Victory for Morales

Bolivia's socialist president, Evo Morales, wins a recall referendum reports Carl Packman plus

A concerted effort to destabilise the government of Bolivia's socialist president Evo Morales looks to have failed after the indigenous leader took on opponents in recall referendum.

In June, after the departments of Beni and Pando backed greater regional autonomy in illegal votes Morales told his supporters 'I am not afraid of the people, that they tell the truth and judge us'.

Now, according to exit polls, the people of Bolivia have resoundingly told Morales he should go ahead with new socialist initiatives despite the opposition of some department governors.

The referendum, in which 4,090,711 Bolivians were predicted to vote, was being overseen by 200 foreign observers and 4,000 Bolivian observers.

In the run-up to Sunday's vote Cristina Kirchner, President of Argentina, and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, cancelled their visits to Bolivia after masked protesters stormed the airport where they due to land.

Morales himself was forced to limit his campaign travel, especially in the areas described as the "Half-Moon" departments (Beni, Pando, Santa Cruz, Tarija) where popular anti-Morales sentiment is rife. He also broke with tradition and spent Bolivia's national day in his political heartland of Le Paz rather than the constitutional capital of Sucre - a place in which his political allies ahve been targeted.

In the capital of the Chuquisaca department, where an oppositional candidate won the election for prefect, the former Morales' Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) prefect took refuge in Peru.

A secure victory for Morales meant a repeat of his victory in the presidential race three years ago which was always quite likely, as suggested in his 59 per cent national popularity in a recent poll.

Since his win in 2005 Morales has begun to bring about change in South America's poorest country.

Six out of ten Bolivians belonging to the indigenous population. Six out of ten of the population live in squalid conditions. "Past governments focused more on businessmen so that they could generate wealth and distribute it," says Emilio Pinto Marin, a minister in the budget department, "but it didn't happen, we've been waiting for 25 years for this to happen, and it never did."

Many of the Bolivia's majority population regard Morales, himself indigenous, and the first native person to become president of Bolivia, as a hero who has been the first head of state to recognise their struggle.

Waldo, a driver who gives tours through the altiplano and Bolivia's famous salt plains, pointed out the benefits of Morales' redistribution policies when recognising small villages.

Many once only had three or four hours of electricity. But, thanks to Morales' initiatives, now have up to eight hours of light due to solar panelling. Morales' future plans are to introduce 24 hours of energy a day in these once forgotten places, and also to pave their mountainous roads with concrete.

To coincide with Morales' plans, Venezuela, with help from commercial ties with Iran, are to loan Bolivia the 225 million dollars needed to establish a state cement company. As it stands an opponent of Evo Morales' governance Samuel Doria Medina controls all cement production through private companies.

In other parts of the economic sector, revenues of natural gas and precious metals have increased since Morales nationalised the country's gas fields in 2006. Bolivia now keeps 85 per cent of its national gas profits, and with the rising energy prices have doubled profits since 2005.

Evo Morales, now having secured a success in the referendum will be exploring how best to act on his victory.

Because some of the other winners in this vote have included political opponents in regional governships, Bolivia will continue to remain politically tense.

But Morales has done well enough to try to push through some delayed socialist plans.

Carl Packman is a writer, researcher and blogger. He is the author of the forthcoming book Loan Sharks to be released by Searching Finance. He has previously published in the Guardian, Tribune Magazine, The Philosopher's Magazine and the International Journal for Žižek Studies.
 

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times