Clare Sammells
Miguel Centellas
Maria Bruno
Sara Simon
Chris Exner
Kate McGurn Centellas
Claudine Vallières
Jonathan
Andres Vaughan
Donna Yates
kylepiispanen
dpacificoA group of MAS supporters attacked the house and family of Victór Hugo Cárdenas in Huatajata, leaving family members hospitalized and the government denying involvement. However, some statements from Morales Administration officials have been released that essentially blame Cárdenas for what happened because he did not support the new MAS constitution.
Just today, the news broke that Evo has ordered the expulsion of Francisco Martinez, a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in La Paz, because he had been “in contact with opposition groups.” Not surprisingly, the Obama Administration said this was baffling since Morales claims to want a better relationship with the U.S.
Both incidents are deeply troubling for what they indicate about dissent and democracy in Bolivia today. Without opposition groups – regardless of how abhorrent one may find their beliefs – there can be no democracy and no debate on social issues. Similarly, such attacks and the associated blame-the-victim rhetorical gymnastics that accompany the government’s response can only weaken the public sphere in Bolivia.
Not only that, but they are strongly reminiscent of the techniques that many dictators used in Latin America in the late 1970s and 1980s. However the national project under Morales is perhaps better understood as a mirror (or inverted) image of those earlier ones – recognizable yet the orientation has fundamentally shifted.
Miguel has an excellent lengthy post on this here.
Journalists are starting to notice this trend and one has compared Morales to Mugabe (though I think that is a bit of a stretch and was chosen for the snappy alliteration).
In any case, the signs for the future of democracy in Bolivia are quite troubling.
Filed under: Class and Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples, International Connections, Politics, U.S.-Latin American relations
Now community leaders in the province of Omasuyos have expelled Cárdenas from the province, basing their decision on the right to use “indigenous law” in the newly approved CPE.
http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20090311_006663/nota_249_775921.htm
Wow.
This is certainly troubling from a U.S. point of view, which assumes the right to political free speech and the right to private property. But this reveals a very different way of thinking about both issues.
In my experience, Aymara political groups often give the appearance of consensus — not because they are always in agreement, but because it is expected that those in the minority will go along with the majority opinion once the decision is made.
Rights to land, similarly, involve service to one’s community in the form of holding office and other responsibilities. Individuals who leave rural areas for the city can lose access to land precisely for not fulfilling these roles.
All this is not to justify what is happening to VHC — personally, I find it very disturbing. But this response makes sense given the local political structures in place, I think. Just thinking out loud here — thoughts?
Perhaps, and there is something to be said for local power structures and procedures. That said, I believe VHC and his family live in the house as their primary residence, his wife makes it a point to dress de pollera (even on the Senate floor) and speak in Aymara, etc. So I am not so sure how disconnected they are from local politics, especially since family members were home. Are the likely the richest/most well known/etc people in town? Probably. Does that cause some friction? Of course. But I don’t know if the outline of the situation as I understand it is enough to argue that they were somehow disconnected from local structures/shirking their communal obligations. If anything, I would bet that they accept compadrazgo obligations fairly regularly in their community to keep some of the resentment etc at bay. I too am speculating here, of course.
That said, I am concerned by a trend in community justice in Bolivia – that any/all behavior that can be termed community justice is ok and allowed because it is TERMED community justice (when actual structures of community justice etc may not have been invoked). If true, that means anything goes, and anyone you disagree with can be subject to beatings, expropriations, etc. That’s troubling to me – especially because there’s lots to be said for community/local standards of justice and responsibility.
Sorry to be slow in getting into the conversation, it’s been a busy week! I find the violence used against VHC and his family very disturbing as well. I think there might be space for “community justice”, if you will, for crimes committed, like physically harming someone, steeling livestock, doing damage to property, etc. (Of course, this can be debated but it is in the constitution now and given the reliability of the Bolivian police forces and justice system, it might make sense.) BUT, I don’t think they should have any right to “punish” someone because of their political beliefs. Consensus building is important in any political process, but no one should be abused materially or physically for disagreeing.
What I find even more disturbing is that the Bolivian government basically approved the actions by not denouncing them and even blaming VHC for having a dissenting political view… this is very dangerous. I agree with Kate that this it now opens the door to any “community”, say a neighborhood in Santa Cruz or Oruro, who decides they don’t like a resident and can use the communal justice clause to oust this person/family, take away their property, etc. This would in essence justify the violent acts done against “kollas” in Santa Cruz or Trinidad because the local majority doesn’t like to have them there. The actions and the government response are setting a very bad precedent.
Finally, as many other GTers have brought up, in a democracy every voice should be protected, even the dissenting one. As a democratically elected government, Evo’s government is obligated to protect all citizens and all opinions, even if they go against their own.
Kate — I wasn’t trying to suggest that VHC is disconnected from his community. Actually, this looks like an abuse of that system. I was just trying to say that there is a different set of assumptions about rightful ownership at work here — one that requires ongoing community acceptance.
Maria — I agree entirely. Are people saying this in the Bolivian press? Please post!