Marzo 09, 2005
Mesa's Ability as President
A line in Miguel B's recent post in MABB about the developments in Bolivia jumped out at me.
Now a few rumors about Mesa. We all have seen his incapacity to govern, but we just have to give him kudos on his performance on TV.
Sure I don't hide the fact that I admire Carlos Mesa and his sacrifice to jump into a difficult situation. Many (Miguel's post was far from being the first) seem to personalize the situation to find fault in Mesa's character. He may have made some wrong calculations here and there, but there is no precedent for what he is doing (governing without a political party and vowing to avoid violence). I don't think it's less his incapacity to govern Bolivia, but more, Bolivia's incapacity to be governed.
Posted by eduardo at Marzo 9, 2005 06:39 PM
Comments
I think it's a combination of incapacity to govern, and unwillingness to be governed. As a political scientist, I'm ingrained w/ that Weberian mantra that defines the state as "that organization that exercises the (legitimate) monopoly over the means of coercion over a given territory".
Until Mesa admits that force may have to be used (and I don't mean massacres, I mean arresting people who start bloqueos, etc, you know, enforcing currently existing laws) he's conceded that the Bolivian government does NOT have a monopoly over the means of coercion. In essence, he's weakening the state, leaving society up to its own devices. If the bloqueos cutting Santa Cruz off from the altiplano aren't opened by the Bolivian state, that only encourages local people to take would-be state authority into their own hands. And that do-it-yourself position, my friends, is an impulse towards secessionism.
Posted by: Miguel Centellas at Marzo 9, 2005 07:45 PM
He has begun utilizing the phrase "mano justa" in respects to the illegal blockades. It is important to differentiate between the right to protest vs. impeding others' freedoms to do business, go to school, work and free transit.
Posted by: eduardo at Marzo 10, 2005 04:38 PM
Well, yes. It's like Miguel C. says. What I mean with my sentence is that (aside from the argument of the government being the one party who has monopoly on violence) Mesa did not enforce his rights as government and as such did not enforced the rule of law. What Morales and Manani do sometimes is outright unlawful. For example calling on supporters to interfere with the rights of other people in Bolivia. And so on. In that sense, he was not governing. He was just a by-stander.
However, his refusal to use force (which is violence) makes me think he is onto something. Unfortunately, I also think that is that on pacifism. I think, now, he's got no other choice to deal with the blockades and other pressure tactics. I just hope he doesn't end up joining GSL in his trial.
Posted by: MB at Marzo 11, 2005 01:59 PM