Sunday, October 19, 2014

Bolivia’s Evo Morales re-elected, but important challenges lie ahead

image

Evo Morales addresses supporters in La Paz on election night. In foreground, David Choquehuenca, Bolivia’s foreign minister.

By Richard Fidler

As expected, Evo Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) government won a resounding victory in Bolivia’s national presidential and parliamentary election October 12.

Although official results will not be available until November (more on that below), the MAS was re-elected with just over 61% of the popular vote, three percentage points less than in 2009 and short of the 74% support the MAS had proclaimed as its goal. However, the MAS vote was more evenly spread throughout the country; it won a plurality in eight of Bolivia’s nine departments, including three of the four that make up the so-called “half-moon” in the country’s east and north, which in 2008 were in open revolt against the indigenous-led government.

In the bicameral Plurinational Legislative Assembly (ALP), the MAS may have regained the two-thirds majority it won in 2009. When the plurinominal seats (based on proportional representation of the parties with 3% or more of the national vote — see note 1) are awarded, the MAS will likely have 113 of the 166 seats — 25 of the 36 Senators and 88 of the 130 Deputies, or 68% of the total.[1] This would mean that the MAS will be able unilaterally to amend Bolivia’s Constitution, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.

At present the Constitution bars further re-election for Evo Morales. But an amendment could allow Evo Morales to run again in 2019, as many MAS supporters fervently hope. In any case, as the country’s first indigenous president, he is about to become Bolivia’s longest serving leader in a country famous for its coup-ridden past.

Almost half of the ALP members will now be women, as the new Constitution requires each party slate to include gender parity.

Among the four major opposition parties, all to the right of the MAS, the most votes went to Democratic Unity (UD), a coalition of the parties headed by millionaire businessman Samuel Doria Medina and Ruben Costas, the governor of Santa Cruz department. Doria Medina, the ex-minister in charge of many privatizations in previous neoliberal governments, made his fortune in cement production and is also the Bolivian owner of the Burger King chain. Costas was a leader of the 2008 failed insurrection.

The UD took about 25% of the vote, considerably more than the 18% it registered in pre-election public opinion polling. It was followed by the Christian Democrats led by former conservative president Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, with about 9%. Trailing far behind were the Movimiento Sin Miedo (the Fearless Movement) led by former La Paz mayor Juan del Granado, and the Partido Verde (Greens), led by Fernando Vargas, a lowlands indigenous leader of the 2011 TIPNIS march. With less than 3% each, the latter two parties risk losing their official status under Bolivia’s election law.

Almost three million Bolivians live outside the country, mainly in neighboring Argentina and Brazil, as well as Spain and the United States. In this election these economic exiles had the right to vote, and in the 33 countries where this was possible the vote abroad went heavily in favour of the MAS, which took 72%. Last year was the first in many years in which more Bolivians returned to take up residence in the country than left to find work elsewhere, a reflection of the relative prosperity the country is enjoying under the Morales government.

MAS outlines its agenda for coming mandate

The MAS ran on its well-known record of impressive progress in social policy and improvements in living standards, promising more of the same with a shift in the coming mandate toward greater emphasis on economic development to strengthen Bolivian sovereignty.

Under Morales, writes NACLA blogger Emily Achtenberg,

“Bolivia has experienced unprecedented economic prosperity, the benefits of which have largely been redistributed to the country’s poor and indigenous majority. Morales’s state-led economic policy, emphasizing the re-nationalization of strategic sectors divested by past neoliberal governments (including hydrocarbons, telecommunications, electricity, and some mines), has vastly increased revenues for public works, infrastructure improvements, social spending, and economic benefits.

“While Bolivia’s GDP has almost tripled since 2005, when Morales was first elected, the minimum wage—up 20% last year alone—has increased at about the same rate. The population living in extreme poverty (on less than $1.25 per day) is down by 32%, the largest reduction in Latin America.

“The government’s popular cash transfer programs for the elderly, school children, and pregnant mothers have reduced income inequality and infant mortality, while boosting school attendance and high school graduation rates. In short, Morales’s economic and redistributive policies have significantly improved the living standards of average Bolivians….”

The 57-page Program for Government of the MAS-IPSP (the latter initials standing for “Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of the Peoples,” the party’s full name), outlined 12 major objectives it hoped to achieve by 2020. Bolivian blogger Katu Arkonada summarizes:

“The first is reduction of extreme poverty. While the Agenda Patriótica[2] projected the abolition of extreme poverty by 2025, the MAS hopes it will be reduced to 9% by 2020 nationwide, with its complete elimination a task still to be accomplished by 2025 in 100 of Bolivia’s 339 municipalities.

“Combined with this, as the second objective in the MAS program, is universalization of basic services: 100% of urban areas with drinkable water and electricity and 80% with sewage systems, while in the rural areas the corresponding coverage would be 90% and 60% respectively. In addition, it sets the challenge of providing a million household gas connections, compared to the present 450,000 (up from 44,000 in 2005).

“These goals are closely related to the third proposal in the MAS program, to provide 70% of the population with access to housing, education and health services by 2020, with coverage under a universal health plan.

“The fourth proposal is defined as the technological and scientific revolution, which includes the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes with the goal of achieving the country’s energy independence.

“This proposal is linked to the fifth, industrialization, to increase job creation through the plan to invest $1.8 billion in a complete petrochemical complex in Tarija, as previously announced, along with $3 billion in construction of a second petrochemical complex by 2020. These investments are in addition to the $800 million for development of lithium, one of the future energy sources for Bolivia, which has the world’s largest deposits of this resource.

“The MAS program contains a clear commitment to achieving energy sovereignty for Bolivia, with the generation by 2020 of 1,672 MW of power, of which 1,000 will be exported to neighbouring countries, along with a diversification of the energy matrix. And while energy sovereignty is fundamental, so also is food sovereignty.

“The sixth proposal in the MAS program sets the objective for 2020 of covering at least 60% of the domestic demand for wheat in addition to increasing geographical coverage under universal farm insurance from 175,000 hectares to 520,000 hectares.

“This is combined with the seventh proposal, Water for Life, through development of water and irrigation operations along with forestry management and protection of biodiversity.

“The eighth goal in the MAS program for 2020 is integration of the country through the construction of highways; air, rail and river transportation; and further construction of cableways in La Paz to reach other neighbourhoods and zones.

“The ninth proposal in turn is to “take care of the present in order to ensure the future,” for example by increasing pensions and cash transfers linked to growth in the economy, along with many other objectives.

“The tenth task for Vivir Bien is to guarantee a sovereign and safe country, with proposals to strengthen citizen security and the fight against narcotrafficking, two of the major preoccupations of the population along with corruption and the problems in the justice system, the eleventh proposal of the MAS.

“Two novel proposals in this connection are to establish an Assembly for Revolution in Justice with social participation, and adoption of a Law of Constitutional Reform and Referendum for judicial change with the goal of achieving a real revolution in the justice system with popular participation. […]

“Finally, the MAS calls for a world order for life and humanity in order to Vivir Bien: People’s Diplomacy as a challenge to pursue the horizon opened in 2014 with the G77+China summit, the Anti-Imperialist International Trade Union Conference and its political thesis, or the São Paulo Forum held in August in La Paz; reform of the United Nations; a new international financial architecture; return of access to the sea with sovereignty; for the defense of the coca leaf and the rights of the indigenous peoples.”

A ‘victory for nationalization, anti-imperialism’

The programs of the other parties are available (in Spanish) here. A striking feature of the major right-wing parties that fielded presidential slates was their promise to establish closer relations with the United States. The UD, for example, favoured Bolivia’s entry to the Pacific Alliance, the trade and investment agreement with Peru, Chile, Mexico and Colombia that Washington has promoted, along with other bilateral agreements, as a response to Latin American rejection of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. The PDC sought “preferential” trade relations with North America and Europe, while the MSM called for “complementary” relations, not “confrontation” with Washington.

The right-wing parties also promoted law-and-order agendas to counter problems in the justice system and citizen insecurity in the face of urban crime. And Doria Medina of the UD indicated that he would radically reduce the taxes on the transnational petroleum companies which, since the 2006 nationalization of hydrocarbon resources, have operated under revised contracts with the government for refining and export services. Some 30% of state revenues are now derived from taxes and royalties on extractive resource industries.

In his election night victory speech to the thousands of Bolivians massed outside the presidential palace in La Paz, Evo Morales said this “new triumph of the Bolivian people” was a victory of “nationalization against privatization” and for “liberation, anticolonialism and anti-imperialism.” And he dedicated it in particular to “the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, and the late president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez.”

While the MAS continues to state that socialism is the ultimate horizon of its “democratic and cultural revolution,” in this campaign it was successful in its efforts to recruit members, and even candidates, from the opposition parties. As Emily Achtenberg reported:

“Following the return to MAS of Abel Mamani, a former El Alto community leader and Minister of Water in the first Morales government who defected to the MSM in 2010, some 500 MSM party activists have transferred their loyalties to the MAS. At least 6 MSM congressional candidates (in El Alto and Santa Cruz) have abandoned their campaigns to join the MAS…..

“At the same time, 600 militants from the conservative Democratic National Action Party (ADN) of Santa Cruz, formed by ex-military dictator Hugo Banzer, have been welcomed by the MAS leadership after renouncing their party affiliations. More than a few conservative opposition leaders from the old neoliberal parties have reinvented themselves as MAS legislative candidates, much to the chagrin of long-time progressive constituents who feel unrepresented by them.”

The presence of these new recruits may well serve to reinforce the influence of the more conservative elements in the MAS.

New challenges, new debates

In a wide-ranging article first published in July, Katu Arkonada,[3] who is also a MAS militant, pointed to a number of disquieting features of the political landscape now unfolding in Bolivia. On the assumption that the MAS would win its coveted two-thirds majority in the Legislature, Arkonada thought the party should work to eliminate the constitutional prohibition on further re-election of the president.

“At present there is no substitute for Evo as the driving force behind the process of change; he crystallizes as no one else the popular classes of Bolivia, the indigenous campesino movement and its imaginaries,[4] aspirations and horizons. So it makes no sense to limit mandates for the one who best expresses the popular will…. Especially in an Assembly in which the opposition presence will be stronger and better prepared than the present one, seeking to build a leadership that can contest the presidency in 2019.

“In this sense, some thought should be given to how to deal with a right wing that will recycle, transform and portray itself as closely as it can to Capriles in Venezuela.[5] The solution lies not in pragmatism or agreements with the opposition but by confrontation from the hard core of the social movements, unions and indigenous peoples that have driven forward the process of change.

“Social movements that must continue on in creative balance with the government and the state. Movements that must be the base from which to deepen and radicalize the process, to transform the political and decolonizing revolution into an authentic social revolution in opposition to the attempts to stand pat and go no further, simply managing and profiting from what has been achieved up to now.”

If indeed Morales is unable to run again, the analogy to the post-Chávez Venezuelan experience (and possibly to post-Lula Brazil) is particularly relevant. In any case, the MAS will have to give some careful thought to developing broader leadership structures, preferably by promoting experienced leaders from the social movements that are its base, in the same way that Morales himself, the leader of the coca farmers’ union, emerged as an outstanding leader in the decade before 2005.

Arkonada also noted another key task facing the government in the coming term. Pre-election polling indicated that among those most sympathetic to the opposition were young people.

“And in this connection a crucial issue is what is to be done about the aspirations and demands of the middle class. When the margins of democracy are widened, people want more rights. Insofar as one to two million Bolivians are members of the middle class, unsatisfied demands increase in the cities, where the redistribution of wealth or improvements in living conditions are not viewed in the same way as in the countryside. Just as in Brazil, where the protests against the increase in transit fares did not occur in the Northeast, where there is more poverty but also more redistribution, but in São Paulo where they were led by dissatisfied middle-class youth, in Bolivia we have to be prepared for a similar stage of social conflict and demands.

“And also to prepare for 2019 when the opposition will not only come with a Bolivian Capriles but the voters’ list will be swelled with a million new voters, many of them born around 2000 and who have not experienced neoliberalism or the water or gas wars. How can we win the support of a new generation, which thinks the presence of the state or the redistribution of wealth are permanent facts of life and not an achievement that can be reversed?”

With its massive majority vote, the MAS may be tempted to sit on its laurels and be content with mere administration of government without taking advantage of the opportunity to deepen and radicalize its “process of change” in the coming years. However, although Bolivia is enjoying unprecedented economic stability and support for the government is high, there is little evidence that the social movements at the base of the MAS support are demobilizing — on the contrary.

image

Evo Morales meets with leaders of CONALCAM (National Coordination for Change), the pro-MAS coalition of social movements. On far left, next to Evo, is Alfredo Rada.

In a post-election article, Alfredo Rada, the deputy minister for social movements in the government, seems to be addressing this possibility. He draws attention to the need to strengthen the “revolutionary social bloc” that he identifies as a key factor in the MAS victory:

“The indigenous-worker-popular bloc can now continue advancing in the construction of revolutionary hegemony seeking to expand it to growing sectors of the population – all those who do not exploit alienated labour – mobilizing them in terms of transformations in the economic structure, not only in the property regime but fundamentally in the capitalist relations of production through social and political transformations that deepen democracy, incorporating participative and communitarian practices, and through cultural transformations that overcome the colonial and patriarchal ways of thinking and doing.

“The program, understood as a dynamic construction from the permanent relation with the social movements, must be guided by the anticapitalist principles constantly alluded to in the speeches.”

Rada notes the need in the coming period to deepen the agrarian reform. A “Congress of Land and Territory” called by the confederations of farmers, indigenous peoples and “intercultural communities” (newly settled farmers from the Altiplano), meeting in Santa Cruz in June, had denounced the land seizures being carried out by wealthy foreigners in alliance with Bolivian landlords, creating what they termed new forms of latifundio and a reconcentration of land ownership in the market. They “proposed a new Agrarian Revolution to strengthen campesino and communitarian forms of production aimed at achieving food sovereignty.” This, said Rada, “is of course incompatible with the demands on the government that are being made by the Santa Cruz bourgeoisie in their Eastern Agricultural Chamber of Commerce.”

Another major challenge, Rada notes, is the “fall in international prices” in the mining industry.

“An immediate response is to increase the national capacity for smelting and refining, but that is insufficient. The state program of industrialization of mining now under way requires years to mature. With the support of the mining proletariat, there is an unavoidable need to limit control of the surplus by the transnational corporations, which are piling up enormous profits from our non-renewable natural resources and leaving only a minor share to the state treasury. As Evo says, it was the nationalizing tendencies that won at the ballot box over the privatizing tendencies.”

Arkonada goes further, proposing that Bolivia must go beyond the “recovery of the state and redistribution as particular features of post-neoliberalism” and begin to think of “a new development model.”

“Our extractivist economies must be reconceptualized for many reasons, among them the ecological limits of the planet, which cannot endure the capitalist economic growth of the so-called developing countries, much less the emerging powers like China or India with 1.3 billion inhabitants each; and the very limits of a capitalism in structural crisis that can only obtain surplus value or maintain the rate of profit by exploiting people and nature.

“In this situation, the Bolivian contribution to how we rethink and combine the right to development and the rights of Mother Earth is fundamental for the coming debates. And complementary to this, while the nationalization of natural resources for recovery of our political and economic sovereignty was fundamental, and their industrialization phase is crucial at this time, we have to enter a third phase that will be accompanied by productive diversification in a way that complements the search for an alternative model of development (because alternatives to development continue to be a utopia in Bolivia, not to mention China or India).”

Some immediate tasks

While debates on longer-terms perspectives in Bolivia are only beginning to open up, there are some immediate tasks facing the government that the election campaign served to highlight. One is the need to strengthen some key institutions of the state, starting with the electoral tribunal and the courts.

The Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), a new body under the 2009 Constitution with responsibility for organizing and supervising all elections in Bolivia, was revealed to have serious deficiencies in its operations — among them a series of missed deadlines, confusion in the appointment of returning officers (jurados electorales), and above all the unexpected delays in counting the ballots and reporting the results, which the TSE attributed to technical deficiencies. However, its supervision clearly fell short of the required standard of care; even an embarrassing error in the election ballots — the official title of the state (Plurinational State of Bolivia) misprinted as “plurinominal,” referring to a category of deputy in the lower house — went unnoticed until election day!

The weakest state institutions, however, are the courts and the legal system as a whole, including other tribunals, a recognized problem that the opposition parties highlighted in their attempts to paint the MAS government itself as incompetent. A major complaint concerns the inordinate delays in adjudication of cases, both criminal and civil; for example, it is estimated that up to 80% or more of prison inmates denied bail have not been tried within a reasonable time, with resulting overcrowding of jails that has led to a number of riots in recent months. The government promises legislation to remedy what Vice-President Álvaro García Linera characterizes as a justice system “in a state of coma”; Minister of Justice Sandra Gutiérrez says it will even provide for jailing judges who provoke unnecessary delays in justice.

In recent days the ALP, which continues to meet without those members who sought re-election in the coming mandate, adopted a law that provides, inter alia, for a one-time only abandonment in certain circumstances of prosecutions that have not been tried within three months of indictment. It also abolishes the participation of elected citizen judges in sentencing tribunals, considered a prime cause of delays.

The next major electoral test of forces will come in March 2015 when elections are held in the departments and municipalities throughout Bolivia. The UD has already initiated meetings with other parties to put together opposition slates. The MAS, for its part, has scheduled meetings with the leaders of various social movements to plan their intervention.

And all eyes now are on the October 26 runoff election in neighboring Brazil, the powerhouse of South America, where President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers Party faces a tough struggle against Aecio Neves, the candidate of the right strategically aligned with the United States. That election, writes Bolivian sociologist Eduardo Paz Rada, will be a “major thermometer of regional politics.” Rousseff, he notes, seems to lack the commitment to Latin America that her predecessor Lula Da Silva had. But she does help to

“maintain some hopes for an independent and common position among the countries in our region, in a context of crisis of western capitalism and the rise of distinct geographical and political blocs in the five continents.

“Bolivia’s diplomatic relations with Brazil in recent years have not been the best, notwithstanding the importance of exports of Bolivian gas and the income they generate from São Paulo’s dependence on this energy source and the potential for horizontal integration and complementarity. However they would deteriorate even more should Neves win.

“It is worth noting that the Brazilian states where Neves is winning are all on Bolivia’s eastern border, where the major transnational agribusiness firms and soy export landholders are located, allied with the Bolivian neoliberal and landlord politicians, and with a strong influence over them.

“Also important in the regional geopolitics and balance of forces are the presidential elections in Uruguay, on October 26 as well, and the general election to be held next year in Argentina, with an uncertain outcome.”

Indeed, we live in interesting — and critical — times.

Thanks to Federico Fuentes and Art Young for their critical review and suggestions on an earlier draft.


[1] Each department elects four Senators. In the Chamber of Deputies, 63 of the seats are “uninominal,” each held by a deputy elected with the largest vote in the electoral district; another 60 seats are awarded to the parties according to their respective shares of the popular vote; and in each of seven departments indigenous voters who are not members of the dominant Aymara and Quechua peoples elect one member, making a total of 130 deputies. In 2011 the MAS lost its two-thirds majority when five indigenous deputies abandoned the party in protest against police repression of the TIPNIS march. For conflicting speculation on the final seat total for the MAS in the 2014 election, see “El MAS alcanza los dos tercios en la Asamblea Legislativa” and “Aún hay incertidumbre sobre los 2/3 del MAS en Asamblea.” The difference lies in whether the two minor parties, the MSM and the Verdes, both of which scored less than 3%, are entitled to one seat each; if not, those two seats go to the MAS. (It should be noted, perhaps, that the MSM candidates in the uninominal seats scored almost 8%.)

[2] The Agenda Patriótica 2025 comprises a platform of “13 Pillars for a Dignified and Sovereign Bolivia” presented by Evo Morales in a presidential address to the Legislature in January 2013. This year’s MAS election program is based on this document, the longer-term goals being set for 2025, the year of Bolivia’s bicentennial of independence from Spain.

[3] Katu Arkonada (born in Spain’s Basque country, 1978) is a former consultant in the Vice Ministry of Strategic Planning, and has worked in the Foreign Ministry of Bolivia. He has edited the publications Transiciones hacia el Vivir bien and Un Estado muchos pueblos, la construcción de la plurinacionalidad en Bolivia y Ecuador. He is a member of the Network of Intellectuals in Defense of Humanity, and a contributor to Le Monde diplomatique, Bolivian edition.

[4] “Imaginaries” refers to the way these classes conceive of their values, institutions, laws, and symbols.

[5] Henrique Capriles was the right-wing opposition’s candidate in the 2012 and 2013 elections in Venezuela, and came very close to defeating President Nicolas Maduro.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Che’s proposal for Bolivia

47 years after his murder: his draft program, for the first time in English

image 

Telesur

Introduction

Forty-seven years ago today Ernesto “Che” Guevara was murdered in cold blood along with two other guerrillas by the Bolivian military after being captured, wounded, the previous day. We now know that the army was acting on orders from the White House and Pentagon.[1]

The event is marked each year in Vallegrande, the town in Santa Cruz department where Che’s body was buried for three decades in a common grave with other guerrillas alongside an aircraft landing strip. (His remains were later transferred to Cuba to be placed in a monument in Santa Clara.)

image

This year a novel aspect of the commemoration was the participation of an official Argentine delegation from Che’s country of birth and the placing of a plaque sent by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. The two-day ceremonies were shorter than usual because many of the Bolivians normally involved are actively campaigning for the MAS (Movement Toward Socialism) government in Sunday’s election, according to Oswaldo Chato Peredo, a survivor of the 1967 guerrilla force. Peredo told La Razón that many of the MAS candidates in Santa Cruz “are people who have been formed in Che’s school of thinking….”[2]

Appropriately, October 8, celebrated in Bolivia as the “Day of the Heroic Guerrilla,” was the day of the MAS closing campaign rally, held in El Alto.

In Argentina, the Telam news agency reports, a Spanish translation of the Smith and Ratner book (see note 1, below) is being launched.

The Bolivian government newspaper Cambio published today a special four-page supplement on “Che: Bolivian,” from which I have translated the following article, first published two years ago in La Razón and on the web site of the author Carlos Soria Galvarro.[3] The article quotes the text of a previously unpublished programmatic document drafted by Che in the opening stages of his Bolivian guerrilla struggle but never completed before his capture and death.

Of particular interest is what the text (and the crossed-out words) indicate of Che’s evolving and tentative thinking about the immediate tasks facing the Bolivian revolution that he hoped to spark: calling for nationalization of foreign capital and its local allied firms, construction of a “new,” not yet necessarily “socialist” society, the need to involve the original peoples in their own languages, etc.

I have translated the text as published in Cambio, which differs from the original article mainly in the final paragraph with its reference to Evo Morales.

– Richard Fidler

* * *

Che’s proposal for Bolivia

by Carlos Soria Galvarro

On the day of his arrival at the Ñacahuasu river, Che began his diary entries with the familiar sentence “Today a new stage begins.” He had arrived clandestinely after spending two nights in the Hotel Copacabana in La Paz, travelling by jeep to the Lagunillas region in southeastern Bolivia.

Left behind were other stages in his footloose life as a revolutionary: his frustrated incursion in Africa (Congo), which in turn had ended the phase of his outstanding presence in the Cuban revolution.

What, then, was the “new stage” initiated on November 7, 1966?

His initial preoccupation with incorporating Peruvian and Argentine recruits seems to indicate that his project was continental. Fighters trained with experience here would return to fight in their own countries and — who knows? — he might himself return to his native Argentina, an ambitious dream he never abandoned.

But as the struggle unfolded in Bolivia a proposal that would justify it was inescapable, although this country might be the last to liberate itself given its landlocked status, as he himself hinted.

The best known documentation of Che’s presence in Bolivia does not contain any more or less explicit programmatic proposal as such. There is none in his famous Diary, a detailed chronicle of the guerrilla group’s day-to-day activity.[4] Nor is there any indication in the public communiqués numbered 1 to 5, which are more military in nature except to some degree in No. 5, addressed to the miners. Or in the communications between Havana and La Paz or the “instructions to cadres assigned to urban areas.”

The missing piece

In April 1998 the bilingual La Paz periodical The Bolivian Times (now disappeared) published for the first time a handwritten document contained in a small notebook that the retired general Jaime Niño de Guzmán, a helicopter pilot operating in the anti-guerrilla campaign, said Che had given to him after his capture.

The Bolivian Times did not publish the complete facsimile, only two pages of the notebook, which also bore the fingerprints of the former soldier and a photograph of Che’s dead body. So it is impossible to verify the accuracy of the transcript, given the acknowledged difficulty in reading Che’s “doctor’s script.”

But from what can be seen, in the form and content as well as the circumstances, this is a document of significant historical value. For the first time the outline of a programmatic plan of the Ñacahuasu guerrillas is revealed, and what’s more, in the handwriting of their principal exponent.

It is not a “final” proclamation of Che, as The Bolivian Times presented it, but rather a first draft that he had not managed to finish writing, or still less intended to publish.

From the first line it is apparent that it was written before the outbreak of armed actions on March 23, 1967, since Che leaves blank the name of his armed group. As we know, it was on March 25, immediately after that first clash, that his column adopted the name Ejército de Liberación Nacional de Bolivia [ELN – National Liberation Army of Bolivia].[5]

In its first section the document attempts to justify the armed uprising in the following words (we retain the crossed-out corrections as published in The Bolivian Times).

People of Bolivia, Peoples of America

We, the members of the [blank space], make our voice heard for the first time. We want to reach every corner of this continent with the echo of our cry of rebellion.

Today, having exhausted all the possibilities for peaceful struggle, we are rising to show by our example the road to follow. We know the internal and external enemy; we know are aware of the enormous forces that can be placed at the service of local reaction by North American imperialism. We can measure the danger and magnitude of the undertaking: our thinking is not unpremeditated or superficial; our lives are will be [sic] testimonies of the seriousness of the struggle undertaken, which will end only with victory or death.

We have no doubt about the support that we will get from our people, but our situation as a land-locked country surrounded by reactionary governments hostile to our cause impels us to call, from the very moment of initiating the struggle, for effective solidarity from all honest individuals men and women of this continent.

A great united country, not a fragmented giant

The document has a clear programmatic content when it proposes total independence of Bolivia, breaking through the possible imperialist encirclement with the support of revolutionaries from neighbouring countries in the seizure of power, control of the means of production, nationalizations, and the militant support of workers and peasants in the creation of a new society. This is what it says:

Our cause is synthesized in these simple programmatic statements.

1. We are fighting for the real and democratic total independence of Bolivia.

2. That independence cannot be secured achieved without the collaboration of friendly countries that present us with the possibility of breaking the imperialist encirclement. Accordingly, while we ask for their solidarity, we offer our own to any authentically revolutionary movement in the neighbouring countries that is determined to take political power.

3. An unavoidable indispensable condition of any authentic sovereignty is to have control over the means of production. Accordingly, we propose the nationalization of all imperialist property as well as major national industry linked to monopoly capital foreign monopoly, as steps toward the construction of a socialist new society.

4. That society cannot be created without the militant support of peasants and workers to those we call on to join in the struggle under the following slogans:

Here, in the section that Che calls “slogans,” is where there are proposed significant aspects of definite importance for today such as participation of the ethnic populations in the various levels of power, of workers and peasants in planning, and development of communications to strengthen the internal unity of Bolivia.

(a) Democratization of the life of the country with active participation of the larger ethnic populations in the major government decisions;

(b) Education in culture and technical capabilities of the Bolivian people using literacy the vernacular languages in the initial stage;

(c) Development of society, liberating our people from scourges now eliminated in advanced countries;

(d) Participation of workers and peasants in the tasks of planning the new economy with the right of authentic owners of the means of production land and factories fundamentally;

(e) Formulation of a development program that includes the use of our mineral resources and fertility over an extended area;

(f) Development of communications to make Bolivia a great united country and not a fragmented giant with its departments and provinces mutual strangers.

The fifth and final point of this draft programmatic document repeats Che’s well-known position that a revolutionary triumph in Bolivia, even taking power in the country, was not sustainable without the disappearance of the imperialist system, a way of reaffirming his continental focus in the struggle.

(5) We know, from the bitter experience of sister peoples in the world and from our own, that we will not be able to peacefully confront this great work as long as task (even though we take power in our country) while the imperialist enemy has not disappeared, as a social system, from the face of the earth. Accordingly, we declare ourselves as anti fighters decisively anti-imperialists, we offer our small measure of valour and sacrifice to the great arsenal of the peoples of the world immersed engaged in this fight struggle [sic] to the death.

Victory or death

Close to a half-century since his fall, this document reminds us that Che’s strength was not only military so much as it was essentially political and moral. That is the quality of his programmatic proposals concerning Bolivia. He did not have the time or the conditions in which to develop them in his brief and eventful final sojourn on this soil. They remain only indications of a political contour of great actuality, worthy of analysis in light of the profound transformations that Bolivia is experiencing since Evo Morales came to power.


[1] See Who Killed Che? How the CIA got away with murder, by Michael Ratner and Michael Steven Smith (OR Books, 2011). For an extract, see this. For a review, see this.

[2] La Razón, “Argentina protagoniza homenaje al Che Guevara.”

[3] Soria Galvarro’s web site is probably the most comprehensive source in Spanish of documentation on Che’s experience in Bolivia. Highly recommended. He is the author of many articles and books, most recently Andares del Che en Bolivia (Che’s involvement in Bolivia), published in Argentina.

[4] The Bolivian Diary of Ernesto Che Guevara (Pathfinder, 1994).

[5] The Pathfinder edition of Che’s Diary (supra note 4) also includes the text of a book by Inti Peredo, “My campaign with Che,” that appears to refer to this draft program on pages 398-399. However, a footnote by the Pathfinder editors (p. 399) apparently confuses this with communiqué No. 1 of the ELN. As Inti Peredo indicates, that communiqué was written and published several days later.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

How Bolivia is leading the global fight against climate disaster

Bolivia goes to the polls next Sunday, October 12, in the country’s third national election since the victory of Evo Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) in December 2005 and the second since the adoption of its radically new constitution in 2009. The MAS list, led by President Morales and his Vice-Presidential running mate Álvaro García Linera, is far ahead in the opinion polling over four opposition slates, all to the right of the MAS.

Although Bolivia’s “process of change,” its “democratic and cultural revolution” as García Linera terms it, is still in its early stages, the country’s developmental process has already attracted considerable interest — and some controversy — internationally, not least because of its government’s role as a leading critic of global climate change, which it forthrightly attributes to the effects and the logic inherent to the capitalist mode of production.

Some of the highlights of this approach and how Bolivia is attempting to shape the preconditions to “going beyond capitalism” are discussed in this short presentation that I made at a workshop at the People’s Social Forum in Ottawa, August 22.

– Richard Fidler

* * *

We are “ecosocialists” because the climate crisis now bearing down on us is the major issue facing the world’s peoples. It threatens the very survival of human life. It is directly caused by capitalism as a system. The alternative to capitalism is socialism, and our socialism must reflect the centrality of climate crisis in our thinking and actions.

On a global scale, Bolivia is punching way above its size in drawing attention to this crisis and formulating answers to it — within the limits of its situation as a small landlocked country in South America. And its government is moving to implement its proposals through developing an “economic, social and communitarian productive model” that takes immediate steps toward dismantling the dependent legacy of colonialism, neo-colonialism and capitalism while pointing the way toward what it terms “the socialist horizon.”

I will start by highlighting a few notable examples of how Bolivia is contributing to our understanding of climate change and what can be done about it.

When the United Nations 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen ended without any commitment by the major powers to emissions reductions, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales promptly issued a call for a “World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth,” to be hosted by Bolivia.

People’s Conference on Climate Change

The conference met in Cochabamba in April 2010. It was attended by more than 30,000 people (one third were foreign visitors from 142 countries and official delegations from 47 states). It adopted a powerful anticapitalist “People’s Agreement” that called, in part, for stabilizing the rise of temperature to 1o C and limiting carbon dioxide emissions to 300 parts per million.

The Cochabamba Agreement also rejected carbon market mechanisms that transfer primary responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to poor countries. It called for integrated management of forests, “without market mechanisms and ensuring the full participation of indigenous peoples and local communities.” And it called on developed countries to allocate 6% of their GDP to fighting climate change, to repay some of their climate debt as a result of their emissions.

These proposals have been ignored by the United Nations in subsequent climate conferences. But Bolivia has pursued its international campaign.

Evo’s Ten Commandments

For example, in 2012 the government organized a mass gathering on December 21, the southern summer solstice, at the legendary Isla del Sol in Lake Titicaca. The event attracted some 40 indigenous groups from five continents as well as government leaders from other countries. In the days preceding the event, public and internet forums were organized to stimulate public debate on such topics as climate change and lessons from indigenous knowledges on how to live in harmony with Nature. Speaking at the event itself, Evo Morales offered “Ten Commandments to confront capitalism and construct the culture of life.”

This year Bolivia is chairing the G77+China group of what are now 133 countries of the global South. The Morales government has used its position to feature the issues of climate change, sustainable development and “Living Well in harmony with Mother Earth.” These were prominent themes of Evo’s opening speech to the G77 summit in Santa Cruz in mid-June, which directly attributed climate crisis to “the anarchy of capitalist production.”

Two weeks later, the Bolivian Workers Central (COB) and the government sponsored an “Anti-Imperialist International Trade Union Conference” in Cochabamba. It was attended by representatives of unions in 22 countries affiliated with the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), which claims a membership of 86 million in 120 countries.

Climate crisis as ‘crystallization’ of capitalist crises

The conference adopted a remarkable “Anti-Imperialist Political Thesis” aimed at pointing the way toward a socialist world order. We are faced, it says, with a structural crisis of global proportions affecting all aspects of nature and human life — climate, energy, food, water, etc. The climate crisis is “the crystallization of all these crises…. We are in a stage of capitalism where everything is commoditized, including life itself and common goods.”

The statement rejects the concept of a “green economy,” based on such capitalist devices as carbon credits, essentially the privatization of nature. And it points to the rising competition for control of scarce or declining natural resources, a key ingredient in the imperialist war drive.

Fighting the capitalist world system today are locally-based resistance movements, the statement notes. But globally we “have yet to create a united front that could constitute an alternative to capitalism.”

The “basic contradiction of capitalism,” it says, is “the contradiction between the social character of production and the capitalist form of property over the means of production and the appropriation of its results…. An alternative project to confront the crisis of capitalism can only come from the popular sectors and organized labour” — with “socialism as its horizon.”

What the Bolivians are saying, then, is that there is no enduring solution to our mounting environmental disasters and climate crisis short of overcoming capitalism.

Dependency and ‘extractivism’

I maintain that no other government worldwide is doing more to spread this ecosocialist message. However, there is a common perception — especially among many global justice advocates in the North — that Bolivia’s government actually violates these precepts in its own development strategy. A common criticism is that not only has it not broken with capitalism — one well-known critic in these parts claims it is “reconstituting neoliberalism”[1] — but it has not broken decisively with the “extractivist” legacy of colonialism and capitalism, referring to the fact that Bolivia’s economy is still highly dependent on large-scale removal (“extraction”) and export of unprocessed raw materials, not just in traditional extractive industries such as mining and hydrocarbons but through industrial-scale agriculture, forestry and even fishing.

So let’s take a quick look at some features of Bolivia’s incremental development model, bearing in mind of course that this small landlocked country of 10 million cannot be expected to create socialism all on its own, in isolation from the global economy and its neighbouring countries in Latin America.[2]

The new economic model

Three months after taking office, in 2006, the Morales government “nationalized” Bolivia’s main natural resource, its extensive hydrocarbon deposits. The state asserted ownership of gas and mineral deposits and renegotiated contracts with the private companies, including some transnationals, still involved in refining and exporting the product. Thanks to hugely increased royalties and taxes, about 80% of the profits now go to the state, more than a four-fold increase in its share of these revenues.

The vast increase in state revenue as a result of greater control over natural resource wealth has facilitated a sharp drop in public debt. Less dependent on foreign loans, the government has been able to expand its nationalization program into such areas as telecommunications, electricity and water, and ensure that more Bolivians have access to these basic services.

Significant steps have been taken toward industrializing and diversifying the economy. For example, under the government’s gas industrialization plan, Bolivia has already begun to export processed gas and by 2016 will be able to meet its domestic demand for gasoline and liquefied natural gas (LNG). As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars currently allocated to subsidizing the cost of imported processed gas can be redeployed to meeting other needs. And higher returns from processed gas exports mean Bolivia can, over time, look to generating more wealth from relatively less gas extraction.

Increased state revenues have “facilitated a seven-fold increase in social and productive spending by the government since 2005,” writes Federico Fuentes. This in turn “has allowed the government to make some headway in overcoming the social debt it inherited.” Social programs have been dramatically expanded; today one in three Bolivians benefits directly from government social security payments.

Poverty levels have been reduced from 60.6% of the population 2005 to 43.5% in 2012. Income disparities have likewise been reduced.

Modest gains, perhaps, although important in themselves in one of the poorest countries in Latin America. But there is good reason to expect more radical social reforms in the near future, especially if the government manages to go beyond programs directed to particularly disadvantaged groups and to implement projected universal coverage in such fields as health care.

Higher personal incomes, limited industrialization and the growth in the domestic market — purchasing power is up more than 40% since Morales took office[3] — have aided growth in the manufacturing sector, contributed to a decrease in unemployment (Bolivia currently has the lowest rate in South America, 3.2%), and an increase in the percentage of workers employed in the formal economy.

Furthermore, the government has undertaken some important initiatives not only to lessen Bolivia’s extractivist dependency but to point the country in a post-capitalist direction — through creating small state-owned enterprises in which local producers and communities have a say in how they are run; the titling of more than 35 million hectares of land as communitarian property or indigenous territories; and strengthening communitarian agriculture practices through preferential access to equipment, supplies, no-interest loans and state-subsidized markets.

Extracting Bolivia from extractivism, however, is not an easy process. In the short term, the country’s economic development strategy has actually expanded its dependency on the extractive economy. On the plus side, low unemployment, greater social security, higher living standards and a political environment in which the indigenous peoples and languages have been given constitutional recognition, have strengthened the social solidarity of the popular classes, on which the government rests for its support. These are essential steps in any emancipatory project, one that points the way toward that promised “socialist horizon.”

Deepening the process?

And this may be only a beginning, Alfredo Rada writes in a significant article published in early August entitled “Deeping the process of change on the basis of the social movements.” Rada is Bolivia’s Deputy Minister for Social Movements and Civil Society. His department reports directly to the Ministry of the President and to President Evo Morales.

Rada draws attention to the recent reconstitution of what he terms the “Revolutionary Social Bloc” of the major trade unions, campesino and indigenous organizations as well as neighborhood councils and urban school boards, micro-enterprises and members of cooperatives. This bloc or alliance is known as the CONALCAM, the National Coordination for Change.[4]

“The regained protagonism of workers and social movements,” Rada writes, “inevitably tends to strengthen … ideological tendencies within the process of change.” He draws attention to the Cochabamba anti-imperialist trade union meeting in July, supported by the government.

“Here is the vigorous present and promising future of the Bolivian process. In those proposals they defend what has been achieved (which is a lot) and seek to deepen the changes with their own political action based on the social movements.

“But the talk about deepening the process, if it is to achieve greater vitality, must be accompanied by programmatic proposals that point to further strengthening of the state with new nationalizations in strategic sectors of the economy and new industries in petrochemicals, steel, metallurgy and processed foods; to transformation of the capitalist relations of production in the public enterprises; to the strengthening of the social and communitarian sector of the economy through productive projects of an associative nature that generate employment; to the agrarian revolution that eradicates the new forms of latifundism and foreign ownership of the land that have developed in recent years; to food sovereignty, avoiding the new forms of monoculture both in the east (soy) and in the west (quinua) of the country; and to defense of Mother Nature from mining pollution and the severe impact of irrational consumption of natural resources in the cities.

“If the social movements keep the political and programmatic initiative, they will become the principal factor in democratic governability in the medium term, an indispensable factor in the management of the process.

“In light of the probability of a new triumph of Evo Morales against a right wing that is still searching for a compass, our view should go beyond the electoralist calculation. Now is the time to bring together the revolutionaries around clear ideas, organize them in close relation to the social movements and strengthen the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) as the political instrument of those movements.”

Resource dependency is not the cause of underdevelopment

Transnational corporations continue to operate in Bolivia. Extractive industries persist. Bolivia’s economy is still capitalist and resource-dependent. But the initial successes of its new development strategy centered on state investment initiatives demonstrate that it is not resource dependency per se that generates underdevelopment;[5] it is the weak state structures and capacities typically associated with such economies. Countries with stronger state institutions — such as Norway or Canada, both heavily reliant on hydrocarbon exploitation (and mining in Canada’s case) — have remained prosperous nevertheless. However, Canada, one of the G7 leading imperialist powers, is one of the most environmentally damaging extractivists in the world, and is no example for Bolivia.

Bolivia’s MAS government is taking advantage of the favourable opportunity offered by a burgeoning global market for the country’s resources to strengthen state sovereignty and capacities with a view to raising living standards, planning production for national development, and empowering traditionally subaltern classes.

At the same time, it is conscious that imperialism as a world system continues to pose the main threat to all such efforts as well as jeopardizing the environment as never before. That is why it has consistently campaigned to raise public awareness of the need to go “beyond capitalism” as an integral component of instituting “another world” of harmonious co-existence among humans and between humanity and nature.

And that is also why the government has placed so much emphasis on forging broad international alliances with governments and social movements around such issues as climate crisis.


[1] Jeffery R. Webber, “Fantasies aside, it's reconstituted neoliberalism in Bolivia under Morales,” http://isreview.org/person/jeffery-r-webber.

[2] For a more ample development of this argument, see Federico Fuentes, “Bolivia: Beyond (neo) extractivism?,” published first at Telesur.

[3] Linda C. Farthing and Benjamin H. Kohl, Evo’s Bolivia: Continuity and Change (University of Texas Press, 2014), p. 86.

[4] The Coordinadora Nacional por el Cambio (CONALCAM) is a Bolivian political coordination of social movements aligned with the governing Movement for Socialism-Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of the Peoples (MAS-IPSP). It was founded on 22 January 2007 during the Constituent Assembly of 2006-2007. CONALCAM mobilizes its member organizations in support of the “process of change.” (Wikipedia)

[5] For a critical discussion of “extractivism” from the government’s standpoint, see Álvaro García Linera, Geopolitics of the Amazon, pp. 31-35.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Scotland’s referendum: Some lessons for Quebec… and Canada

scotland-says-no-thanks

Garnotte, Le Devoir, September 20, 2014

Superficially, the 55-45 victory of the No in Scotland’s referendum September 18 was a clear rejection of independence. The Yes forces won a majority only in the four poorest and most deprived of the nation’s 32 local divisions, although a class breakdown of the vote would show a majority of the working class voted for independence.

It was the mobilization of working-class support, especially during the final month of the campaign, that brought Yes support from 30-35% in the opinion polls to the high 40s and even low 50s on the eve of the vote. A registration campaign led by the Radical Independence Campaign, a left platform within the Yes Scotland movement,[1] entitled 97% of the electorate to vote in the referendum. In the end, only 84% actually exercised that right. But even this was a record turnout — the highest vote in a Scottish election for over a century. (In Quebec’s 1995 referendum on sovereignty, about 95% of the electorate voted with an even closer outcome, barely 50,000 votes separating the Yes from the victorious No.)

Although the Yes side lost, most commentary focused on the impressive mobilization for independence in the campaign, with broad layers of the population participating in the debates and organizing to get out the vote. “The chance to vote on Scotland’s future has in fact brought about a popular mobilisation for radical social change unlike anything we have seen in these islands for a generation,” wrote Hilary Wainwright, an editor of the English journal Red Pepper.[2]

“The referendum has become an invitation to say no to a superpower whose wars, most recently against Iraq, the Scottish people found abhorrent and yet were forced to join; a chance to say no to decades of social injustice and sacrifice at the altar of the global market by Conservative and Labour governments at Westminster, for which Scottish voters did not vote. It is, finally, a chance to refuse a democracy without substance in which MPs working 300 miles away and more are too distant to be accountable or subject to popular pressure.

“Most importantly, Scottish people have grasped the choice that they have to make directly – unmediated by the political class – as an opportunity to imagine the kind of society that they, the Scottish people, could build with the democratic possibilities of independence.”

This was indeed a welcome message to many. “Scotland,” writes James Maxwell in Al Jazeera, “is one of the most unequal countries in western Europe. Close to one million Scots — one fifth of the population — live in inadequate housing. Moreover, 250,000 are struggling to feed themselves properly. Thirteen percent of the working population lives in poverty.”[3]

Cat Boyd, a leader of the Radical Independence Campaign, underscored the class nature of the Yes support:

“If the working class were the only ones to vote in the independence referendum, there would have been a Yes vote on September 18th. In Scotland’s poorest areas, all of which are traditional Labour heartlands, the argument for independence to create a socially just Scotland was won. A Yes vote became a revolt against the alienation of the British state and the British economy.

“All analyses of the referendum result have agreed that there is a linear relationship between unemployment, poverty and a higher yes vote. …

“The voter turn-out was so high because for once how you voted actually mattered. The referendum proved that when people are given a vote which genuinely makes a difference to their lives and to those around them, they reached out and not only voted but shaped the entire substance of the debate.”

Inclusive and welcoming

Also notable was the broadly-based composition of the Yes vote, winning widespread support among ethnic minorities and recent immigrants. This is not surprising, as the independence campaign was not based on any narrow appeal to ethnic identity; the Scottish citizenship it advocated was inclusive and welcoming to new arrivals.

This movement “is not based on narrow nationalism; for many of its participants, it is not nationalist at all,” writes Murray Smith, a former leader of the Scottish Socialist Party.[4]

“On the eve of the referendum, at a mass pro-independence rally in the main square of Glasgow, activist and lawyer Aamer Anwar was loudly applauded when he declared, ‘I am not a nationalist, I am an internationalist’.

“This movement is not anti-English; it is for democracy, social justice, for a new society, against war. The majority of its activists are on the left in the broad sense.”

The No campaign, on the other hand, was totally lacking in any perspective of improvement in people’s lives, and with reason. “There was much talk of how ineffective the no campaign was,” writes Irvine Welsh in The Guardian.[5]

“In some ways this is unfair: you can only go with what you've got and they simply weren't packing much heat. The union they strove to protect was based on industry and empire and the esprit de corps from both world wars, and you can't maintain a political relationship on declining historical sentiment alone. With the big, inclusive postwar building blocks of the welfare state and the NHS [National Health System] being ripped apart by both major parties there's zero currency in campaigning on that, especially as they're only being preserved in Scotland by the devolved parliament. The boast of using oil revenues to fund privatisation projects and bail out bankers for their avarice and incompetence is never going to be a vote winner. Going negative was the only option.”

No campaign based on fear

And negative they went, with a vengeance. Only five newspapers (three of them Scottish) of the 27 newspapers inventoried by Wikipedia supported independence.[6] The others, including other mass media, campaigned massively for the No, spreading their messages of gloom and doom if the Scots were so foolish as to opt for dissolving the 300 year old Union with England. Business leaders chimed in, led by Bank of England governor (and former Bank of Canada governor) Mark Carney. The Scots were told they would be excluded from the European Union; they would be barred from using the British pound or the Euro, and their own currency (if they chose to create one) would be seriously devalued; economic chaos loomed, and so on and on.

There were some amusing sides to this. As socialist blogger Richard Seymour noted,

“Unionists could stand in front of a sea of red, white and blue, and decry ‘narrow Scottish nationalism,’ with no apparent sense of irony. They can drop the ‘two world wars’ meme one minute, and deride national chauvinism the next. This, of course, is itself a record of the peculiar power of British nationalism. Whenever an ideology is so pervasive that one inhabits it, lives in it, such that it is simply taken for granted — when, in a word, naturalised — that is when it has achieved the peak of its success. But there’s something else. British nationalism is ‘global’ precisely because it is imperial. To have a British identity is, for many, to have access to the world. This is the sense in which Scottish nationalism is, by contrast, ‘narrow’.”[7]

The Conservatives, who govern in London in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, had little credibility in Scotland, where they hold only one seat. It fell to the opposition Labour Party, with 41 Scottish MPs at Westminster, to lead the No campaign, labelled “Better Together.” In the last two weeks of the campaign former British Labour prime minister Gordon Brown, emerging from retirement, uttered vague promises of devolution of further powers to the Scottish parliament if the No triumphed. All of this would sound familiar to Québécois and Canadians with long memories of the Quebec sovereignty referendums of 1980 and 1995 and the federalist promises of constitutional reform if the No won. But the Québécois also remember that each losing referendum battle was followed by federalist offensives that imposed further constraints on Quebec’s powers.

The fear campaign was probably instrumental in producing a last-minute victory for the No, and possibly in reducing the number of registered voters who actually voted. However, this may prove a Pyrrhic victory, in the medium and long term. There are post-referendum reports of large increases in the membership of the pro-independence parties. In the week following the referendum, the Scottish Socialist Party reported 2500 new members, with the number still growing. The Scottish National Party, which forms a majority government in the Scottish Parliament, says its membership has almost doubled since the referendum, standing now at over 50,000.[8] Other reports indicate a serious loss in credibility and support for the Labour party in Scotland, which historically has been one of that party’s strongest electoral bases.

Many Scots, “including quite a few in the no camp,” reports the Guardian’s Irvine Welsh,[9] have become

“disenchanted by the negative, desperate campaign orchestrated from Westminster, and the establishment in general, particularly the way business and media interests have been nakedly shown to collude against democracy. If the yes campaign excited Scots to the possibilities of people power, the opposition one showed the political classes, their establishment masters and metropolitan groupies in the most cynical, opportunistic light. From the empty, manipulative celebrity ‘love-bombing’ to the crass threats and smears issued by the press, around half of Scotland might now feel as if it has been classified as the ‘enemy within’, that stock designation for all those who resist the dictates of the elites’ centralised power.

“The yes movement hit such heights because the UK state was seen as failed; antiquated, hierarchical, centralist, discriminatory, out of touch and acting against the people. This election will have done nothing to diminish that impression.”

Demonstration effect?

Scotland is only the latest of many small nations in Europe that have seen the development of powerful movements for national independence in recent years. On the day after the Scottish referendum defeat, the national assembly in Catalonia voted to proceed with a popular consultation on independence from Spain, building on the momentum from huge annual demonstrations for independence on Catalonia’s national day, September 11, in recent years.[10] The referendum will be illegal, according to Spain’s constitutional court, which in 2010 amended an autonomy statute adopted by the Catalonian parliament to remove its identification as a “nation.” (Even Stéphane Dion, the Liberal minister who piloted Canada’s Clarity Act, told El País that he thought the court was being unduly “rigid.”)[11]

In an interesting survey of some of these current independence movements, Le Devoir’s Paris correspondent Christian Rioux reminded readers that in the current phase of capitalist globalization we were told nations would disappear, sinking into a melting pot while supranational institutions (the WTO, the World Bank?) moved to the fore. But the national movements represent a profound democratic impulse, he said. “If peoples are resisting as best they can the great universalist vacuum, it is not out of national egoism, as some claim. It is because they know that the nation remains the irreplaceable crucible of democracy. There is no other.”

Rioux noted that the Parti québécois traditionally has presented sovereignty as a way to repatriate control of taxes, increase living standards, to increase their RRSPs. But “where, in what country, have we seen a people make independence to increase their standard of living?

“Nowhere! Independence is not primarily an economic matter, although it can also be that. Just as it is not primarily a cultural matter or one of simple linguistic survival, as it is all too often thought in Quebec.

“From Ireland to Slovakia, from Slovenia to Norway, the people who become sovereign do it first in order to achieve their political freedom, to exist in the world, to make their original voice heard and to come to terms with themselves. Those who are looking only for cultural survival don’t need independence. Cultural autonomy will suffice, as Quebec clearly shows. Those looking only for economic success don’t need independence, as Scotland has shown for three centuries.

“Independence is first of all a matter of political will… the only way to reconcile economy, culture and politics….”[12]

I think there are a number of important lessons for Quebec independentists and socialists in this experience. Some are relevant as well to Canadian progressives outside of Quebec. Here are a few.

1. The issue was independence, not a tentative ‘sovereignty-association’

The question on the ballot was “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Yes or No. Straight to the point. What a contrast with the convoluted and apologetic question the Parti québécois government asked in the 1980 referendum:

“The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad - in other words, sovereignty - and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?”

Or, still worse, the question the PQ and its allies asked in 1995:

“Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”

which implied that the voter had read or understood both the cited legislation and the tripartite agreement between the PQ, the Bloc Québécois, and the Action démocratique du Québec.

Both questions could logically be interpreted as making independence contingent on agreement of the rest of Canada. They reflected both the parties’ reluctance to create a sovereign state truly independent of the Canadian state and their doubts in their ability to build majority support for political independence. Opinion polls indicated many voters thought a yes vote would simply result in some form of renewed federal agreement.

In contrast, most commentators attribute the Scots’ enthusiasm for independence to the possibility their referendum question gave them to focus their thinking on what independence itself might or could mean for them — fueling a vast democratic debate throughout the nation and, in time, putting the reactionary British government on the defensive.

The Scottish referendum question was worked out in advance between the Scottish government and its counterpart in London, the latter agreeing to abide by a majority vote for independence should that be the result. At the time, it was commonly presumed that British PM David Cameron thought the stark alternatives — independence or the status quo — would deter all but the most committed independence supporters, then a relatively small minority. But it turned out to have the opposite effect, not least because of the determined initiative by left supporters of independence to mount their own campaign, within the coalition for independence, for a Scotland that would be fundamentally different from neoliberal and imperialist Britain.

This should provoke some rethinking on the left in both Quebec and the rest of Canada (ROC). The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a future referendum question should meet its standard of clarity (unspecified) and command “clear majority” support (likewise unspecified), and the Chrétien government’s subsequent Clarity Act made Quebec sovereignty following a Yes vote contingent on agreement by the federal Parliament and the other provinces. Whatever our principled objections to these federal constraints — which limit the exercise of Quebec’s right to self-determination — a clearly stated question on independence would not only put the issue squarely to Québécois (and remove the ambiguity in the PQ’s questions) but also undermine the credibility of any federalist challenge to the legitimacy of a yes vote, no matter how large the majority.

In 2013 the federal NDP sought to bridge these concerns in its Bill C-470, which would have obliged the federal government to negotiate with Quebec in the event of a yes vote on a clear referendum question, and to accept a simple majority of 50% plus 1 as the threshold for agreeing to negotiate in acceptance of the popular verdict. As I wrote at the time, the NDP bill may have reflected the then-recent agreement between Westminster and Holyrood (the Scottish parliament) on the terms of the proposed Scottish referendum.[13] In the Scottish case, this advance agreement was a positive achievement of the pro-independence forces, helping to minimize the threat of British retaliation in the wake of a Yes vote.

2. Which comes first: Referendum or Constituent Assembly?

In Scotland, there was little talk about a constituent assembly following a successful Yes vote, probably on the assumption that a newly independent nation would naturally have to adopt its own constitution. This is an assumption shared by all pro-independence forces in Quebec, including the Parti québécois, although each party has its own ideas about how the appropriate assembly should be chosen and function.

However, the left-wing party Québec solidaire has its own twist on this. It calls for convening a constituent assembly prior to a referendum on independence. The democratically elected assembly would “consult the people of Quebec” on what kind of political status they want for Quebec, devise a constitution based on the majority view and finally put the draft constitution to a popular referendum for approval. The QS proposal is motivated in opposition to the top-down process implemented up to now by PQ governments of unilaterally formulating the question and conducting the Yes campaign with no input from below.

However, QS always stipulates that while it would fight for sovereignty in the proposed assembly, it would “not presume the outcome of the debates.” Some QS leaders, such as Amir Khadir, one of its three MNAs, formulate this as “sovereignty if necessary but not necessarily sovereignty.” The QS position tends to separate the democratic question — and political independence is the supreme democratic question, a precondition to the full exercise of all democratic rights — from the social content of the party’s strategic project.

And in today’s conditions of retreat and demobilization of the social movements under the blows of capitalist austerity there is no assurance that even the most democratic constituent assembly, without a powerful social upsurge from below, would be able to achieve a consensus on the need for independence.

The QS position has been criticized by many sovereigntists who understandably question the party’s commitment to independence.

The ambiguity in the QS program prompted many QS members to sign a joint statement with members of the smaller pro-independence party Option nationale during the recent Quebec election campaign stating that in their view “the Constitution of Quebec will be that of a sovereign state and the legal foundation of a provincial government.” And they added that while “some proposals in our program are applicable in Quebec as a province, we have to imagine what the victorious struggle for Quebec’s political freedom would unleash in popular optimism and passion, and the extent of the mobilization that such freedom would allow in the overall reappropriation of our country.”

To which the ON members added: “If the QS program were clarified along the lines of an immediate mobilization for the political independence of Quebec that would distance it from the PQ’s hesitant posture on this issue, and a fusion between our two parties would become realistic and necessary.”[14]

Since it does not frame its program within the perspective of what an independent Quebec could do, Québec solidaire has tended, in the three general elections since its founding in 2006, to campaign as a “provincial” party, limiting its proposals to what is possible within the limited jurisdiction of the province. This approach severely limits the radical potential of its emancipatory message.

Within Québec solidaire there has been little critical discussion of its program on the referendum and constituent assembly other than a few blog posts by the current chair of the party’s theme commission on “Strategy for Sovereignty,” Jonathan Durand-Folco, and a few responses by other bloggers. In a post dated June 27, 2014 Durand-Folco reports that his commission has been asking for a review of program to specify that the mandate of the proposed constituent assembly would be to draft the constitution of an independent Quebec, in order to avoid the possibility that the assembly would instead draft a “provincial” constitution.[15] (This debate, previously scheduled for the party’s National Council meeting in November, has now been postponed indefinitely by its National Coordinating Committee.)

The discussion so far has reflected QS members’ concerns to reconcile its concept of a prior and agnostic constituent assembly with the party’s own preference for sovereignty. One novel, but naïve, approach[16] suggests that the assembly “be assigned to develop two proposed constitutions: one national [i.e. an independent Quebec], the other provincial,” both of which would be put before voters in a subsequent referendum for them to choose. “This formula,” writes Benoit Renaud, “would allow for serene and constructive debates in the Constituent Assembly and prepare the ground for a respectful and enlightening referendum campaign.” And if the voters opted for a provincial constitution? “It would be a solid point of departure for demanding the transfer to Quebec of new powers and [the creation of] asymmetrical federalism.”

The latter proposal is unlikely to have much traction with independence supporters. There is no getting around the need for Québec solidaire to adopt independence as its strategic focus, not just one of its founding “values,” and to think of its entire program in terms of what a truly independent Quebec could do — opening the way to an independent and solidaristic international policy, nationalization of banking and finance, substitution of a popular militia for the army, an ecosocialist approach to economic development and the rapid phasing out of fossil fuel dependency, establishment of French as the common language of public discourse, etc., etc. And to take that program into the social movements, including the trade unions, as a tool to engage with their members and advance the movements toward political power in an independent state.

3. Alliances and united front

The latest public opinion poll, released September 27, found that 40% of Quebec voters would vote yes in a referendum on sovereignty, a rise of 10 points among those 18-24 years of age. “This may be a consequence of the frenzy that surrounded the referendum in Scotland” during the previous week, says pollster Jean-Marc Léger.[17] But half of those who declare themselves sovereigntists no longer support the Parti québécois. These figures point to the importance of alliances among the pro-independence forces (and not just the parties) in the next referendum.

Québec solidaire participates in the present umbrella coalition, the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec. And it has clearly and correctly rejected electoral alliances with the PQ. However, the new constellation of sovereigntist forces presents Québec solidaire with the potential to play a more important role in putting progressive content into the campaign — just as, in Scotland, the Radical Independence Campaign was instrumental in building popular support for the Yes. As Hilary Wainwright reported:[18]

“It is a strikingly generous-spirited, creative, diverse and plural movement, with a concentrated sense of common purpose. It has many platforms, including both the official Yes Campaign of politicians and national organisations and the Radical Independence Campaign (RIC), whose volunteers have canvassed working class communities that have been ignored by politicians for decades.

“A variety of different campaigns bring different constituencies to the activities of RIC: the energetic, always-present Women for Independence; the strategically vital Labour for Independence, which now has the support of many of Labour’s leading figures. Then there is the Jimmy Reid Foundation, an influential think tank committed to action as well as words….

“All these tributaries feed a populist movement that does without a charismatic leader. It is a populism organised through and around the people, in all their particularity. Its power lies in its many voices, in conversation with each other and with strangers, and the way that the Radical Independence Campaign takes a critique of some ghastly feature of UK government policy or structure and then turns the argument powerfully towards a fresh new perspective and positive solution.

“An argument for independence based on escaping the London housing bubble, for example, becomes the positive case for Scotland to have the macro-economic powers to create a new kind of sustainable economy, creating socially useful jobs and based on a variety of forms of economic democracy.

“Similarly, from a critique of Britain’s imperial role in the world and the one-dimensional nature of Scotland’s international relations so long as Scotland is part of the union, radical supporters of independence move to a liberating vision of the opportunities opened up by joining a network of nations. They explore a wide range of collaborations which take the debate far beyond the notion of ’separation’ and a single, closed, national sovereignty.”

It need only be added that a powerful mobilization for national independence and progressive social change in Quebec would most likely inspire solidarity and support in English Canada among working people. This could be crucially important in thwarting the federalist offensive against Quebec independence and fostering a radical politicization in “the Rest of Canada.”

For further reading, I highly recommend the collection of articles in Links, international journal of socialist renewal, http://links.org.au/taxonomy/term/59.

Richard Fidler


[1] For background information on the Radical Independence Campaign, see “Campaign launched for a radical vision of Scottish independence,” http://lifeonleft.blogspot.ca/2012_11_01_archive.html.

[2] “September 18 referendum in Scotland: Independence without borders,” http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article33029.

[3] “‘Independence offers a bit of hope’: Scottish working class eyes yes vote,” http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/17/yes-vote-glasgowscotland.html.

[4] “Scotland: Independence loss contains seeds of future victory,” http://links.org.au/node/4076.

[5] “Irvine Welsh: this glorious failure could yet be Scotland's finest hour,” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/20/irvine-welsh-scottish-independence-glorious-failure

[6] For a list of institutions and individuals for and against independence, see “List of endorsements in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_endorsements_in_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Newspaper.

[7] “Union of fear and loathing,” http://www.leninology.co.uk/2014/09/union-of-fear-and-loathing.html.

[8] For an early report, see “Thousands join pro-independence parties following referendum,” http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/293040-thousands-join-pro-independence-snp-greens-and-ssp-after-referendum/.

[9] op. cit.

[10] See, for example, “Massive demonstration of up to two million for independence in Catalonia,” http://lifeonleft.blogspot.ca/2012/09/massive-demonstration-of-up-to-two.html.

[11] François Brousseau, “N’oubliez pas la Catalogne,” http://www.ledevoir.com/international/europe/418474/n-oubliez-pas. For an informative account of the Catalan independence movement, see Dick Nichols, “Catalonia and the Spanish state on collision course,” http://links.org.au/node/4061.

[12] “Le retour des nations,” http://www.ledevoir.com/international/actualites-internationales/418955/le-retour-des-nations. Rioux is the author of a book on minority nations in Europe (and the Navajo nation in the USA), Voyage à l’intérieur des petites nations (Boréal, 2000).

[13] For a full discussion, see “The NDP revisits the Clarity Act,” http://lifeonleft.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-ndp-revisits-clarity-act.html.

[14] See “Une conjoncture, ça se crée,” http://synergieonqs.wordpress.com/.

[15] Jonathan Durand-Folco, “L’hypothèse du double mandat comme radicalisation de l’Assemblée constituante,” http://ekopolitica.blogspot.ca/2014/06/lhypothese-du-double-mandat-comme.html.

[16] Benoit Renaud, “Pour un référendum avec deux OUI,” http://leblogueursolidaire.blogspot.ca/2014/06/pour-un-referendum-avec-deux-oui.html.

[17] Sondage Léger, http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/419662/sondage-leger-peladeau-eclipse-ses-adversaires-au-pq.

[18] “September 18 referendum in Scotland: Independence without borders,” http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article33029. (Footnotes omitted)

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

In defense of Palestine–An appeal to world opinion launched from Bolivia

‘Join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against the terrorist state of Israel’

Faced with the tragic events our Palestinian brothers and sisters are living through in Gaza, the Network in Defense of Humanity (REDH) assumes our responsibility and expresses the following:

We take up as our own the words of compañero Evo Morales, a founder of the Network in Defense of Humanity and President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, who has declared Israel to be a terrorist state.

We express our absolute repulsion at the genocide being carried out against the Palestinian people by a state founded on dispossession and the colonial occupation of Palestinian territories.

We pay recognition to, and express our solidarity with the Palestinian people and its resistance organizations, especially in Gaza, in their heroic struggle against Israeli attempts to exterminate them and seize the small pieces that remain of what was once their homeland.

We condemn the imperialist role of the United States that politically, financially and militarily sponsors and backs Israel, in the face of the extraordinary inaction of the UN Security Council whose resolutions on the question of Palestine are systematically violated with complete impunity by Washington. The United States is once again demonstrating the hypocrisy and cynicism with which it has acted throughout history, threatening sanctions and interventions against the peoples of Latin America, Africa and Eurasia who defend their sovereignty at the same time as its backs the actions of Israel.

We denounce the complicity in what is occurring, by default in some cases, of the governments that make up the European Union, as well as the unconditional subordination of the media oligarchs to Washington's dictates. Enough of calling it a war when in fact it is a genocide being perpetrated by one of the best equipped armies in the world against a people whose defensive resources are infinitely inferior in quantity and quality!

We encourage you to join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against the terrorist state of Israel, as it is time for active and creative solidarity that goes beyond statements of condemnation. We have failed the more than 1600 people killed in Palestine over the last few weeks, as well as the more than 9000 injured since the start of the terrorist operation hypocritically named "Protective Edge".

We demand an end to apartheid and genocide, as well as to the walls and illegal settlements. We call on the governments of the world to demand that Israel complies with UN Security Council resolutions that oblige it to withdraw from Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, return to the borders that existed prior to the "Six Day War" (1967) and guarantee the right of return for Palestinian refugees, as per Security Council Resolution No. 242, November 22, 1967, a resolution that has been consistently ignored by the state of Israel.

We call for a real political solution to the conflict in Palestine on the basis of dialogue, negotiation and the existence of two states with equal rights and delineated borders that are internationally recognized. We believe this solution must begin with the immediate lifting of the blockade on Gaza and the liberation of all Palestinian political prisoners. We congratulate the governments of ALBA [Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our Americas], Mercosur [Common Market of the South] and other governments of the South for their position of solidarity against the barbaric actions of Israel in Gaza.

We adopt as our own the words of the revolutionary, Nelson Mandela: "We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians." We affirm that Israel has morally and politically lost this battle in the face of the brave Palestinian people and the growing condemnation by the peoples of the world of a "criminal" state that violates international law. The unbreakable Palestinian resistance will be rewarded, sooner rather than later, with the smiles of their children in a free homeland.

Against Israeli terrorism and US imperialism, in defense of the right to self-determination for Palestine and all the peoples of the world!
(Translation: Fred Fuentes)

Sign on: endefensadepalestina@gmail.com

La Paz, Bolivia August 4 2014

Initial signatories

Evo Morales, Bolivia

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Argentina

Pablo González Casanova, Mexico

Eduardo Galeano, Uruguay

Roberto Fernández Retamar, Cuba

Federico Mayor Zaragoza, Spain

Silvio Rodríguez, Cuba

Luis Arce Catacora, Bolivia

Gianni Vattimo, Italy

Gabriela Rivadeneira, Ecuador

Istvan Meszaros, Hungría/United Kingdom

Samir Amin, Egypt

Alfonso Sastre, Basque Country

Nardi Suxo, Bolivia

Enrique Dussel, Mexico

Marta Harnecker, Chile

Carmen Bohorquez, Venezuela

Cesar Navarro, Bolivia

Miguel Barnet, Cuba

Franz Hinkelammert, Germany

Héctor Arce Zaconeta, Bolivia

Piedad Cordoba, Colombia

Reverend Raúl Suarez, Cuba

Martin Almada, Paraguay

Fernando Rendón, Colombia

Graziella Pogolloti, Cuba

Sacha Llorenti, Bolivia

Ana Esther Ceceña, Mexico

Luis Britto, Venezuela

Rafael Cancel Miranda, Puerto Rico

Atilio Boron, Argentina

Theotonio Dos Santos, Brazil

Alfredo Rada, Bolivia

Piedad Cordoba, Colombia

Farruco Sesto, Venezuela

Ángel Guerra, Cabrera, Cuba/Mexico

Juan Carlos Trujillo, Bolivia

Mel Zelaya; Honduras

Hildebrando Pérez Grande, Peru

Patricia Villegas, Colombia/Venezuela

Maria Nela Prada, Bolivia

Stella Calloni, Argentina

Omar González, Cuba

Hugo Moldiz, Bolivia

Pascual Serrano, Spain

Raúl Pérez Torres, Ecuador

Obispo Raúl Vera, Mexico

Joao Pedro Stedile, Brazil

Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Portugal

Rodrigo Álvarez Cambras, Cuba

Socorro Gomes, Brazil

Katu Arkonada, Basque Country/Bolivia

For other signatories, see http://alainet.org/active/75935