barrio flores

On this issue, I would even go farther. The diputados & senadores from Santa Cruz tend to represent Santa Cruz interests very well, actually. And I'd even argue that MNR has essentially become an "oriente" part (like ADN has become a Beni/Pando party, specifically) in recent years.

So the cruceño business class isn't excluded from political power at all. Not only that, recent presidents have been, more or less, elected by Santa Cruz (over the interests of La Paz).

My analysis of election data demonstrates that La Paz (as a department) has consistently voted for losers in presidential contests, in contrast to Santa Cruz, where winners there end up going to the presidency. So one could argue that Santa Cruz has, in the last two elections, especially, dominated Bolivian electoral politics. I think the resentment in October was largely due to La Paz/El Alto resenting their lack of representation in government (since the people they vote against keep winning).

While there is this aura that Santa Cruz isn't represented (and it's true that the historical legacies of the country tended to support this), it's not actual fact. Cruceños may "feel" non-represented (a feeling encouraged, of course, by dirigentes & keeping w/ the realities of a generation or two ago), but they are, in fact, well represented. Until, of course, October ... when Mesa came to power, and it's fair to say he took power to fulfill the "October agenda", which was clearly altiplano in orientation (or at least more so than Goni's govt).

Briefly, La Paz voted highest for UDP than any other dept in 1985. It had the highest anti-incumbent & anti-triparty (MNR, ADN, MIR) votes of any dept since. It has tended to elect people/parties opposed to neoliberalism. Whereas Santa Cruz had the highest vote against UDP, the highest votes for incumbents & tri-parties, and tended to vote for parties that maintained the neoliberal economic model.

BTW.

Jerjes Justiniano is PS
Esteban Ribera is NFR

I've been reading some commentary from Santa Cruz, and email from relatives. Interesting their take on the dieselazo in all this. Very instructive of the "camba" sentiment, which I think is lost on many who're not cambas. Let me explain (because I mean no disrespect).

In the altiplano, there's this idea of compromise, of meeting halfway, of protesting & getting the government to back down. It's all very natural & makes sense.

For cambas, it's the opposite. Most of what I keep hearing is that the opposition to Mesa INCREASED after Mesa lowered the increase to the price of diesel. They weren't so much angered at what Mesa decided, but more angered that he changed his mind. Now, I'm sure many would want the price lowered. But to many cambas, Mesa conceding showed weakness, and the inability to take decisions & stick to them (even Ruben Costas made this point the following day).

I'm not sure if this was sort of planned (very Machiavellian) to push Mesa into changing his mind so that he would, thereby infuriating normal camba sentiment. Cambas are very confrontational, but respect those who stand their ground. My uncle taught me this, in a very clear way:

He was meeting a group of cruceño friends, and a new guy noticed that he looked "kolla" (well, he was born in Cochabamba to a Orureño parents). So they started in on him. But because my uncle thinks of himself as "camba" (having lived in Santa Cruz since he was an adolescent) he got right in the guy's face and called him out. The guy's reponse was: "Mira puej, ejte si q'es un kolla vale." Before offering my uncle a drink, a pat on the back, and then became friendly from that day forward (they moved in same social circle). Even specifically recommended my uncle for several civil engineering jobs years later.

The point of my uncles story (told to me so long ago, but only now comes back to me) was that cambas only respect people who stick to their guns. I don't know, just something to think about. I think many cambas would get angry if Mesa took a hardline. They'd be angry, but they'd respect him.

So Costas would have backed down if Mesa held firm? Would they respect Mesa more if he uses the Armed Forces to restore order?

I don't think this conflict is such a black and white issue. They are capitalizing on dividing the issue into 2 sides. Altiplano vs. Llanos, Kolla vs. Camba, Autonomists vs. Anti-autonomists, even a white vs. non-white undercurrent.

I think that is what bothers me the most, especially with that commercial. They are trying to form two distinct sides, making it much more appealing to choose the one that is most popular. Santa Cruz is hardly a homogeneous place and I find it appalling that they are stirring up such anti-indigenous sentiment (which basically is what it boils down to). "You are either with us or against us".

I have a friend who used to work at CAINCO. She is from Santa Cruz, but spent recent time studying in La Paz. She would tell me that some of her co-workers would barely talk to her because they considered her to "be tainted" (her words).

I am not saying that all people from Santa Cruz like this, but there is a real segment of the population that thrives off of this type of behavior.

No, I agree. And I'm not so sure that Costas or the others would've backed down if Mesa had been firm. I'm just thinking out loud. But the reaction against Mesa's inability to be consistent, to stick to his original decision, was widespread in the criticism right after Mesa's concession.

Costas (and a few others) had some statements where they basically say: "If Mesa had explained his position, maybe he could've convinced us. We assume there should be some reason for the original decision." The criticism added to the previous ones, was that Mesa couldn't seem to make up his mind. Implication: He wasn't being honest (and you know as well as I the camba stereotype of the two-faced paceño).

While this isn't a black/white issue, and there's clearly more complicated things going on here, I was just intrigued that one of the most common critiques against Mesa, from various cruceño sectors, is exactly that: That Mesa can't stand firmly behind his decisions. It's NOT a critique you hear from Mesa's Altiplano or Chapare or El Alto opposition.

For me, it wasn't until his 2nd address to the nation where he really explained the reasons for the fuel increase. The government was subsidizing fuel prices that often did not even reach Bolivians. Contraband sales took advantage of these lower prices. One of the most serious problems for Bolivia is their budget deficit. No one has come up with a solution as to where this money will come from (outside of the complicated gas issue, which won't give immediate cash benefits).

So, maybe the public explanation just wasn't there from the beginning.

What one person considers a weakness, others see it as a strength. What do you do when there are polar opposites tugging from both sides? It has been wrongly emphasized that Mesa is far too the left. Both Evo and Santa Cruz saw Mesa as the number one enemy of their interests. In fact, Mesa's Hydrocarbons Law was certainly more favorable to Santa Cruz interests.

But then again, no one really can specify what this conflict is based on: land issues, hydrocarbons law, constituent assembly, tax revenues, patronage control or fuel increases? It's all this vague notion of "autonomy", which the word itself holds nothing but a favorable connotation.