations, because as a result of this two-year nationalization, there has been less investment, particularly in the Santa Cruz region, and this area is very pro-market forces and so there is that issue. Some have even speculated that the territory wants to negotiate independent international treaties, and that of course would then touch the whole issue of national sovereignty and the unity of the country.

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, let’s talk about the vote itself. How did poorer and indigenous people in Santa Cruz react to the vote?

Dr. Waltraud Morales: Well, I only saw the wired releases that occurred late last night. And according to exit polls, they were saying that over 80%, 85-86% had voted Yes and that maybe 40 something percent or so had abstained from the vote. This was the policy that was being used by the central government. They were telling their supporters to not go to the polls, rather than to go and vote No; just abstain from the vote, which they considered illegitimate.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Weren’t there also attempts to block polling booths and also one polling booth was torn down, I believe?

Dr. Waltraud Morales: Yes, there were some incidences of violence and some confrontations. There were youth groups on both sides, you know, the Pro Santa Cruz Committee has a youth group and they were mobilized, and of course the indigenous migrant people, many of whom that migrated decades ago, but are not originally from Santa Cruz, and that were some of the poorer population, some even slum areas of the region, they were also, you know, running through the areas where there was voting. And so there was some destruction of the booths and so forth. But in general, there was limited violence. Given the fear that there was going to be a lot more.

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, the issue that is unfolding in Bolivia seems to be reflective of a pretty serious racial divide as well as of course a class divide. The BBC and AFP have openly said that the Santa Cruz residents, who are pro-autonomy, have extremely racist views against the indigenous populations. So do you see this as a divide that is both racial and class-based?

Dr. Waltraud Morales: Yes, it is. It’s race, it’s class, it’s culture. The Santa Cruz region has its own background, its history, even from the early founding of the country, was founded in slightly different context in the early 1950’s. It was a backwater region pretty much ignored by the central government and then it developed with perhaps limited resources and help from the central government, and now the tables have been turned. So there is that economic issue. It’s curious that Chavez of Venezuela has criticized what was going on as Operation Kosovo. Well, it’s because a lot of the migrants in that part of the country are also from European heritage, and some of them are Serbian, and so you do have this curious European connection and militancy for a Cruceño nationalism, if we can use that word, or regionalism. So that is there. They do support the rights of the Guaraní and native Indian peoples in Santa Cruz, but not the right so much of the Andean Quechua and Aymara Indians. So the racial component is not as simple as Indian vs. Non-Indian, and in a sense, one isn’t sure to what degree the native indigenous people are somewhat being manipulated by the interest of the more [inaudible] and the more white oligarchy, which is the term that is being used by the opponents of these measures.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Is Morales correct in declaring the autonomy vote illegal? Is it against the constitution? And also, does he have the legal authority then to take over the regions by force?

Dr. Waltraud Morales: I have read constitutional opinions on both sides. It seemed extremely dense to me. There was a referendum two years ago, in July 2006, and in that referendum, which was a national one, the four provinces or departments or states, if you want to use the US term, Santa Cruz, Pando, Beni, Tarija, they voted Yes on the autonomy question. The other five departments of the country voted No. And those were most central and highland regions that are a little bit more impoverished. So that issue was tabled and so kind of was in the wings. In that sense what is going on now has not been nationally approved. The autonomy statute that was written was written only in Santa Cruz. It was written by an electoral commission of Santa Cruz, not the national electoral commission. It was not approved by the country’s legislature, the national legislature, and the statute itself and the provisions were kind of done in the backroom way. So those that oppose its constitutionality or legality say this was not done under the normal provisions of the constitution. However, the other issue is the fact that in November/December, a provisional constitution, proposed constitution, was agreed upon, but it was agreed upon mainly by the supporters of Morales’ government, the MAS, the Movement Toward Socialism, and the opponents of it had left the assembly, and so they argue that the proposed constitution is illegitimate and that they have the right, you know, to go and make their own direct democracy by the people, which is what they say this referendum is in Santa Cruz.

Sonali Kolhatkar: I want to ask you more about the draft constitution. So, Morales is going to have to deal with these autonomy movements. It is essentially threatening to split the entire country. What is his plan, or has he declared any kind of a plan to deal with it?

Dr. Waltraud Morales: Yes, that’s a really good question and I want to answer it. I just want to propose several broad questions of how this is all shaping up. I mean, one of the things that is going on here is: whose autonomy, when is this autonomy going to be worked out, how is it going to be defined and by whom is it going to be defined? The constitutional assembly that met last fall/winter, came up with some autonomy provisions that would have given autonomy also to 36 indigenous groups in the country. So, in one level, Morales is not against the autonomy provision, but he is against it being done by these individual departments or states under their own influence, rather than as part of a whole national agenda. And an agenda that he can influence and his supporters can influence. So you can see that there isn’t any autonomy desired, but it depends on how it is going to be defined and by whom. Now, his emphasis on allowing more rights for indigenous groups. These are groups that have been promised land reform and issues, and they are actually very upset that things have not moved more quickly. That land hasn’t already been distributed. So, in a sense, Morales, although many people want to paint him as extreme, is really in the middle, being pushed by extremists on each side.

Sonali Kolhatkar: And I understand he still enjoys a 54% approval rating, however, and that may be based on the fact that the majority of the population is indigenous?

Dr. Waltraud Morales: That is one of it, but see, that approval rating, even though it sounds good to us, I think he was as high as in the 70’s and 80’s at one point. So his approval rating has actually slipped in the last year. And so one can see this autonomy move as timed, almost like you would have, you know, elections in Britain or some place, when you have parliamentary elections, timed when he is somewhat on a weak level. He is, what we call nationalizations or indemnification, taking over some of these continued foreign holdings in the Santa Cruz region, in a way the state gets 51% of the shares, was in part to weaken some of the economic base of the Santa Cruz region. At the same time, the Santa Cruz people are using this referendum to put pressure on Morales at a delicate time, to make him and his government more amenable to talks. They have been talking for the last month, but not coming to any resolution. So he is going to have to talk with them now, and there is more pressure on him, and they have a little bit more cards in their hands as a result of this vote.

Sonali Kolhatkar: How organized are Bolivia’s wealthy? Are the regions that want autonomy working closely with one another and is there any evidence that they may be getting outside support to undermine Morales’ presidency, which is seen as threatening to the West and to corporations?

Dr. Waltraud Morales: Yes, this is one of the charges that Morales himself has made. He has criticized the U.S. Ambassador Goldberg as being supportive and earlier in the year there was some talk about USAID money going to groups that wasn’t as transparent as it could be. So this is something that he has been saying. The Castro government, or the former Castro government, has been saying this, Chavez as well. I’m not sure. I mean, it’s possible that some money funneled through NGOs and through other government assistance, but on the other hand you have President Correa of Ecuador, who is supportive of Morales, Lula da Silva in Brazil is supportive of Morales and even Argentina, the Kirchner government, neither of these have taken up the proposals or the initiatives by Santa Cruz to make any deals with them directly. So, right now, he is still in control. Is there a foreign activity going on? Yes, probably some, but I wouldn’t be able to judge the implications of that.

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, finally, Trudi, what is the status of the draft constitution, and this is something we covered last November, where it was approved as you said under a strict military security and the supporters of Morales in the assembly voted for it, the rest boycotted. What is the current status of this process and how does it fit with these autonomy measures?

Dr. Waltraud Morales: Well, one of the things that you mentioned is that autonomy votes are also scheduled for the other three provinces, you know, in June. And they are watching what is happening in Santa Cruz. So what is going to happen with the constitution is obviously somewhat contingent on what these other provinces do, because they argue it isn’t legitimate because they weren’t there for the final vote, and they don’t like some of its provisions. So, what I see, if they go on with their referendums scheduled, is if there is going to be some really tough negotiating between these “Media Luna” or these eastern provinces in the central government and probably some changes to aspects of the constitution. In a sense, autonomy and more decentralization is a good thing in theory, and in practice it has allowed indigenous groups and urban groups, cities, as well as departments, to have more democracy. But, at the same time, as you are trying to make some massive reforms in the country, the government needs some central control. So this democracy is playing out both for and against the government. The negotiations is really what is going to see what happens with the constitution.

Sonali Kolhatkar: It seems as though these words autonomy and democracy are not, you know, there is a context to them, which is the race and class context that we have discussed earlier, which changes the discussion a little bit. It is not simply autonomy and democracy, which in principal are of course important concepts to embrace, but in this particular case there are added dimensions that are sometimes not mentioned.

Dr. Waltraud Morales: Yes, and this all has very, very broad historical context. It’s ironic that the Bolivian government has been centralized now for the longest time, in a sense it’s not what standard is in a lot of governments around the world which are decentralizing, however, there was little clamor for decentralization and so-called more democracy at the local level by the Cruceño people until the Morales government came into office. And in part in the 80’s, under the government of Banzer, you had a Cruceño running the country, very centralized, militarized fashion, and everyone was happy.

Special Thanks to Claudia Greyeyes for transcribing this interview