Abstract

It is commonplace today to argue that the politics of class and a left-right ideologi cal positioning on the political spectrum do not matter as much as they once did that the 'new world order' of neoliberal globalization has totally changed the po litical landscape. All regimes and parties in power seem to be constrained in a similar way to implement close variations on a few policy themes. Thus, left-right distinctions in the shaping of political space and the unfolding of diverse political dynamics in diverse contexts are no longer relevant. What matters is that under current conditions, politicians of whatever stripe, no matter what the professed ideological orientation, in power end up with the same policies. A different way of putting this is that the forces of globalization (the dynamics of neoliberal globaliza tion and capitalist development) work by constraining the policy options available. Class factors, including ideology, play a reduced role or so goes the prevailing theory. This article explores several dimensions of this issue in the context of Bolivia, with reference to political developments associated with the ascent and assumption of state power by Evo Morales, an indigenous leader of the Movement to Socialism (MAS), after a year and a half in power. Compared to Ignacio [Lula] da Silva, leader of the Worker's Party (PT) and now president of Brazil, in regard to whom a similar analysis could be (and has been) made, and other 'leftists' (or populists) who in recent years have assumed state power in Latin America, Morales is rela tively close to the social base of the popular movement and 'the people' that he purportedly represents. These 'people', indigenous and poor like Morales look at him with hope as a saviour ('I am like you', cried Morales at one of the many lightning visits to indigenous communities during his presidency, 'from a poor background'). Prior to his ascent to state power he led 'los cocaleros', a popular social movement of coca-producing indigenous peasants, and was constrained by this movement in a number of ways. The indigenous movement has never been as close to state power as it is today with Morales as president. In this context Morales' electoral victory in late 2005 and his assumption of state power in Janu ary 2006 were events of transcendental significance to the indigenous peoples and population in their long struggle against class exploitation and racist oppression. The issues addressed in this paper are explored with reference to two sets of political dynamics, one having to do with the struggle for state power, the other with the use of state as a source of social change and the forces acting on the re gime over sixteen months in the exercise of state power.

Highlights

  • The issues addressed in this paper are explored with reference to two sets of political dynamics, one having to do with the struggle for state power, the other with the use of state as a source of social change and the forces acting on the regime over sixteen months in the exercise of state power

  • As for the constraints associated with electoral politics, both in regard to the struggle for state power and the exercise of government, they clearly favour groups or the class that has encircled state power, in many cases penetrating and inhabiting it

  • As for the political developments leading up to Morales’ ascent to state power, they involved the shifting dynamics of resistance to the neoliberal model that have been used as a policy guide since 1985

Read more

Summary

Henry Veltmeyer and James Petras

It is commonplace today to argue that the politics of class and a left-right ideological positioning on the political spectrum do not matter as much as they once did – that the ‘new world order’ of neoliberal globalization has totally changed the political landscape. The combination of these diverse forces of resistance in various conjunctures of objective (socio-economic) and subjective (political) conditions generated what in retrospect might be viewed as a ‘quasi-revolutionary’ situation, bringing the popular movement at various times to the brink of state power This ‘situation’, realized in February and October 2003 and again in October 2005, brought together diverse groups and organizations in a common, albeit unorganized, class struggle for a fundamental change in government policy, the detonating factor was created by the government’s move to limit access to the country’s vast hydrocarbon reserves of natural gas and to privatize production in the sector. What have been the government’s major policy decisions and actions over the course of eighteen months in power? What are the social forces behind these policies and actions? In other words, what pressures do they respond to and reflect? What have their outcome and social impacts been? What groups and classes have benefited from the government’s policies and actions? Who have borne the cost of these policies and actions? Our tentative answers to these questions relate to several categories of critical policy concerns

Nationalization versus privatization
The land question
Macroeconomic and social policies
Findings
Socialism or Bolivian capitalism?
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.