BY JIMMY LANGMAN
On June 30, Bolivians went to the polls to choose their next president
and elect a new congress. No candidate gained the “50% plus one” margin
required for outright victory. Bolivia's congress will decide in early
August which of the two top vote-getters will be inaugurated as Bolivia's
next leader on August 6.
On July 9, Bolivia's National Electoral Court announced the long-awaited
final results. Former president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada of the Nationalist
Revolutionary Movement (MNR) was the front-runner with 624,126 votes (about
22.5%).
The second-highest vote went to indigenous Quechua leader Evo Morales
Ayma of the left-wing Movement to Socialism (MAS). Morales won 581,884
votes (20.9% of the vote), just 721 more than former army captain Manfred
Reyes Villa of the New Republican Force (NFR), who had been favoured in
pre-election polls.
The lack of a decisive winner reflects the Bolivian people's disenchantment
with the traditional political parties and their frustration with the government's
neo-liberal economic policies.
After 17 years of neo-liberalism, Bolivia's economy is faltering, unemployment
is on the rise and the rich-poor gap has widened. Corruption and social
exclusion remain serious problems.
Introduced in 1985 under pressure from the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) in exchange for partial relief of Bolivia's crushing foreign debt,
the neo-liberal model includes opening up markets, lowering government
spending and privatisation.
Poverty
The economic growth rate in South America's poorest country last year was
just 0.5%. About 65% of Bolivians live below the poverty line, and in the
countryside, that figure is greater than 90%.
Nearly 12% of urban Bolivians are officially out of work (accurate figures
for rural unemployment do not exist, but are estimated to be many times
higher). Many of those who do work only earn the monthly minimum wage of
US$67. Close to 66% of Bolivians are estimated to work in the informal
economy, shining shoes or selling produce and other wares in street markets,
and do not draw regular salaries.
For Bolivia's indigenous population, who make up more than 70% of Bolivia's
8.3 million people, poverty and unemployment rates are much higher still.
Even with partial debt relief in exchange for market reforms, Bolivia
currently owes US$4.37 billion to international lenders, more than half
its annual gross national product of $7 billion. Last year, the government
received US$312 million in fresh loans, but paid US$250 million to international
lenders.
Indeed, the most distinguishing aspect of the election was that virtually
all the candidates attacked neo-liberalism. Candidates of all political
stripes — including the right — attempted to tap the people's anger.
Reyes Villa — who as four-time former mayor of Bolivia's third-largest
city Cochabamba embraced controversial water privatisation schemes — shrewdly
said in a televised public debate one week before the vote: “The people
are tired. We need to leave the neo-liberal model in the past and focus
on building a productive model.”
Fourth-placed Jaime Paz Zamora, a former president (1989-1993), went
a step further and said that his Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR)
would not participate in any coalition government that maintained neo-liberal
economic policies. The votes of the MIR's congressional deputies may be
decisive in deciding whether Morales or de Lozada becomes president.
Front-runner de Lozada, popularly known as “Goni”, played a key role
in implementing market reforms in tandem with the IMF and World Bank as
president of the country from 1993-97.
But in a recent interview, even Goni denied that he supports neo-liberalism.
“I don't believe in neo-liberalism, I believe in an open market economy”,
he stated. “But I am not dogmatic. My reforms had very important social
consequences. But I think you need to have a market economy, which also
requires a great deal of government intervention, this stuff about the
invisible hand, it just doesn't work that way.”
Morales
The big surprise in the election was the showing of Morales, who is best
known opponent of US-backed neoliberal economic policies and is the leader
of the
cocaleros (peasants who grow coca leaves). He is against
US-mandated coca eradication programs. Morale's MAS also won the second-highest
number of seats in congress.
The US government moved quickly to try to prevent congress from selecting
Morales as president. On July 9, Reyes Villa told the Bolivision television
network that he had met with US ambassador Manuel Rocha. ``I didn't receive
any pressure, but he did make it clear to me that there should be no agreement
with Evo Morales'', Reyes Villa said. Reyes is not planning to lend his
support to either Sanchez de Lozada or Morales, he told Bolivision.
Rocha appeared on three TV networks on July 9 to urge the traditional
parties to unite against Morales. Rocha's statements have backfired in
the past. Morales jumped in the polls after Rocha threatened on June 26
that the US would cut off aid if voters elected ``leaders linked, one way
or another, to drug trafficking and terrorism''.
Rocha warned that if Morales was elected, or the MAS was included in
a coalition government, Washington would close its markets to Bolivian
textiles and natural gas. The threat was roundly denounced by politicians
from all of Bolivia's numerous parties.
Otto Reich, US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs,
has repeated the threats.
Morales has called for the repeal of the 1985 government decree which
initiated many of the neo-liberal “reforms” and has pledged to renationalise
many of Bolivia's privatised state companies.
Morales responded to Rocha: “The ambassador's threats don't make us
afraid. The people are rising up against the system and the model.”
Morales added that he is not pro-cocaine, but pro-coca. “Coca has been
part of our diet and traditions in Bolivia for many hundreds of years.
Coca is not the same as cocaine.”
[Jimmy Langman is a journalist based in Santiago, Chile. A frequent
visitor to Bolivia, he covers Latin America for a number of publications.
Abridged from an article issued by the Americas Program of the Interhemispheric
Resource Center, with added information from the Weekly Update on the
Americas.]
From Green Left Weekly, July 24, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.