Bolivia Votes on a New Constitution

Update Monday Evening

The Obama administration weighed in today on yesterday's Bolivia vote, prodded to do so by a reporter at today's daily press briefing at the U.S. State Deprtment in Washington.

Here are the comments of the State Department's acting spokesman, Robert A. Wood (Jan. 26, 2009):

Question: Do you have any reaction to the referendum which was held in Bolivia which is widely seen as kind of a power grab by Evo Morales […] ?

Wood: We congratulate the Bolivian people on the referendum, and I don’t think the results are final at this point, but we look forward to working with the Bolivian government in ways we can to further democracy and prosperity in the hemisphere.

Question: Do you have an opinion on whether this referendum furthered democracy in Bolivia?

Wood: Well, a free, fair democratic process certainly does contribute positively, but what I said was I wanted to wait until we can see the final results. But we certainly do congratulate the Bolivian people on that referendum.

Posts from Sunday

10:00 pm:
The Leaders Speak

With clear results in showing a strong 60% to 40% victory for the new constitution, the leaders of the main factions of the nation spoke publicly to their supporters.

Santa Cruz Governor Ruben Costas spoke first, declaring that Bolivia was in “a tie” over the issue [editorial note: This probably rules out any future career for Costas as either a soccer referee or math teacher]. He declared that those who had voted No did so to stop the violence in the country and to block Morales’ efforts to create a totalitarian state.

Interestingly, Santa Cruz civic leader Branco Marincovich sounded a rare conciliatory tone, calling on the government to work for a social pact that would allow the two factions of the nation to live in peace with one another.

In La Paz, meanwhile, Morales sought to put the constitution vote in deeper historic terms. Speaking from the Presidential Palace he told supporters that the vote marks the clear legal recognition of the nation’s indigenous people, “those who have been the most discriminated against, humiliated and excluded.” He called on the governors, mayors and sector leaders in the country to come together to implement the various autonomies set forth in the new constitution.

That’s it for tonight. We’ll have more in the coming days as the final results are tallied and the political fallout from this historic vote becomes clear. There is no doubt that this marks a significant turn in Bolivia’s history. However, what that significance will be in practical terms remains far less clear.

Thanks for joining us for our election coverage today.

8:15pm:
Constitution Passing with 57%

The results are still preliminary and vary somewhat depending on the media source, but the margins are all wide enough that there is little doubt of the result. The constitution backed by President Evo Morales and MAS will be approved by a solid majority of about 57% Yes / 43% No.

Bolivians are still waiting for their President to walk out onto the balcony over Plaza Murillo in La Paz, to make his victory comments, and for his adversaries to have their word as well. In Cochabamba groups are setting up in the Central Plaza to mark the victory with music. But a few things are key to note based on these preliminary results.

One is how deeply polarized Bolivians remain by region. According to UNITL, for example, the constitution was approved 75% to 25% in La Paz, while it was defeated 35% to 65% in Santa Cruz. In fact, the Morales/MAS victory, while substantial, is based on winning four out of nine of the nation’s departments.

Similarly, the nation is deeply polarized between rural and urban voters. ATB reports that, with 95% of the votes in, urban voters approved the constitution a 52% Yes / 48% No, while rural voters backed it 82% to 18%.

What does all this mean?

It means that Bolivia has a new constitution, passed legally and fair. It means that there are likely to be conflicts ahead as the regions that reject it declare that they are not bound by it. It means that if the opposition has any real desire to become a marginal force nationally, it needs to figure out how to do more than run commercials with Jesus on television and begin to speak to rural voters who never saw their ads. It means, as before, that Morales continues to enjoy solid majority support for his political agenda, but no so solid as four months ago (when he won 67%). And it means that Bolivia remains a fractured country that will be hard to govern.

6:30 pm:
OAS Says all Normal

Well, the polls are closed now and the counting has begun. Amidst charges of fraud from Morales opponents, the OAS, which has 68 election observers out in the field today, has issued its first statement.

The OAS says it looks to it that the voting took place with full regularity. But that preliminary analysis is based simply on a finding that most all of the nation's polling places has the required equipment and materials so that people could vote. It is doubtful that MAS opponents, especially if they lose as expected, will drop their charges of pressure on voters. But if they believe that Morales support in the rural areas of the country is manufactured rather than valid, they haven't spent much time talking to people in the countryside.

1:00 pm:
A Quiet Day of Voting

We’ll be blogging here periodically throughout the day. As of 12:35pm it appears that voting is going smoothly throughout the country, on this day without cars on the roads or legal drinking (both are banned on Election Day). Radio Erbol reports that 40% of the nearly 4 million eligible voters had already gone to the polls by noon.

Some of the opposition governors – the usual Evo adversaries from Chuquisaca, Santa Cruz, and Tarija –have been claiming for weeks that the National Election Court is engineering electoral fraud today on behalf of President Evo Morales and his backers and they have called on international observers to go to the countryside where, the governors claim, pressure is being used on voters to support Morales and his proposed constitution.

Nevertheless, it seems commonly believed here that the new constitution backed by Morales and his MAS political party will easily win the simple majority vote (50% plus one) that it needs to gain approval, though it may receive substantially less than the 67% support Morales won in last August’s referendum vote.

The campaign was marked by remarkably little activity on the street, except in the very final days, but a virtual carpeting of the radio and television airwaves by both sides, much of it pretty wild. The religious-backed ads featuring rival pictures of Morales and Jesus, may have crossed a new high water mark for political overstatement. But that’s a tough competition to win.

What does seem clear from most of my conversations the past few weeks is that this vote, like all of the recent national votes (the August 2008 referendum on Morales and the governors, the Constituent Assembly vote in 2006) is not so much about what is on the ballot as the person not on the ballot today, Morales. The content of the proposed constitution seems to be secondary to the basic question: Do you support Evo or oppose him?

Today Morales remains politically strong, mainly because out in the countryside and in places like El Alto, he can count on 4 out of 5 voters to support him on virtually anything. In August that translated into a renewed mandate and the dispatch of two key rivals among the governors. Today it will likely mean approval of a new constitution. But if those numbers drop substantially below what he won four months ago, that will also be a measure of how solid his support will remain as the opposition struggles to unify behind and anti-Morales candidate in the December elections that would be triggered by that same new constitution.

More later today, and we hope others will use the comments space today to share their observations as Bolivians vote.

A Strange Campaign Over an Uncertain Constitution

Bolivia is ten days away from a national vote that by all measures ought to be a historic watershed – to approve or not a sweeping new national constitution.

Yet the streets are quiet. Neither here in urban Cochabamba where I work nor in rural Tiquipaya where I live, have I seen anyone handing out leaflets. There are no auto caravans roaming the streets with loudspeakers. There are no armies of campaigners wearing Si! or No! t-shirts. I've seen no announcements for big rallies in the stadium. All of the usual trappings of popular Bolivian election campaigning seem to be hiding in hibernation somewhere, as if everyone just sort of forgot.

How would Jesus Vote?

The airwaves however are a different story. My television watching friends (since television is the devil I don't own one) tell me it is wall-to-wall propaganda by both sides, most of it so over the top that facts aren't even a light consideration.

One ad, seeking a No vote, touts a bloody fetus and declares that the new constitution would legalize abortion. It doesn't, nor does it come close to doing so. Another ad shows two men kissing, beckons voters to "not be a part of the sin" and urges a No vote. The new constitution includes vague language about discriminatation based on sexual orientation. The best ad of the bunch features side-by-side images of President Evo Morales, the constitution's main promoter, with Jesus Christ (who to my knowledge has remained neutral so far). Declaring that the new constitution eliminates religious rights (another, 'it doesn't') the ad asks voters, "Whose side are you on?"

Jesus, who has not run for public office in Bolivia, is a popular figure here.

Morales and his MAS party aren't staying out of the exaggeration Olympics in all this either. Their ads proudly proclaim that the new constitution would put the nation's natural resources into the hands of the people. But the actual articles, especially after the huge compromises made in October, leave things a good deal mushier than that.

A Long Way from the Original Vision

The Bolivian demand for a new constitution did not begin this month or with the election of Evo Morales in 2005. It has been a demand for decades from the nation's long-marginalized indigenous majority, who see in the current constitution the vestiges of legally-enforced privilege and of old colonialism.

Their vision of how a new constitution would come about is almost tragically different than what has transpired. Their dream was of a process outside of politics, a Constituent Assembly of citizens from their communities that would mirror the communitarian decision-making process of their pueblos. In the end they got their constituent assembly, though one so dominated by political parties that you had to be a member of one to be a delegate. Then even that went out the door as political parties met behind closed doors in Cochabamba and adopted 100 amendments, as part of a desperate reach for a compromise that would pave the way for the January 25th vote and steer the nation past the bloody conflicts that broke out over the constitution and other issues in September.

As many critics have noted: If this was government of the people, by the people and for the people, it was a really small number of people who made the decisions.

What would the New Constitution Really Mean?

With 411 separate articles, stretching across a range of issues as wide as the imagination, the number of people who genuinely understand the real implications can probably be counted on two hands. I am not among them, nor have I ever had any desire to be. Nevertheless, if one listens to the various proponents and critics, and talks to any of the genuine experts, the big issues seem to come to this:

Political Reforms

You want my opinion? I think it really all came down to this, issues of how the political playing field would be laid out that will affect the fortunes of politicians and their constituencies for decades to come.

Evo wanted unlimited opportunities for reelection, or at least two (the current constitution forbids back-to-back terms for President). The opposition wanted none. They compromised on one reelection term, in a vote that would take place next December.

MAS wanted to abolish the Senate, the opposition strong hold, and have a unicameral Congress. The opposition likes the status quo. They compromised on increasing the Senate by nine seats and establishing, for the lower house, that a certain undetermined number of districts will be reserved for indigenous community representatives, elected in a manner to be chosen by those communities according custom.

Land Reform

This was going to be the 'big enchilada' of constitutional reform, or one of them. The large land tracks of the wealthy were going to be divided up and handed out to campesinos who had none. If Morales and MAS had redistribution of wealth on their minds when elected, this was going to be where it really happened, which is, of course, why so many wealthy landowners in places like Santa Cruz went so utterly bananas.

How does it look now? Under the compromise amendments approved in October, if you have huge tracts of land and you are using them in some form of production (which could be just chasing one small herd of cattle around to its various corners), you are in the clear. Productive land got 'grandfathered' in, meaning it is exempt from any changes. If some of that big land is just sitting around drying out, it will be in the government's sights, and the policy on compensation is as vague as Cochabamba street directions.

Anybody who buys land in the future will be limited by the new constitution, if it is approved. Whether the cap is 5,000 hectares of 10,000 hectares will be decided by a parallel vote on the 25th.

Gas and Oil

Back in the people's hands? Well, not quite. The Morales approach to gas and oil has never been confiscatory, despite silly claims otherwise. It has been 'renegotiation,' not 'nationalization' and the new constitution does little to alter that course. The pre-compromise version said that the government could contract with private oil and gas companies to perform certain services. The language won by Morales adversaries amended that to let oil firms join in 'risk sharing' arrangements with the government. That is also called co-ownership and is a far cry from, "It was your gas, now it's our gas, thanks."

National Health Care Services

Called 'Social Security" here, this is an issue which has drawn criticism from the left (which is ample). The pre-compromise version of the new constitution declared that these services would be free to all. The new version only guarantees "access". Any good policy student worth her salt knows the difference here. Guaranteed access means you can have it if you pay, and how much is unclear.

Will it Make a Difference?

There are certainly, amidst 411 articles, many other issues – from education to indigenous and regional autonomy – and many points of view on them (though not from Jesus, to my knowledge). There are also other criticisms. I spoke about the new constitution recently with former President Eduardo Rodriguez, as legitimate a constitutional scholar as the nation has (he was also formerly President of the Supreme Court). He pointed out some simple problems of consistency. In one article the new draft guarantees the right to declare oneself a conscientious objector and in another declares military service to be obligatory. How conflicts like that one will get worked out is anyone's guess.

Amidst all the unknowns and the vagaries of the constitution being put before the people in ten days, one thing is quite crystal clear. For the vast majority of the people the vote on January 25th will not be about the specifics contained in 411 articles but how they identify with the process of 'change' represented by Morales.

It will be an emotional vote. If it passes, as expected, some opponents will weep that the end of the world is at hand. Perhaps the U.S. Embassy will see a spike in applications for visas, as it did after Morales' 2005 election. Supporters of the new constitution will similarly weep with joy, and will proclaim the vote as a clear mandate for a break with the past and a move forward to a Morales-dominated political future.

But the fact is that a new constitution will likely change little here. It will not make the buses less crowded. It will not create better paying markets for the corn crops growing in my neighbors' fields. It will not improve the quality of the teaching or the learning at the public schools set to start up again next month. It will not give people yearning for opportunity much new chance of employment.

These things will depend on what they have always depended. Will Bolivia's economy take a huge hit as the global economy festers? Will Bolivia have the public resources to meet the desperate needs for investment in education, health, and infrastructure? Will the government, at every level, break through the poly-partisan habits of public corruption and inefficiency that siphon off those resources before they do the people any good?

Why haven't I dedicated hours developing detailed analyses of the 411 articles (other than my natural laziness and that weeklong bout with 90,000 hiccups)? Because after 11 years in Bolivia (and seven governments) I know enough to know that what counts is people's day-to-day lives and I know the difference between what effects them and what doesn't.

On January 25th Bolivians will go to the polls with great hope and great emotions. But a lot of them will be a lot more concerned that the rains keep falling and that someone will buy their corn at a good price.