If You Oppose Evo Morales, You Are One of the “Bad Guys”
The Manichean view that makes the struggle for a just society more difficult
Mark Cramer (author of Old Man on a Green Bike and Urban Everesting)
As one who lived in Mexico during the PRI repression, resided on and off in Bolivia since 1994 and has written books on life in Bolivia, I feel that my leftist comrades are doing a disservice with a Manichean view of Bolivia in the bumpy lead-up to the presidential elections, now re-set for October.
During the early years of Evo’s government, Bolivia was the “grand espoir” in the world. I worked actively in a support group, in conjunction with Bolivian ambassadors in France, to combat the anti-Morales press coverage in Europe.
Gradually many of my Bolivian colleagues on the left became disenchanted with Evo’s government. A Manichean view would label them on the fascist right. Consider the more nuanced perspectives from Pablo Solón, who served as Evo’s chief climate negotiator.
Vital context can be found in Devin Beaulieu’s thoughtful and informative “The Meaning of a Coup.”
In 2016, Morales held a referendum on whether Bolivia could change the Constitution (that he inspired) so he could run for a fourth term. In the media, anti-imperialists (even Glenn Greenwald) refer to the 2019 coup against Morales without mentioning the vital context: that Evo lost that referendum and was thus considered by many honest Bolivian progressives and anti-racists as an illegitimate candidate.
(Correction: The link above is to an interview of Glenn Greenwald on Hill TV’s show Rising, in which he failed to mention the 2016 referendum that Morales lost. In the same interview Greenwald said of the 2014 election, “When he wanted to run for a third term, they tried to impose term limits on him.” This is partly true, but those term limits came from the same 2009 constitution fought for and then approved by Evo Morales himself. In fairness to Greenwald, he assures us he has repeatedly discussed the referendum, as well as the subsequent court ruling that invalidated the referendum, in multiple venues.)
Others give lip service to the referendum vote but provide spin: “Morales did eventually obtain the right to run in the 2019 presidential election, thanks to a ruling by the Plurinational Constitutional Court”, they write, without qualifying that these were judges appointed by Evo’s regime and that the ruling triggered large rallies in defense of the referendum result, mainly organized by leftist groups that called the court ruling undemocratic. (See: “Demonstrations in Bolivia Hit Court Decision Allowing Evo Morales to Run for a Fourth Term,” Cesar Uco, World Socialist Website, 11 Dec 2018).
Independent of the referendum, other mass protests by workers and miners opposed measures promoted by the Morales regime. (See “Why Bolivian Workers Are Marching Against Evo Morales;” Emily Achtenberg (NACLA, July 2016) and “An Independent Bolivia,” Jacquelyn Kovarik (NACLA, August 2018).
Right wingers gradually piggybacked on these leftist demonstrations. Since then, the far right has attempted, with some temporary success, to hijack the authentic opposition, but they will be voted out in October.
Anti-imperialists should recognize that legitimately disillusioned former Morales supporters make up a considerably larger portion of the voting population than far-right self-designated leaders Camacho and Añez. Consider a few examples of defenders of the referendum result / opponents of Evo, on the independent left.
Waldo Albarracín and CONADE
One leading progressive among the pro-democracy movement was the human rights defender Waldo Albarracín, once kidnapped by neo-liberal governments. To oppose the violent dictatorships in 1980, the courageous Alabarracín co-founded CONADE (National Committee for the Defense of Democracy). Albarracín, former president of the Permanent Assembly of Human Rights of Bolivia, and Rector of the National University in La Paz, now battles for his life, a victim of coronavirus. CONADE was a major participant in the movement “Bolivia Said No” in defense of the referendum result. In the violent 2019 post-election aftermath, Albarracín’s home was burnt down by arsonists.
Felipe Quispe and the United Union Confederation of Working Peasants of Bolivia (CSUTCB)
Felipe Quispe Huanca, known as Mallku in Aymara, heads the Pachacuti Indigenous Movement (MIP). His peasant confederation actively participated in the recent blockade movement that called for the resignation of “interim president” Jeanine Añez and the holding of the promised presidential election. (Recent polls indicate that the Evo-backed economist Luis Arce is tied for the lead at 23% with the centrist, journalist Carlos Mesa. Añez, who as interim president should not legally be running, has 12%).
Quispe has characterized Evo as representing “neoliberalism with an Indian face” (See INFOBAE, “El líder indígena Felipe Quispe acusó a Evo Morales de “Neoliberal” y “Vendepatria” (26 Aug 2017).
Municipalities of El Alto and La Paz
During the second decade of the century, municipal governments of majority indigenous cities that “should have” elected candidates of Evo’s MAS party have instead elected opposition-party progressives. The combined population of these two cities represents nearly a fourth of Bolivia’s inhabitants, partly explaining why Evo lost the 2016 referendum that would have given him legal right to run for a fourth term. Today, even the FEJUVE, the neighborhood councils central to toppling Goni in the 2003 Gas War, have been split into pro-MAS and anti-MAS parallel organizations. Even the former Morales stronghold of El Alto is divided between supporting and opposing Morales.
The Environmentalist Left
Bolivia’s environmentalist activists largely supported Evo’s defense of the Pachamama (Mother Earth) and his support of their non-materialistic Vivir Bien philosophy. Things began to unwind after the 2011 government repression of an indigenous march in Tipnis that opposed the construction of a forest-depleting highway. Following Tipnis, Bolivia’s chief climate negotiator, Pablo Solón resigned from the government. Solón’s open letter to “President and Brother Evo Morales” published by leftist media, is a must read.
Since then Evo’s anti-environmental policies have led to the defection of environmental warriors. Two Morales measures include: the authorization in March 2019 of GM crops for soy farmers to produce biodiesel fuels and the presidential Supreme Decree 3973 which loosened restrictions for land-cleaning fires in the Bolivia Amazon from 5 to 20 hectares, leading to catastrophic forest fires. (See “No Refuge for the Amazon in Evo Morales’ Bolivia”, subtitled: “Evo Morales has carefully cultivated his image on the world stage as an indigenous defender of the “Pachamama (Mother Earth)” but his domestic policies belie another reality”).
Feminist anti-fascists like María Galindo
A major voice among independents is feminist María Galindo. Originally a supporter of Evo’s government, she became a thorn in its side. Galindo is a staunch anti-fascist, and as with other Evo opponents listed above, it would be a knee-jerk absurdity to link her with the far right.
Independent leftists in Bolivia have rightfully called for Jeanine Añez to resign.
We do a disservice to progressives not familiar with Bolivia to paint Bolivian social reality with a sloganeering broad brush.
Morales deserves credit for participating in the decolonialization process. Had he not succumbed to the thirst for absolute power, he could have been known as the greatest president in Bolivian history.
Long before the disputed election, Evo was requiring state employees to attend his rallies and was using state funds to campaign, much like the PRI in Mexico used to do. For example, Evo’s portrait was on the cabins of La Paz’s magnificent aerial cable car public transportation system, Mi Teleférico. Evo deserved credit for legislation that enabled the construction of the system, which had been planned since the early 1990s.
But even Donald Trump would not try to place his portrait on public transportation in the lead-up to the US election. We should have learned from the previous century not to be sucked in by any cult of personality.
I urge fellow democratic socialists to not allow the Bolivian conflict, which is also devastated by coronavirus, to provide fodder for anti-socialist arguments.
I quote Bro. Anthony Zuba from 2019: “Morales’ grip on power drove an unnecessary wedge between democracy and socialism, as absolute power has done many times before in other nations. Ah, when will we have a truly democratic socialism in Latin America, or anywhere for that matter? For socialism to be truly democratic, socialists will have to trust in democracy. Morales, his ministers, and his political coalition could have developed a new generation of leaders … by grooming successors from among his base of trade unionists, farmers, and indigenous organizations.”
Bolivia’s popular movements have a tradition of rebounding and producing new hope and concrete results. From the current protests may emerge new non-authoritarian leaders who will build on Evo’s accomplishments, restore the defiled environmental provisions of the Constitution and regain the collective and democratic spirit. The fascist hijackers will be defeated.
