Ciao!

Bolivia certainly is a politically active small country. Seems like the people would be very passionate to engage in such things.

Sorry to hear you're sick. Ditto. Would like to grab the person who coughed on me yesterday by the collar and judo chop the bastado's neck.

Is that "wonderful", ironic or are you actually in favor of secession? or in favor a "very independent" (with its own borders kind of autonomy) Sta. Cruz? Just curious.

Yes, it was mostly sarcastic. But I do favor some sort of regional self-government — for all of Bolivia's regions.

I was at a conference in Bolivia where we debated various proposals, and I came out (along w/ others) in favor of a proposal to re-organize the country into 20+ "regions" using municipality mancomunidades as basic units. The idea was that regions would determine their own political structure (e.g. "indigenous" regions could use traditional structures like mallkus or whatever), so long as these didn't violate some basic national constitutional norms (e.g. protection for minority rights, female representation, etc.). We also suggested that each region could determine what areas it would want competence over (e.g. sanitation, health, police, etc.) and which they'd want the national government to continue to manage.

If it comes down to it, though, I do think that people have a right to self-determination. And that does, I'm afraid, include secession. For better or worse, the rights of individuals to break their bonds w/ a nation-state supercede the rights of the rest of the state to impose their membership. If Santa Cruz democratically decides to seceede from Bolivia, I do believe they have that right to self-determination. While most in Santa Cruz do feel some attachment to the Bolivian nation-state, increased radicalization can quickly erode those bonds. It's imperative that leaders in La Paz (both government & opposition) be aware of this, or they risk a potential disaster for Bolivia.

The proposal you talk about sounds interesting. It would, perhaps, fit well in to a fractionalized society like Bolivia's. I would certainly like to know more about it.

As for secession. Even though, it might seem far-fetched, secession might move Bolivia closer to some sort of civil war or some other kind of armed conflict. Specially if some parties (radical parties) are against the idea. Unless, the secession is mutually accepted, something like former Checkslovakia, the idea could turn for the worst.

Let's hope not.

I tend to be an democratic optimist; I believe any society is democratically governable, if it has the right institutions in place. But it also needs a society that thinks the system's legitimate. And leaders who're willing to avoid brinksmanship & play a cooperative game. So I believe Bolivia as a state can still be salvaged.

But there might come a point where it'll be easier to just split the country up. We're nearing that point too quickly. What most irritates me, is that people in La Paz (even academics, pundits, etc) constantly insisted that secession was impossible, that it'd never happen, even using dismissive language towards the region's inhabitants. This permeats, it seems, most levels of Andean political leadership. This refusal to even think that secession is a real possibility, more than just empty rhetoric, means they're not taking any steps to prevent secession — they're playing a political game in which they think a certain move by other players is impossible, when it's in the realm of the possible. That's the real danger.

Also, one of the things most indicative (to me) is the difference in symbols used by protesters. In the Andean regions (Cochabamba, La Paz, El Alto, Oruro, etc) protesters carry Bolivian flags — even if they're carrying the whiphala (indigenous flag) as well. The most you'll see is a 50/50 ratio of whiphalas to national flags.

In Santa Cruz protests, participants tend to carry only the green-white-green regional flags. I've seen pictures of thousands of marchers, w/ hundreds of such flags, and only one national flag standing out in the crowd.

This is important. It means Andean protesters still see themselves as loyal patriots, even while protesting a government. But camba protesters seem to more closely identify w/ their region, not the nation, and are protesting as regionalists against a (semi-foreign) central state.

Why do they seem to think that Mesa is against self-determination. Time and time again he has come out in favor of autonomy. The time and place of those changes come during the Constitutent Assembly, where true changes are debated and planned. Unless fundamental changes come with autonomy like true representation, public sector jobs not tied in to political affiliation, and real decentralization, then these new communities/regions will operate as the centralist national government that they hate so much.

I think one more factor fueling this talk about secession within the people is the fact that La Paz is the seat of government (capital, for all intents and purposes). In every country there tends to be antagonistic feelings against the inhabitants of the capital city and the seat of government. Heck, even in the US, people talk in a certain tone about the people who live in Washington, DC. I must be that, by the same token, the people who live in these cities, think of themselves as something special. A little more than people living around the country.

This antagonism translates in to readiness to hear and believe rhetoric rationalizing independence and autonomy. People, not only in Sta. Cruz, but other parts of the country are ready to differentiate themselves from the "corrupt and ineficient" La Paz and build pride and believe in the virtues of their own region.

Then there is regionalism. Another truth is the fact that there are very strong regionalist feeling among Bolivians. Kollas, Cochalas, Chapacos, Cambas, Quirquinchos, and the like, are keen to point out why theirs is the best part of Bolivia. Now more than ever, there is a kind of rivalry between La Paz and Sta. Cruz, that is ever growing. So much, that it is turning into resentment.

Here is a joke that touches, a little, this topic.
Two kollas decide to migrate to Sta. Cruz. The cambas tell them they have to swim across the Piraí river as proof of their worthiness and whoever survives, will instantly become a camba. The first kolla jumps in and barely makes it accross. Comes out and calls: "Elay pueh". The second kolla jumps in and instantly gets in trouble. He cannot make it and calls for help to his friend. His friend looks at him concerned at first, and then thinks about it and says to his friend in trouble: "ah morite kolla'e mi...."

Hope you like the joke.

I don't think Mesa's opposed to self-determination. Or even regional autonomies. I'm pretty sure I've never said that at all. I only said that I'm in favor of the principle of self-determination, which leads me to favor secession if (and only if) there's no other option (and I think there still are several alternative options).

When I said that many in La Paz operate on the assumption that secession's not a real possibility, I meant nothing about their support for (or opposition to) regional autonomies w/in a single Bolivian state. What I meant was that when I'd ask them about secession, they dismissed it as something that could never happen. All I meant was that the more they act this way, the more they don't realize that the other side's playing w/ a very different deck of cards altogether.

Now, the rhetoric of the Comité pro Santa Cruz is, of course, that Mesa's opposed to (or at least dragging his feet on) the issue of autonomías. That's populist rabble-rousing, to be sure. But the evidence that Mesa continually bends — and quickly — to social pressure from groups in El Alto, MST, gremiales, etc. leads many to think he's more concerned w/ keeping Andean Bolivian happy.

The Aguas del Illimani case is instructive. The El Alto protest against the French-owned company is rather recent, and took to the streets only in the last several days. Mesa then rescinded the contract, most likely to pay $60 million in indemnities (and where will that money come from?). The case illustrates to cruceño leaders that despite their mass mobilizations for regional demands back in June, they're still waiting. And they'll most likely have to suffer the economic consequences of appeasing El Alto constituents. And their fear (it's always in their rhetoric) that the state's eroding the right to property. The basic question many cruceños seem to be asking themselves is: Why is an autonomías referendum postponed into a distant future? And a major economic decision for El Alto made in the matter of days? Why do "they" always get their demands met before "we" do?

Mesa's biggest fault, in my opinion, has been his lack of ability (or willingness) to enforce basic state authority. He doesn't have to be repressive, mind you. But once he allows the state to give way to every protest demand, it invites more protest demands. It signals to Bolivia's political society that mass mobilization & radical protests are the most efficient way to get demands met. Mesa's started a vicious cycle that will, I'm sure of it, end his presidency.