barrio flores

Yes, but Tuto's message resonates in Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando, Tarija, and Chuquisaca. And if he gets enough votes there to sweep those seats (esp the important two senate seats), plus a few seats in the rest of the country, he'll win the presidency. I think he knows exactly what he's doing.

I tend to agree with Miguel (Ciao!). But, what I fear is what is going to happen after Tuto takes office?

Will they let him govern? Will he become one more casualty of the power restructuring process Bolivia is going through at present time? Will Bolivia degenerate into civil war? Will there be more of the same?

Too many indigenous leaders are talking war if Evo does not get elected. For sure the Altiplano will rise. The question is will the indigenous in Santa Cruz, Tarija, Potosi, Sucre, Beni and Cochabamba will follow?

And here I am, worrying about the consolidation of the Bolivian democracy.

I think we have a lot of closet MAS supporters. My general feeling and what I have heard is that many who will vote for Tuto will do so not out of a believe in his policies, rather a fear of an Evo presidency.

I am not so sure free market policies necessarily completely resonate in the East. Remember the poll where it found that a large majority of people from Santa Cruz supported nationalization? Whether or not it was completely accurate, it was still 70%+ of Santa Cruz residents in support of an anti-free market policy.

Yes, but nationalization can mean different things to different people. And until the candidates spell that out more, I'l stick to what I've heard in the past. Evo would de facto confiscate foreign investors' holdings. Tuto would strengthen the state's management ability through maintaning the coparticipacion built into the capitalizacion contracts (which were supposed to be 50/50 bolivian/foreign splits).

Whoever wins, things will be dicey. But it's up to the candidates (Evo & Tuto) to convince their voters that if they lose, they'll still be part of a democratic process. If democracy only works "when I win" is the mentality, then democracy has failed.

I am sure fear is a factor. Tuto is using it in his campaign too.

If the premise that political parties represent the preferences of the people is right, then the people of Santa Cruz do support free trade. Their politicians advocate these policies.

Although, I have to say, I have not seen that poll Eduardo is talking about. Is there a link?

http://www.eldeber.com.bo/anteriores/20050612/images/info3.gif

http://www.barrioflores.net/weblog/archives/2005/06/everybody_wants.html

79% of those from SCZ responded favorable, second only to El Alto.

The poll is from June 12 this year, I take it. Do you think the crucenos changed oppinion due to the propaganda campaign from comite pro-Santa Cruz? Back in June the full blown crisis was still on and Mesa was sacked. I wonder if they make another poll today, would the crucenos still want nationalization?

*But, what I fear is what is going to happen after Tuto takes office?*

This is the key question. Will 2006 be 2003 all over again? And will the eastern departments wait around to find out?

What can Tuto do/say to prevent another October 2003? (I'm not trying to be inflammatory- I don't know)

"I want to fill George Bush full of products..."

"Everyone has the right to get on the wrong train. If Evo Morales wants to get on the wrong train, fine, (but) Bolivia will not get on the wrong train because it needs to sell products and not send insults," said the ex-President.

Looks like Tuto and Dubya speak the same language. :)

I think Tuto's message is exactly what some voters want to hear. What do you think those people banging on the US embassy gates the other week really wanted? Free trade is often a dazzling under the water-surface winner among voters. In Central America, all the supposedly learned analysts said that none of the legislatures would pass the CAFTA accords - it turns out that the most hopeless basket cases - DR and Nicaragua - had some of the highest margins of passage. The educated place - Costa Rica - is where there is trouble getting passage. I honestly believe that the poor love free trade. I don't know what they tell pollsters but I know what they tell me at Pico Union during my researches and they tell me it lifts all business across the board.

Let's not read too much into the pro-free trade protests. As with any mobilized group, someone needed to organize them and I wouldn't be surprised if the factory owner gave them incentives to take time off to march to the US Embassy.

I don't think anybody in Bolivia is against trade. However, many are against unfair trade which is what Bush and Co. are pushing. Unless they eliminate farm subsidies, then there is no sense in to continue to discuss the hypocritical push for "free trade".

Eduardo: It was not just the factory owners who were behind that free trade march, it was the workers' unions too. There was an interesting consensus there, and I don't think the workers would necessarily be somehow opposed to BOTH sponsorships and necessarily paid off. I've talked to plenty of poor people who sought free trade. Free trade lifts businesses across the board - not only is it a fact, it's something all economists agree on.

On a related topic, if Bolivians are so against free trade as endorsed by the other 28 states as you imply, how come President Rodriguez was at President Bush's side at that summit and not with the Mercosur group if he was representing people who are so 'Mercosur' in outlook about subsidies? Why was he publicly hanging around with the hated and evil Bush? Why wasn't he with the Chavez crowd down there at the anti-summit where the free-trade haters were having a ball? I think you are overestimating the disdain for free trade in Bolivia. I know a lot of intellectuals don't like it (note that it's educated Costa Rica and not penurious Nicaragua and DR that is balking at it) but when you get down to the working level, I think you would be surprised at what you would find. A recent friend who visited El Alto said he found free traders even there.

If Bolivia or any country really wanted to throw the world for a loop, it should just scrap its own tariffs unilaterally (as Estonia did) and not worry about how other people are screwing around with their own economies. Bolivia would be STUNNED by the results - as was Estonia, one of Europe's rare promising economies.

Without access to the sea, Bolivia desperately needs a free trade agreement w/ at least one maritime neighbor country. The cost of transporting goods from factories in La Paz or Santa Cruz is the same whether the port flies a Bolivian flag or another. The real savings are in cross-national tariffs. And a free trade agreement w/ countries that are wealthy and want Bolivian agricultural goods and light industrial products and natural gas would improve the national economy. And I think the protest by factory workers, who're having a very hard time competing internationally, is part of that backlash against anti-trade movements.

Now, people can support free trade AND support nationalized industry. So don't think they're mutually exclusive.

But, again, nationalized industry means different things to different people. Does it mean confiscation? Or a stronger state presence in (nominally) state-private business partnerships? That's the key difference.

Well, they could TRY supporting free trade and nationalization of industry, but nationalization would pretty much chase out all foreign investment. Free trade, by its very nature, brings it in.

Less than week after CAFTA was passed, Taiwanese and Japanese companies were banging down the doors in CentAm countries to establish new manufacturing investments. No one had heard of them during the trade battle, they just blew in out of nowhere from the sidelines after we had fought out bitter battle victoriously in Washington.

There is something about a free trade pact and its stability and certainty that rakes investment in. Nationalization or even just the threat of it chases it out, something we have already seen in Bolivia's exploration foreign investment, almost all of which has been yanked out by foreigners and taken to Peru.

Unless I misunderstand you, I think that people could TRY to have it both ways but they will probably not get it both ways. Trade always requires the consent of two parties and right now, the nationalizers are not offering the foreigners anything attractive.

As for Bolivian goods to the U.S., that too is an uphill battle; powerful lobbies in the US and even China do not want Bolivian goods to come to the states duty free. In my opinion, they are the enemy, but, as CAFTA proved, they can be beaten through hard work.

If I am confident that this is something growing numbers of Bolivians want, I will be happy to fight for them quite simply because I am convinced is the right thing to do.