Tea with Evo

November 28, 2006

Yesterday I went to a lecture by Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, and recognised as the first indigenous president of the Americas. His policies symbolize an unprecedented break with the past. He wants to 'decolonize' Bolivia, starting with the natural resources, which foreign companies have largely been profiting from since the implementation of the World Bank and IMF's SAPs. Instead of the company receiving all the profits, he has reversed the percentages, so that the state now receives 82% and the company receives 18%. He copied this ratio from the Dutch government, whom he had visited years ago before he was president, and this inspired him to implement it in Bolivia. And why not? If the Dutch can do it, why can't the Bolivians? He plans to redistribute the profits in order to relieve poverty and promote 'bottom up' development, instead of the failed 'topdown' strategies of the past. This is not radical, as academics, activists and development critics have been saying it for years. It is, however a radical break from the mainstream, the hegemonic liberalization and economic development above all. Finally a social movement that has come to political power. This is the epitomy of democracy.

Bush used the discourse of democracy to justify his invasion of Iraq. However, the situation in the US is not emblematic of democracy and democratic processes. For example, the dubious circumstances surrounding the vote count during the 2000 elections, the media censorship concerning September 11th and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The patriot Act itself does not support the ‘democratic’ ideals of freedom of speech. Not to mention the social and economic problems in the US that many of its citizens feel needs to be addressed before its military intervene or meddle in another country’s affairs. There is an aboriginal wisdom which says: ‘Before passing judgment on another, one must look to oneself.’ This is certainly not a practice of the US foreign policy of the Bush Administration. Furthermore, implementing ‘democracy’ through violence is certainly not democratic; rather it is precisely these techniques that characterize an authoritarian dictatorship, which the US are supposedly dismantling.

Similarly, the world is looking to Latin American countries and fearing the ‘radical’ left wing policies of Chavez and Morales. Will they radicalize? Enforce their policies on their citizens through violence and oppression? Not likely. This is truly an economic fear of investors that want to continue their exploitative relationship with Latin American countries, and must now lose profits for, god forbid, the benefit of the poor. Redistribution is their credo, and to the US it sounds like communism. The fear of the ‘Reds’ has not died, yet now it is wrapped in the package of the terrorism discourse. Yet acts of terror have been reportedly used by foreign companies and their staff against the local population in Bolivia, Peru, Chile… when they received the go-ahead in the age of neoliberalisation and SAPs. Morales raises an interesting question, which echoes Noam Chomsky: liberalization was originally intended (by Adam Smith) to free the movement of goods as well as labour, yet through US hegemony, liberalization has only resulted in the free trade of goods, and restricts the movement of the very people that are producing these goods. In order for the world to be truly ‘liberalized’, the people need to be allowed to move freely across borders. The fear of terrorism (ironically the point of terrorism is to instill fear, so the terrorists have already achieved their goals) does not allow this, yet it is these restrictions that contribute to the origins of terrorism.

I prefer not to make a scientific prediction of the future of indigenous movements in Latin America. Predictions can be dangerous tools in shaping top-down policies for the futures of peoples whom I feel should actually be taking an active role in the creation of their own futures themselves. Nor would I express any specific expectations, out of a personal belief that expectations of any kind inevitably lead to disappointments. What I would like to do is express my hope for the future, as well as contest the present floating fear in the West that Latin American leaders such as Chavez and Morales may ‘radicalize’ their social goals for their countries in the future. After attending the Morales lecture, I am confident his form of governance and societal goals are not ‘radical’. On the contrary, Morales is executing his reforms step by step, proceeding with caution precisely to prevent conflict. Listening at Evo yesterday, I felt he is a mild-mannered man that I would invite over for tea, and his speech, full of humour, was exactly what we've wanted all along. Now he is in the position to make a positive change, in any case for Bolivia. Let us hope this seed will spread in Latin America, and that we may learn from it as an example for the future. This is dependent on political will, and it is this will that Morales is showing that is giving me hope for the future of Latin America, and possibly the rest of the world.