Around the middle of October 2006, Juan Domingo Perón’s remains were transferred to a million-dollar mausoleum built for him in a small town outside of Buenos Aires. During the ceremonies for this event which would commemorate the 17th of October uprising of workers that freed Perón in 1945, violence broke out between rival Peronist factions. A man wtih a pistol was filmed by news crews shooting into a building. Newspapers reported 60 injuries and perhaps a few gunshot wounds. As is common with political violence in Argentina, the police were slow and reluctant to intervene.
The president of Argentina, Nelson Kirchner, himself a Peronist, cancelled his appearance and never arrived at the scene. Eduardo Duhalde, another prominent Peronist, former president and archenemy of the president, greeted supporters at a different location but did not appear at the mausoleum. However, other prominent Peronists did show up as did thousands of loyal supports of the General, whose memory is still very much alive amongst not only the media, but amongst those who still support him.
The movement of Peron’s remains was accompanied by a claim by a woman who says she is Perón’s daughter. The Argentine judiciary has processed the claim and samples of the General’s DNA were taken in order to establish proof. Peron had no natural children by his three wives, including the famous Eva Duarte, and the less famous María Estela Martínez de Perón, commonly known as Isabel. In the year 2006, Isabel is still alive and living in Spain. She is the one that gave permission for his body to be moved.
The violence at the mausoleum of Perón, sparked memories of his return from exile in 1972 after 17 years of living outside the country that, at one time, he dominated in heart and soul. At that time, thousands of his supporters gathered at Ezeiza Airport to greet him. Violence and gunplay broke out between rival Peronist factions. Scores of people were killed and injured, and Peron's plane was diverted to another airport, an inauspicious beginning for his return to power. .
That in the year 2006 the news of Perón’s body being moved—over 30 years after his death—could grab front-page headlines in Buenos Aires and appear in papers throughout the world is testament to the power of the General and the Peronist movement that still rules Argentine politics. The history and legacy of Juan Domingo Perón, primarily a phenomenon of the forties and fifties, provides an interesting perspective to present-day political philosophy. Perón known throughout Latin America for his third alternative or third way between capitalism and communism—or between classical liberalism and totalitarian collectivism—thought he had the natural solution to the Cold War battles between United States and Russia. He sought to correct what he saw as the inhuman aspects of the marketplace and the crushing aspects of Russian totalitarianism. Thinking that Argentina was a colony of British imperialism, Perón sought to make Argentina independent of foreign economic interests and believed that economic liberalism was nothing more than jungle anarchy. Commenting during the forties on economic liberalism, he defined liberty, "As the freedom to die from hunger." His wife Evita believed that capitalism was an unpatriotic system, "a system without a flag or fatherland." A key Peronist slogan for many years was: "Neither Marxism or capitalism."
The General Rises
The rise of Perón to power is not an unfamiliar story in Latin America. He grew up under humble circumstances, his father a farmer of Irish descent and his mother reported to be of Spanish and Indian roots. There were uncorroborated rumors, stemming from research by the author Tomas Eloy Martinez,. that Perón was born out of wedlock, a fact that could have severely hindered his political career.
Intelligent and quite amiable, Perón worked his way rapidly through the Argentine military system. He was ambitious and charismatic, and seemed to have a vision of where he wanted to go. At that time, during the thirties, the Argentine military and many of the high-ranking generals were influenced by the fascism engulfing Europe. The president of Argentina during the thirties, José Félix Uriburu was an ardent admirer of the European fascists as were many of his advisors.
Influenced by the intellectual breeding ground he lived in, Perón was a believer in the powerful and benevolent state controlling and directing social and economic affairs. Much of his political philosophy was influenced by Mussolini and his Doctrine of Fascism, where he extols the virtues of an all-powerful state and defines the evils of liberalism and individualism. Having spent a year in Italy and other parts of Europe at the behest of his superiors—ordered to report on the power and influence of Germany and Italy and their chances of triumphing against the allied powers—Perón had a chance to study El Duce and was said to admire him a great deal by his own word and that of his biographers. Mainly, his admiration centered on the early years of Mussolini’s rise to power, his ability to communicate a philosophical program as well as his emphasis on a powerful state as the guiding hand in all affairs, especially the economy. Perón never subscribed to the violent aspects of Mussolini’s fascism, the will to power and the desire for conquest as an expression of the national will to dominate others.
In the United States, the image of Perón is often tarnished by allegations of fascism or fascist sympathies. The fact that Argentina had a history of fascist associations prior to Perón and stayed neutral during the war only adds to this myth. Articles and books have appeared alleging his collusion with Nazi Germany, and later on with Nazi war criminals like Adolf Eichmann. An American government publication after the War, published by the then American ambassador, Spruille Braden, alleged that Perón aided the Axis cause. However, in defence of Perón, many of the charges in the publication were of dubious sources and seemed more a work of revenge than of scholarship given the fact that Perón and Braden were enemies.
Although no doubt influenced by Mussolini and Francisco Franco, Perón had his own political philosophy called Justicialismo. He could not be labeled a fascist, nor did he subscribe to the philosophical fundamentals of the fascist state—an all-powerful entity, totalitarian in nature and imposing fully on and dominating the life of the individual citizen—a domination that required service and self-sacrifice at all costs and the loss of individual autonomy. (In this sense, the word fascist is used to describe the original word coined by Mussolini to describe his ideology, as outlined in The Doctrine of Fascism. It is in no way used in the modern sense, as someone advocating racism, violence and brutality in order to achieve political means.)
Perón was never an advocate of war and the will to power so dominant in Mussolini's concept of fascism, nor did he believe in racial superiority or ever express anti-Jewish sentiments. On the whole, he was a cultured and educated advocate of the power of Justicialismo, his ideology of a benevolent state that would liberate the individual from economic want. In fact, much of his program was aimed toward liberating the individual from "economic slavery" that he saw as the dominating points of both capitalism and communism.
In the book, The Philosophy of Peronism, Perón has this to say about the totalitarianism of both fascism and communism: "It (totalitarianism) doesn't recognize in this manner the personality of man, his '"I,"' which makes him a person; in the final instance it denies his spirit, a position that is fundamental to the personality." He goes on to say: "In both forms, (fascism and communism) the liberty of man, that is part of his spirit, is absolutely unrecognized and the human being is converted into a slave of the State, in detriment of oneself and of the collective."
While independent in nature, Perón borrowed from the dominant philosophies of the world. In The Philosophy of Perón, he compares the great ideas of the world with his ideas for a Peronist State, and points out how his government will avoid the extreme collectivism of communism which "kills all incentive in the individual," and what he calls the "anarchy of capitalism" with its "heartless disregard for the underclass and its reliance on egoist self-interest at the expense of humanitarian concerns." (El capitalism es una fuerza de agloneración fría, internacional, sin patria y sin corazon." pg 125 Philosophy of Peron.)
Perhaps one could describe Juan Domingo Perón as a cultured and ideological caudillo or strongman, a charismatic man with a political vision for a country lost and on the brink of chaos. Surely, the ingredients for a rise to power were apparent in his personality—another talented and intelligent boy from the lower classes eager to work his way to the top. In the United States, these stories are legendary. In Argentina, also a country of immigrants, the rise to the top is blocked by barricades of institutionalized arrogance and aristocratic snobbery of the kind that rejects talent and ability in the name of one's bloodline. Many ambitious young people fall by the wayside; few will even try.
Joseph Page, a lawyer who taught at the University of Maryland, wrote a definitive biography of Perón published in English and available in Spanish translation. In his book, he rejects the fascist label in regards to his life, and also rejects the train of thought that Perón was sympathetic to Nazi criminals and harbored them in Argentina. Just like with the United States, Perón recruited many Nazi scientists in order to bolster science and technology in Argentina, thinking his new revolution would be a showplace of modern scientific development and technology. Page, also, rejects any comparison between Juan Perón and Hugo Chávez, stating that Perón was a cultured man, a student of history and philosophy. Chávez has his petrodollars.
Another biographer of Perón, Horacio Váquez-Rial who wrote a Spanish-language biography of him, also rejects the fascist label for Perón, who was a cultured and well-read man, disliked violence, allowed an opposition to exist and built his Peronist state around strong state-controlled unions and a benevolent welfare state. In contrast to the rigid and cold authoritarian personality engendered by fascism, Perón was a warm and intelligent man with tremendous confidence in his conception of the world.
In her book, Peron’s Women, Andrea Bellota points out that Perón had a great affinity for women, needed a woman in his life and had a great love for Evita, and some of the other women in his life. After the death of Evita, he had a young girl, Nellie Rivas, living at his house, an act of good will in where he acted as a father to a young girl who adored him. Accused by his enemies of "estupro" or undermining the morals of a minor, Nellie Rivas had only admirable things to say about the "General" calling him a perfect gentleman, someone who helped her advance in life without taking advantage of her in any way. At that time, it was believed Perón had no children of his own.
Unlike religious conservatives and fascist ideologies, that tend to relegate women to raising children and cooking, Perón respected the women in his life and relied deeply on them to advance his political agenda. One of the most crucial components of Perón’s power was his wife Eva Duarte, a powerful speaker who had a deep-rooted and binding relationship with the so-called shirtless people, the disenfranchised and powerless masses who were at the mercy of the conservative and elite classes of privilege and power.
They were an excellent team. Peron was the intelligence and the philosophy behind the revolution; Evita the emotion, the gut, the mystical chanteuse of the Argentine masses. The tone of her voice, filled with pain and emotion, had a hypnotic effect on large crowds. She spoke the language of the dispossessed and she spoke from hard experience. Although possessed of fine tastes and superior appetites, she had a binding link with the anonymous masses, the focal point of Peron’s political philosophy.
When I was in Buenos Aires in 2005, I spent an afternoon at the Institute of Perón, watching the documentary by Leonardo Flavio called: Perón: Symphony of a Feeling. What struck me more than anything was the charismatic power of both the General and Evita Perón. They radiated charisma, a feeling that seemed to engulf the crowd. Evita was even more magnetic. This was much more than a political act. It was a deep-seated pain, agony and affinity manifesting in political discourse.
When Evita died in 1952, many of the writers familiar with Peron, speculate that he lost much of the desire to continue his revolution. He retreated more to his private residence and seemed to lack the spark and vigor of previous times.
Tomas Eloy Martinez, the author of the The Novel of Perón and The Lives of the General is another author who paints a real-life portrait of Perón that goes much beyond the cheap myths and stereotypes one hears in the media. Of special interest is his The Novel of Perón set in 1973 the year of Perón's return to Argentina after 17 years in exile. In this book, one sees a diminished Perón absent his great powers, sick and close to death, surrounded by palace vultures ready to exploit the General's weakness, drunk with power lust and the thought of being at the top of the ladder of
Other authors who knew Perón talk about his great charm and intelligence, often winning over people with the power of his personality, captivating them with his intelligence and charisma. He was very much a man of philosophy and ideas, and was never reluctant to offer his point of view to doubters. In watching documentaries of him in action and giving speeches, I was struck by the great certainty of his demeanor, the intellectual certainty of great man. However, as with all great people, the General had his weaknesses. Felix Luna, a renowned Argentine historian and writer, describes Perón as a fabulador, or one given to create or make up stories. Luna goes on to say that Perón lived in his own world and perhaps never realized some of the consequences of his actions.
Once in power, Perón and Evita spent large sums of money on public works projects, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, schools and sports centers. They established a department of education, made education compulsory between six and fourteen, and built universities in all parts of Argentina. In many ways, Peron’s regime was similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal, a benevolent welfare state aimed at social justice and redistribution of wealth.
As part of his program for economic independence, Perón nationalized the central bank, the train lines, the telephone company, the gas companies and electric transmission facilities. He built a modern airport, dams, chemical plants, introduced atomic energy, strived to build fighter planes and even had plans to produce Argentine cars.
Although hostile to the liberalism and the freedom of the American economy, Perón was not hostile to capital per se, only to the fact that he saw American businessmen as too independent, to able to establish their own agenda. He saw this as economic anarchy and sought to impose state control in order to further a spirit of cooperation. Thus, businessmen who advanced under Perón were those who gained benefits from the State—protection and favors, or monopoly positions in the marketplace. Independent union leaders under Perón were replaced by those loyal to him, which was very much in line with his intention of having the unions always under control of the State. The unions were to be favored but never independent of the benefactor state.
Remaining neutral during World War II, Argentina was able to sell its grains and beef to foreign markets and gather huge reserves of currency for the future. However, by the late forties and early fifties with the return of normalcy and having exhausted his reserves on public spending, his government saw itself strapped for cash and looking for foreign investment. In addition, Argentine industry, controlled and weighted down by union rules and heavily protected by the State, could not compete in the world market.
It was at this juncture that Perón altered his extreme view of economic nationalism and his somewhat hostile view of American economic activity, often labeled promiscuously as capitalism, and invited American companies to invest in Argentina. Milton Eisenhower, the brother of the president, visited Argentina and was wined and dined. A controversial agreement was signed with Standard Oil of California, and they were given free reign to explore and develop in areas of Argentina. .
One of the most conflictive situations of the Perón regime was the battle with Catholic Church, which tended to resent the competition of Perón’s youth groups and his popularity amongst the working class. All of this culminated in 1955 with an open battle between the Church and the Peronist Party. Peron responded by legalizing divorce, stripping the Church of its privileged educational position in schools, arresting Catholic clergyman, legalizing brothels, and passing a law that gave full citizenship to children born out of wedlock.
Church opposition to Peron’s regime grew. In 1955, the navy tried to kill Peron by bombarding the Plaza del Mayo and the presidential palace, but only managed to kill between 200 and 400 private citizens. Later in 1955, the military rebelled again and Perón fled to Paraguay under the protection of Alfredo Stroessner, the Paraguayan dictator. He was to live in exile for 17 years.
The Finale and his Legacy
On the day that Perón returned from exile, there was a shootout at the airport between different Peronist factions, and reports have the injures and deaths in scores of people. In 1974 he was again elected president by an overwhelming margin and within eight months he was dead. He wife Isabel Peron, an ex-dancer who he met in exile in Panamá, became president, and Perón’s ex-private secretary, a man named Jose López Rega, nicknamed "The Sorcerer" because of his love for the occult and witchcraft, became the de facto president.
Perhaps near the end of his life, Perón was too sick to realize the consequences of his actions. Most writers and intellectuals in Argentina recognize his decision to post his wife as vice president as a horrendous error that was to have dire consequences for the future of Argentina. An ex-dancer with no political experience, knowledge or talent in this area, her time in office was notable for indecision and incompetence. Not having the knowledge of what to do, she relegated most power to Jose López Rega, a mystical witch doctor of power, who responded with state-sanctioned violence and murder to quell the violence of the communist left.
Under Isabel and López Rega, Argentina fell into a cycle of violence and economic disarray. Lopez Vega was reported to be the head of an anti-communist death squad called the Triple AAA. This death squad was formed to counter the left-wing violence at the hands of the Montoneros, a socialist Catholic group intent on violent revolution, and the even more violent ERP, a Maoist group convinced that violent revolution was the only path to a new Argentina.
Isabel Perón and López Rega lasted less than two years, as chaos, violence, political murders and assassinations as well as economic disaster became everyday occurrences. In 1976, Peron’s wife was overthrown by a military junta. She fled to Spain, where she lives to this day. The military dictatorship ruled Argentina until 1983.
Today, Perón’s influence is still very much alive in Latin America, and in other parts of the world. The Third Way philosophy of Perón is apparent everywhere, from the mixed economy of United States to the deluted communism of China. None other than Hugo Chavéz mentioned Peròn as one of his heroes, and has used the analogy of the third alternative or the third way between savage capitalism and totalitarianism. Even though rarely admitted to all the economies in Latin America are a mixture between heavy state ownership and regulation, privileged businessman, large government sponsored unions and benevolent welfare-state programs that seek to establish "social justice," one of Perón's favorite concepts. As in Perón's time, the Church, the intellectuals, the media, the conservatives and the radical left are all hostile to liberalism, and its emphasis on dismantling state influence.
Perón sought a benevolent welfare state with the big unions as his power base in order to further his concept of social justice. He ran three times as a candidate, and was elected three times by large margins. In a sense, he was the democratic man par excellence, a marvelous manipulator of mass psychology and opinion.
Joseph Page, in his biography, compares him to Hughie Long, the ex-governor of Louisiana, who was a democratic phenomenon in his time and a bridge between the elite conservative forces of the old South and the Marxist theories of the state that were being propagated in the universities and intellectual circles of America in the thirties.
The word often used to describe these men is populist in that they had a pulse on the heartbeat of their turf, and often followed programs catering to popular wants and desires rather than what reality required in order to develop the economy.
Perón had little knowledge of economic consequences and took a huge war-time surplus and spent it on his pet projects. He was like a patriarch catering to his flock, bestowing presents and dreams on them, in order to reward them for their good behavior and adherence to his message. He is like the utopian visionary who seeks to establish heaven on earth but has no conception of how to accomplish it. Yet, when the money is flowing and the gold is in the pot, all is well with the world, and the king marches to his own band.
In the late sixties and seventies, several left-wing groups sympathetic to Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and communism adopted Peron as their own and sought to use his name to advance their ideas of a Marxist state. One of these groups was the Montoneros, composed of socialist Catholics, who believed in the armed struggle to a Marxist state. The Montoneros were famous for kidnapping and murdering the ex-president of Argentina, Pedro Aramburu. (Peron objected to them)
In addition to this, John William Cooke, Perón’s heir apparent, was an admirer of Castro’s communist revolution and wanted to combine these ideas with his conception of Peronism. However, Perón himself, although sympathetic to national socialism, was not an admirer of the Marxist version, and definitely saw communism as a blight to the working man. In fact, during the Cold War, many people in the American State Department, saw Perón as a counterweight to communism in South America, and urged support for his government.
Perón's legacy is as important today as it was during the forties and fifties. The names and faces change but if one looks, one can see the mark of Juan Domingo Perón all over Latin America and in the rest of the world, including the United States. In Argentina, the Peronist Party has an overwhelming influence on the Argentina’s political life, although without Perón at the helm, it seems to lack a direction or cohesion.
The present president of Argentina, Nelson Kirchner, is from the Peronist party, although from the left wing of the party. Yet, this notwithstanding, he follows the same Peronist prescription of heavy government control of the economy and a disdain for unfettered market transactions and trade. Kirchner harbors an anti-American attitude and has aligned himself with Hugo Chávez, although he follows a much more discreet path. Carlos Menen, the ex-president, was also from the Peronist Party, although from the right wing. He had a good relationship with the United States, sometimes referred to as "carnal." During his presidency, the market was opened up as was the channels of corruption.
Although associated with Fidel Castro and the socialism of Cuba, Hugo Chávez has mentioned Juan Perón favorably on many occasions and enjoys a close relationship with the present Peronist president. Ironically, rather than following the strict Marxist ideology of Castro, Chávez has traveled down a path much more reminiscent of Juan Perón: heavy state control and regulation while most small businesses remain in private hands.
In other parts of Latin America, the influence of Perón is still very noticeable. Economic nationalism is rampant south of the border, and Perón’s admonition of "vendepatria" or selling out the fatherland to foreign interests in still common. Evo Morales, another admirer of Castro, has been an advocate of this train of thought, the belief that "our national resources" must belong to the Bolivians, and administered by the State.
Even in Costa Rica, which has strongly liberalized its economy in recent years, the influence of Perón can be seen. The giant insurance and electric monopolies are state owned and the argument against privatizing them is that they must belong to Costa Rica, and to do otherwise is unpatriotic, or another instance of "vendepatria."
If one looks close enough one sees this same Peronist phenomenon with Ollanta Humala in Perú and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, both men advocates of economic nationalism and the belief that foreign investment or influence in the economy is destructive to national interests.
In the United States, the third way between a genuine free market absent of government control and totalitarianism is very apparent. The role of the benevolent State in all affairs of life is enormous and probably extends way beyond anything reached by Perón. Ironically, the country often castigated for being the home of savage capitalism is now the home of the largest and most efficient state apparatus the world has ever seen.
So the legacy of Juan Domingo Perón lives on. To the dispossessed of Latin America, ideology has little meaning. Only the knowledge that someone is willing to help them has any relevance. For the wide, democratic mass of people, struggling to keep their head above water, the only question is how much a leader like Peron can do for them and that he is speaking about changing their lives.
Surely, Juan Domingo Perón still walks along the shadows of Latin American history, the spirit and power behind the dispossessed of the world. They are all looking for that soothing lotion or narcotic voice that will lessen their burden and make them feel like they are part of something, and like Perón, the present crop of leaders offer alternatives to the corrosive corruption, arrogance and instability of the chaotic democracies that inhabit this part of the world. With someone like Perón at their side to do their fighting, the displaced and hopeless "descamisados" of despair can, at least in their dreams, rise above the loneliness and isolation of people without hope or future: the forlorn masses condemned to another night of screaming into the wilderness or into the dark hole of poverty and despair.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
The Selling of Evo Morales
Perhaps you could call it a Bolivian version of Horatio Alger. Poor Indian boy of the Aymara tribe who at one time cared for sheep and goats in the Bolivian highlands, graduated to the production of coca leaves, became a union leader fighting U.S. efforts at coca eradication, helped overthrow two elected presidents, finally in the end, after a long battle, becomes himself—president of Bolivia. No doubt, it is a very inspiring example of upward mobility that is very rare in Latin America.
Previous to Morales, only Alejandro Toledo, the president of Peru, could boast of a similar rise to power, and a similar native-American heritage. Toledo, a one-time boot black, graduated from Stanford University in California, and later worked for the World Bank as an economist.
Evo Morales, however, is a different story. He is not a university graduate but self-educated, and for that matter boosts of Spanish as his second language, his native Indian dialect, Quechua, his mother tongue. He rose to fame during the Reagan Administration’s ill-fated attempt to eradicate coca production in Bolivia. Morales led the fight against the gringo invaders who were trying to not only eradicate coca but the Indian culture, according to him. Bolivian authorities paid lip service to the coca eradication but in the end the only thing accomplished in the war on drugs, was the rise of Evo Morales to the forefront of national and international attention.
To eradicate coca leaves from the Bolivian culture would be like trying to eradicate hotdogs from the American culture. In Bolivia, coca leaves are chewed or mixed in water as tea. It is a remedy for the high-altitude sickness of La Paz, called sorrochi. I have drank coca tea myself while in La Paz. I failed to become a drug addict, nor did I leave there with an insatiable desire to snort cocaine.
In a sense, Evo Morales is an American creation, another sad story in the history of American foreign policy. One could review our history and be reminded of other policy disasters such as Ho Chi Minh, Fernando Marcos, Fidel Castro, and now Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Whether intended or not intended, the long arm of American policy has a penchant for doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.
In the case of Evo Morales, one sees another rabid anti-American ready to blame the "gringos" for everything. Unlike Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, he never played or loved baseball so the root of his resentment stems from other reasons. More so than just the United States, Morales seems to be at war with open, market-oriented economies and constitutional governments. He led the fight against the exportation of natural gas through Chile, and has referred to the Chileans as an enemy nation. Morales, like others in Bolivia, is still smarting over the War of Pacific, fought over a 100 years ago, when Bolivia lost its one outlet to the sea.
Not only is Morales an enemy of liberal society it turns out he is a great admirer of Fidel Castro, and the Cuban experiment in socialism. At a recent news conference, he called Cuba, “the ideal” to be followed. Along with this, his first visit after his electorial triumph was to Havana, Cuba. His second trip was to Venezuela to meet with Hugo Chávez. During the presidential campaign there were circulating rumors that Chávez help finance the campaign of Morales.
Consequently, and with little surprise, Morales is talking about the nationalization of natural resources, state ownership of property in order to create greater social justice, eradication of poverty by equalization of income and a new society based on equality. In his own words in a January 2006 interview with the newspaper El Mercurio of Chile, he stated he wanted to create a revolution similar to Cuba but a revolution achieved, “with votes and not with bullets.” English-language media accounts of his rise from obscurity glow with praise for this new president. Many reports refer to him as a populist or a rebel fighting the entrenched oligarchy of Bolivia. They refer to him as the new hope for the plight of the Indian population mired in poverty. They comment that the rise of Morales was a rebellion against free-market or liberal policies of the past: privatizations, open trade, the deconstruction of the ponderous State bureaucracy.
Newsweek ran a cover story about him, referring to him as a rebel and magnet for the angry left and the poor, damaged by free-market policies. The bastion of capitalism, The Wall Street Journal, ran a story and pointed out that the Indian populations were turning against liberalized economies imposed by the United States. BBC also entered into the ring, and described him as a populist who was bringing hope to indigenous people, who had tired of free-market policies that only favored the rich.
Of course, none of these media sources explain how an Indian population—many of whom do not read or write or even speak Spanish—is able to articulate an argument against liberal economics or something resembling an open market? Nor do they explain that nothing even resembling a free market existed or exists in Bolivia, where a ponderous State bureaucracy works to snuff out incentive and stifle any chance at growth and prosperity. Even more, none of these English-language reports explain how Morales’ brand of socialism is going to succeed when socialism has failed, in every version, since its introduction. What will be different about this brand that didn’t exist in prior versions? Will Morales be able to give incentive to government bureaucrats and inspire them to unselfish acts of hard work and creativity? Will he be able to inspire men and women to think and produce without incentive or profit? Or for that matter will he be able to do the one thing no other person has been able to do under socialism, even Fidel Castro—inspire people to sacrifice their self-interest and even their lives for the love of their follow man?
In other words, given the repeated motif of Morales that he wants to eradicate poverty—in what area will he succeed where Fidel Castro failed? Besides the admirers of Fidel Castro who refuse to peer into reality and objectify the poverty and economic failure of Cuban communism, almost no one would point to Cuba as an example to follow, especially if one has as a priority, the eradication of poverty.
Without a doubt, the American government and especially the State Department has made many errors in Latin America and Bolivia. American government support of military dictatorships was a disaster and counterproductive to what America is suppose to stand for. Striving to eradicate a coca crop that is the life blood of many Indian farmers is a tremendous blunder. Yet, with all this being said and without having to be a supporter of American foreign policy, in what way will Morales and Bolivia benefit by an aligning themselves with Cuban communism?
If the true motive of Morales is the eradication of poverty and the defeat of the entrenched oligarchy in Bolivia, in what way will his friendship with Cuba benefit this motive? Ayn Rand, the author and philosopher, has pointed out in her writings that if social-justice crusaders actually meant what they said about eradicating poverty, capitalism would be the system that they would choose in order to accomplish this job. It is capitalism that has raised the standard of living in every country that has tried it, and it is America, the home of capitalism, that stands as the example of the highest standard of living in the world.
Yet, Morales, following the lead of his friends in Cuba and Venezuela, is decidedly anti-capitalist in speech and action. Not only this, but the one country in Latin America that has had a sharp rise in wealth and economic status, Chile, seems also to be on his list of those to attack. Instead of copying the success of Latin America's most successful country, Morales has repeatedly attacked it and failed to acknowledge what it has accomplished. Could this be just an error on his part? Knowing his history and ideology, this is doubful.
Some time around the year 2000, I flew from La Paz, Bolivia to Arica, Chile. It was like flying from the dark ages to a modern society, not only in the physical sense but in the sense of leaving chaos and anarchy, and arriving to a civilized world. The contrast between the two countries, as far as economic stature is monumental. One does not have to have an advanced degree in economics to know this. A simple trip to both countries will suffice as the convincer. Wealth and a high standard of living reside in Chile; Bolivia remains on the border of chaos and anarchy.
Bolivian Anarchy
Bolivia has a long history of ideological chaos and political turmoil. In over 200 years of history, the country has suffered at least 175 chaotic changes of power, from coup d’etats, to violent rebellions, to army takeovers—to Evo Morales type of violent incursions where large armies of insurgents surround the city and cower the legislature into pushing the president out the door.
In the late 1800’s, Peru and Bolivia invaded Chile in what was known as the War of the Pacific. When the war ended Chilean troops were encircled around Lima, and Bolivia had lost its outlet to the sea, a city now under Chilean jurisdiction called Iquique. To this day, over a hundred years later, Bolivia still has a navy and active admirals, and is still trying to recover its outlet to the sea. Much of the effort behind this stems from Evo Morales.
In the 1930’s, Bolivia went to war with Paraguay. The war is referred to as the Chaco War, fought in lands known as El Chaco. When the war ended Bolivia had taken a bad beating and again lost a chunk of the fatherland. In the time span of 50 years, Bolivia had lost half of its territory.
Evo Morales will not be the first idealistic socialist to take power in Bolivia. In the fifties, the country experienced a leftist revolution headed by Victor Paz Estensoro, a man with a social-justice agenda who nationalized major industries, empowered the major unions and in the end destroyed the economy before he was overthrown by the military.
During the seventies, Hugo Banzer headed a dictatorial government that squashed opposition and made some efforts to modernize the economy. Later on, Banzer gave up his dictatorial ways and was elected president democratically. Since Banzer’s death, the country has been ruled by a succession of leaders, trying to modernize the country, considered the poorest in Latin America.
Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, a businessmen was elected president in 2003. The second-place finisher was Evo Morales. Under Bolivian law, when a clear majority of 50% is not gained in the election, the president is chosen by congress. Sánchez de Lozada, with the highest vote count, was chosen. He was pro-American, endeavored to modernize the economy, tap into the enormous natural gas reserves of Bolivia, and ship them through Chile to Mexico and the United States. Chile, of course, is an ancient enemy of Bolivia, and the Evo Morales crowd considered his attempts as treason to the fatherland. Morales led the violent demonstrations. Bloodshed followed. There was a shoot out between police and army units. The official count was 33 dead.
When the smoke cleared, Sánchez de Lozada, also known as Noni, was pushed out the door toward the United States, and Evo Morales had demonstrated that if he couldn’t win through the ballot box, there was were other means to power.
The Inca Empire
Evo Morales is an Aymara Indian, an ancestral tribe that composed a major component of the Inca Empire. While Morales has been vocal in his attacks against the "American Empire" and its "imperialism," he has never spoken a public word about the Inca Empire, and its policy of conquering weaker tribes and putting them under Inca jurisdiction. In the eyes of Morales and many other leftists in Latin America, American imperialism is American companies striving to do business in Latin America while making a profit. To Morales, the very act of an American company making a profit on Bolivian soil is an act of imperialism. Seemingly, he subscribes to the concept made popular by the ex-Argentine president Juan Perón—the concept of “vendepatria” or selling out the fatherland. Under this Peronist concept, foreign companies profiting on native soil are a violation of the fatherland, a treasonous act of domination by a foreign power.
Apparently, Morales has no qualms about the imperialism of the Inca Empire. In this type of imperialism—an act of coercive force—weaker tribes were conquered and subjugated to Inca rule. They had no choice but to subjugate themselves or be annihilated. Often alluding to Indian unity and paying lip service to calls for a new Incaya, or Inca Empire, Morales would have the world believe the Indian world prior to the Spanish conquests was a utopian paradise. In a July 2006 interview with the The Wall Street Journal, David Choquehuanca, the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs and an Aymara intellectual, maintains that before the arrival of the Spanish invaders, the Aymara had a communal Garden of Eden without poverty or oppression, where people lived to be over 200-years old.
However, history tells a different story than what Morales and Choquehuanca want people to believe. Far from being benevolent rulers, the Incas Empire was militaristic and totalitarian. The Inca rulers favored a socialist type of economy. The common person worked for the State and was in return given food, shelter and necessities. The liberal ideal that one’s life belonged to the individual did not exist. The Inca Empire was all-powerful; the individual an appendage of the Empire with no constitutional rights.
Morales seems to have no problems with this concept. It is after all the base of the Cuban State, the fundamental level of communism. While never using the word communist, as understood in its basic meaning, in public discourse, Morales has always showed great sympathy and support for the ideal. This aspect of his personality has been glossed over by the English-speaking press with words like populist, rebel and socialist. Yet, underneath this smoke screen, one sees a different picture, an ideological man with a vision of a collectivist society.
Altruistic Ideal
Evo Morales has talked about eliminating corruption and disemboweling the elites who run the Bolivian government. In a December, 2005 interview with Pagina 12, a leftist newspaper out of Buenos Aires, Morales was asked if he was a socialist. He answered affirmatively and went on to say that before he asked others to sacrifice, he, himself, has to rid his own personality of selfishness and individualism, and that his ideal would be a communitarian socialism without private property. He went on to say that where he grew up all property was owned by the community.
Stripped of the smoke screen, the portrait of Evo Morales takes on another meaning, much more meaningful than "populist" or "rebel." In reality, he is nothing more than another attempt at imposing the altruistic ideal of service and self-sacrifice on others as a form of government. He is another attempt at the Marxian ideal of the unselfish man, who will work for the good of others, without concern for his own welfare. In striving for this, he follows in the path of all the socialist leaders of the past century, whether they were national socialists or of the Marxist variety. Whether Morales will resort to force in order to impose these altruistic ideals, is still to be seen.
Yet, if history has taught us anything, it is that ideal socialist societies are opposed to human nature, and sooner or later, the writing on the wall becomes evident—the use of force and State power, or the abandonment of the socialist ideal.
In this context, Morales, in his post-election speeches, was conciliatory and amenable to everyone. He wants to strip the economy of the profit motive and incentive, yet he wants to improve the standard of living and welfare of the country. He wants to impose a state-controlled economy composed of bureaucrats and at the same time wants to eliminate corruption. He wants to nationalize major industries and return the country, as he says, to the people, and yet he wants to attract investment from the outside. He wants to increase the standard of living but what he proposes is more of the same socialist formulas that have failed repeatedly throughout the world.
In Bolivia, before the rise of Evo Morales, there was Felipe Quispe, an Aymara Indian and ex-armed guerilla, who was a front-runner in carrying the banner for a bigger role for Indians in Bolivian affairs. As a member of the Ejército Guerilla Túpac Katari (EGTK) Quispe was imprisoned during the nineties along with Alvaro Garcia Linares, the present vice president of Bolivia.
In a December 2005 interview with the Chilean newspaper, El Mercurio, Quispe had harsh words for both Morales and his vice president. According to Quispe, he knows Morales only by name but, at one time, was a friend and associate of Alvaro Garcia Linares, who he now refers to as a "traitor." He says he introduced Linares to the Aymara culture and saw in him a hope for the Indian culture. He says that Linares is now a neoliberal with the appearance of an Indian agenda. He goes on to say that the movement of Morales and Linares, MAS, is a "specimen of a brothel where many prostitutes of the senior level of the left work. And that Alvardo García is one of the prostitutes."
Quispe reiterates that the honeymoon for Morales will pass after 90 days and people will be expecting him to deliver on the many promises he made during the campaign. He says Morales has to deliver land to the Indian population along with new roads, hospitals, electricity and drinkable water. According to Quispe, Morales is an opportunist and during the campaign, promised a tractor to every Indian. If Morales, doesn't deliver the population will know him as a liar, and will stop supporting him. "The tree is known by its fruit. It is necessary to see if the fruit is bitter, sweet, or wormy; we are going to put it to the test" he says.
What type of government will Morales follow is the question on many people’s mind? Quispe maintains Morales will sell out and form a “liberal state with an Indian face.” Of course, to Quispe any type of trade or business dealing, even it is from a state-run business, is liberalism. Quispe wants to destroy the whole edifice of modern technology and return to the primitive economy of earlier Indian societies. As a presidential candidate, during the last election, he received two percent of the vote.
Other prognosticators think that such people as the president of Brazil, Lulu will have a positive effect on Morales. Lulu, who rose from the ranks of the working class to become president, has followed a moderate path since taking office, establishing friendly relations with the United States and striving to open the Brazilian economy to the effects of the modern world. Petrobras, the Brazilian state-run petroleum company, is one of the major players in Bolivia with an estimated 30% share in the market. For awhile, Morales promised Lulu that he would not nationalize any of the Brazilian holdings and is only looking for better distribution of the profits. This promise was broken by the Bolivian government and all petroleum holdings are scheduled to be nationalized in the coming years. Along with this, the Bolivian government has been confiscating large farms owned by Brazilians called latifundios, many of them on the frontier of the two countries.
Along with this, Bolivia and Venezuela have recently announced plans to establish 21 new military bases in Bolivia. One of these bases will be on the frontier with Chile. In one of his speeches, Hugo Chávez stated he was looking forward to taking a swim on a Bolivian beach. He later backtracked on the statement but the fact that he made it, points to the importance Morales has placed on regaining an outlet to the sea for Bolivia. This is an ancient point of nationalism in Bolivia, shrewdly exploited by Morales. It is also a case of a chaotic and failed country pointing its finger at a successful country that is signing free-trade agreements with United States, China and other open economies throughout the world.
With the help of Chávez’s petrodollars, one can only speculate on what will happen in Bolivia when things start to crumble. Will Morales go to the ancient nationalism and use Chile as scapegoat for his failed regime? Will he once again pound the drums for a Bolivian return to the sea, and the reconquering of ancient territory? In the meantime, Chile has not remained idle. Their military expenditures under the last government of Ricardo Lagos, a socialist humanitarian, were the highest in their history.
The Future
The image of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and other Marxist leaders casts a giant shadow in the history of Evo Morales. Hanging prominently on a wall in his presidential palace is a life-size portrait of Che Guevara. He is rumored to consult with Castro on important issues, and now with his illness, articles have appeared linking him with Raul Castro. On his trip to China, he was quick to praise Mao and name his as one of his favorite examples for State leadership. Although he may refrain from the rigid communism of Cuba and total state ownership of property, he has proclaimed this as his ideal. How far he may stray from this ideal and how much he is willing to compromise is open to question.
The vice president of Bolivia is Alvaro Garcia Linares, a Marxist intellectual who admits to reading Kant and Engels at the age of 13. In the early nineties, Linares was an armed guerilla and later spent five years in a Bolivian prison studying Marx. Linares is reported to be the intellectual force behind the Bolivian revolution. I saw him on television in October of 2006 accusing opponents of the regime of being "anti-patriotic, selfish and infantile." He was strong and forceful, and seemed to have the conviction of his beliefs. Without a doubt, American administrations could use a man of his ideological ability and talent, although definitely from a different perspective. He is certainly far from another pragmatic Republican or Democratic, who will compromise on everything and anything, and can’t see the consequences beyond the latest public opinion poll.
Certainly, with Bolivia as with any other country, a socialist experiment will not produce the opportunity nor the wealth for a better standard of living and a more productive society. How much help Morales will be able to receive from the socialist with money in Venezuela is still speculation but could always add to his longevity in office. Yet, in the end, he will have to decide on which road to follow, the road to an open society, or the road to a closed, highly regulated socialism where incentive, opportunity and choice are forbidden words and the State is the benefactor and high priest of everyone’s life.
Previous to Morales, only Alejandro Toledo, the president of Peru, could boast of a similar rise to power, and a similar native-American heritage. Toledo, a one-time boot black, graduated from Stanford University in California, and later worked for the World Bank as an economist.
Evo Morales, however, is a different story. He is not a university graduate but self-educated, and for that matter boosts of Spanish as his second language, his native Indian dialect, Quechua, his mother tongue. He rose to fame during the Reagan Administration’s ill-fated attempt to eradicate coca production in Bolivia. Morales led the fight against the gringo invaders who were trying to not only eradicate coca but the Indian culture, according to him. Bolivian authorities paid lip service to the coca eradication but in the end the only thing accomplished in the war on drugs, was the rise of Evo Morales to the forefront of national and international attention.
To eradicate coca leaves from the Bolivian culture would be like trying to eradicate hotdogs from the American culture. In Bolivia, coca leaves are chewed or mixed in water as tea. It is a remedy for the high-altitude sickness of La Paz, called sorrochi. I have drank coca tea myself while in La Paz. I failed to become a drug addict, nor did I leave there with an insatiable desire to snort cocaine.
In a sense, Evo Morales is an American creation, another sad story in the history of American foreign policy. One could review our history and be reminded of other policy disasters such as Ho Chi Minh, Fernando Marcos, Fidel Castro, and now Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Whether intended or not intended, the long arm of American policy has a penchant for doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.
In the case of Evo Morales, one sees another rabid anti-American ready to blame the "gringos" for everything. Unlike Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, he never played or loved baseball so the root of his resentment stems from other reasons. More so than just the United States, Morales seems to be at war with open, market-oriented economies and constitutional governments. He led the fight against the exportation of natural gas through Chile, and has referred to the Chileans as an enemy nation. Morales, like others in Bolivia, is still smarting over the War of Pacific, fought over a 100 years ago, when Bolivia lost its one outlet to the sea.
Not only is Morales an enemy of liberal society it turns out he is a great admirer of Fidel Castro, and the Cuban experiment in socialism. At a recent news conference, he called Cuba, “the ideal” to be followed. Along with this, his first visit after his electorial triumph was to Havana, Cuba. His second trip was to Venezuela to meet with Hugo Chávez. During the presidential campaign there were circulating rumors that Chávez help finance the campaign of Morales.
Consequently, and with little surprise, Morales is talking about the nationalization of natural resources, state ownership of property in order to create greater social justice, eradication of poverty by equalization of income and a new society based on equality. In his own words in a January 2006 interview with the newspaper El Mercurio of Chile, he stated he wanted to create a revolution similar to Cuba but a revolution achieved, “with votes and not with bullets.” English-language media accounts of his rise from obscurity glow with praise for this new president. Many reports refer to him as a populist or a rebel fighting the entrenched oligarchy of Bolivia. They refer to him as the new hope for the plight of the Indian population mired in poverty. They comment that the rise of Morales was a rebellion against free-market or liberal policies of the past: privatizations, open trade, the deconstruction of the ponderous State bureaucracy.
Newsweek ran a cover story about him, referring to him as a rebel and magnet for the angry left and the poor, damaged by free-market policies. The bastion of capitalism, The Wall Street Journal, ran a story and pointed out that the Indian populations were turning against liberalized economies imposed by the United States. BBC also entered into the ring, and described him as a populist who was bringing hope to indigenous people, who had tired of free-market policies that only favored the rich.
Of course, none of these media sources explain how an Indian population—many of whom do not read or write or even speak Spanish—is able to articulate an argument against liberal economics or something resembling an open market? Nor do they explain that nothing even resembling a free market existed or exists in Bolivia, where a ponderous State bureaucracy works to snuff out incentive and stifle any chance at growth and prosperity. Even more, none of these English-language reports explain how Morales’ brand of socialism is going to succeed when socialism has failed, in every version, since its introduction. What will be different about this brand that didn’t exist in prior versions? Will Morales be able to give incentive to government bureaucrats and inspire them to unselfish acts of hard work and creativity? Will he be able to inspire men and women to think and produce without incentive or profit? Or for that matter will he be able to do the one thing no other person has been able to do under socialism, even Fidel Castro—inspire people to sacrifice their self-interest and even their lives for the love of their follow man?
In other words, given the repeated motif of Morales that he wants to eradicate poverty—in what area will he succeed where Fidel Castro failed? Besides the admirers of Fidel Castro who refuse to peer into reality and objectify the poverty and economic failure of Cuban communism, almost no one would point to Cuba as an example to follow, especially if one has as a priority, the eradication of poverty.
Without a doubt, the American government and especially the State Department has made many errors in Latin America and Bolivia. American government support of military dictatorships was a disaster and counterproductive to what America is suppose to stand for. Striving to eradicate a coca crop that is the life blood of many Indian farmers is a tremendous blunder. Yet, with all this being said and without having to be a supporter of American foreign policy, in what way will Morales and Bolivia benefit by an aligning themselves with Cuban communism?
If the true motive of Morales is the eradication of poverty and the defeat of the entrenched oligarchy in Bolivia, in what way will his friendship with Cuba benefit this motive? Ayn Rand, the author and philosopher, has pointed out in her writings that if social-justice crusaders actually meant what they said about eradicating poverty, capitalism would be the system that they would choose in order to accomplish this job. It is capitalism that has raised the standard of living in every country that has tried it, and it is America, the home of capitalism, that stands as the example of the highest standard of living in the world.
Yet, Morales, following the lead of his friends in Cuba and Venezuela, is decidedly anti-capitalist in speech and action. Not only this, but the one country in Latin America that has had a sharp rise in wealth and economic status, Chile, seems also to be on his list of those to attack. Instead of copying the success of Latin America's most successful country, Morales has repeatedly attacked it and failed to acknowledge what it has accomplished. Could this be just an error on his part? Knowing his history and ideology, this is doubful.
Some time around the year 2000, I flew from La Paz, Bolivia to Arica, Chile. It was like flying from the dark ages to a modern society, not only in the physical sense but in the sense of leaving chaos and anarchy, and arriving to a civilized world. The contrast between the two countries, as far as economic stature is monumental. One does not have to have an advanced degree in economics to know this. A simple trip to both countries will suffice as the convincer. Wealth and a high standard of living reside in Chile; Bolivia remains on the border of chaos and anarchy.
Bolivian Anarchy
Bolivia has a long history of ideological chaos and political turmoil. In over 200 years of history, the country has suffered at least 175 chaotic changes of power, from coup d’etats, to violent rebellions, to army takeovers—to Evo Morales type of violent incursions where large armies of insurgents surround the city and cower the legislature into pushing the president out the door.
In the late 1800’s, Peru and Bolivia invaded Chile in what was known as the War of the Pacific. When the war ended Chilean troops were encircled around Lima, and Bolivia had lost its outlet to the sea, a city now under Chilean jurisdiction called Iquique. To this day, over a hundred years later, Bolivia still has a navy and active admirals, and is still trying to recover its outlet to the sea. Much of the effort behind this stems from Evo Morales.
In the 1930’s, Bolivia went to war with Paraguay. The war is referred to as the Chaco War, fought in lands known as El Chaco. When the war ended Bolivia had taken a bad beating and again lost a chunk of the fatherland. In the time span of 50 years, Bolivia had lost half of its territory.
Evo Morales will not be the first idealistic socialist to take power in Bolivia. In the fifties, the country experienced a leftist revolution headed by Victor Paz Estensoro, a man with a social-justice agenda who nationalized major industries, empowered the major unions and in the end destroyed the economy before he was overthrown by the military.
During the seventies, Hugo Banzer headed a dictatorial government that squashed opposition and made some efforts to modernize the economy. Later on, Banzer gave up his dictatorial ways and was elected president democratically. Since Banzer’s death, the country has been ruled by a succession of leaders, trying to modernize the country, considered the poorest in Latin America.
Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, a businessmen was elected president in 2003. The second-place finisher was Evo Morales. Under Bolivian law, when a clear majority of 50% is not gained in the election, the president is chosen by congress. Sánchez de Lozada, with the highest vote count, was chosen. He was pro-American, endeavored to modernize the economy, tap into the enormous natural gas reserves of Bolivia, and ship them through Chile to Mexico and the United States. Chile, of course, is an ancient enemy of Bolivia, and the Evo Morales crowd considered his attempts as treason to the fatherland. Morales led the violent demonstrations. Bloodshed followed. There was a shoot out between police and army units. The official count was 33 dead.
When the smoke cleared, Sánchez de Lozada, also known as Noni, was pushed out the door toward the United States, and Evo Morales had demonstrated that if he couldn’t win through the ballot box, there was were other means to power.
The Inca Empire
Evo Morales is an Aymara Indian, an ancestral tribe that composed a major component of the Inca Empire. While Morales has been vocal in his attacks against the "American Empire" and its "imperialism," he has never spoken a public word about the Inca Empire, and its policy of conquering weaker tribes and putting them under Inca jurisdiction. In the eyes of Morales and many other leftists in Latin America, American imperialism is American companies striving to do business in Latin America while making a profit. To Morales, the very act of an American company making a profit on Bolivian soil is an act of imperialism. Seemingly, he subscribes to the concept made popular by the ex-Argentine president Juan Perón—the concept of “vendepatria” or selling out the fatherland. Under this Peronist concept, foreign companies profiting on native soil are a violation of the fatherland, a treasonous act of domination by a foreign power.
Apparently, Morales has no qualms about the imperialism of the Inca Empire. In this type of imperialism—an act of coercive force—weaker tribes were conquered and subjugated to Inca rule. They had no choice but to subjugate themselves or be annihilated. Often alluding to Indian unity and paying lip service to calls for a new Incaya, or Inca Empire, Morales would have the world believe the Indian world prior to the Spanish conquests was a utopian paradise. In a July 2006 interview with the The Wall Street Journal, David Choquehuanca, the Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs and an Aymara intellectual, maintains that before the arrival of the Spanish invaders, the Aymara had a communal Garden of Eden without poverty or oppression, where people lived to be over 200-years old.
However, history tells a different story than what Morales and Choquehuanca want people to believe. Far from being benevolent rulers, the Incas Empire was militaristic and totalitarian. The Inca rulers favored a socialist type of economy. The common person worked for the State and was in return given food, shelter and necessities. The liberal ideal that one’s life belonged to the individual did not exist. The Inca Empire was all-powerful; the individual an appendage of the Empire with no constitutional rights.
Morales seems to have no problems with this concept. It is after all the base of the Cuban State, the fundamental level of communism. While never using the word communist, as understood in its basic meaning, in public discourse, Morales has always showed great sympathy and support for the ideal. This aspect of his personality has been glossed over by the English-speaking press with words like populist, rebel and socialist. Yet, underneath this smoke screen, one sees a different picture, an ideological man with a vision of a collectivist society.
Altruistic Ideal
Evo Morales has talked about eliminating corruption and disemboweling the elites who run the Bolivian government. In a December, 2005 interview with Pagina 12, a leftist newspaper out of Buenos Aires, Morales was asked if he was a socialist. He answered affirmatively and went on to say that before he asked others to sacrifice, he, himself, has to rid his own personality of selfishness and individualism, and that his ideal would be a communitarian socialism without private property. He went on to say that where he grew up all property was owned by the community.
Stripped of the smoke screen, the portrait of Evo Morales takes on another meaning, much more meaningful than "populist" or "rebel." In reality, he is nothing more than another attempt at imposing the altruistic ideal of service and self-sacrifice on others as a form of government. He is another attempt at the Marxian ideal of the unselfish man, who will work for the good of others, without concern for his own welfare. In striving for this, he follows in the path of all the socialist leaders of the past century, whether they were national socialists or of the Marxist variety. Whether Morales will resort to force in order to impose these altruistic ideals, is still to be seen.
Yet, if history has taught us anything, it is that ideal socialist societies are opposed to human nature, and sooner or later, the writing on the wall becomes evident—the use of force and State power, or the abandonment of the socialist ideal.
In this context, Morales, in his post-election speeches, was conciliatory and amenable to everyone. He wants to strip the economy of the profit motive and incentive, yet he wants to improve the standard of living and welfare of the country. He wants to impose a state-controlled economy composed of bureaucrats and at the same time wants to eliminate corruption. He wants to nationalize major industries and return the country, as he says, to the people, and yet he wants to attract investment from the outside. He wants to increase the standard of living but what he proposes is more of the same socialist formulas that have failed repeatedly throughout the world.
In Bolivia, before the rise of Evo Morales, there was Felipe Quispe, an Aymara Indian and ex-armed guerilla, who was a front-runner in carrying the banner for a bigger role for Indians in Bolivian affairs. As a member of the Ejército Guerilla Túpac Katari (EGTK) Quispe was imprisoned during the nineties along with Alvaro Garcia Linares, the present vice president of Bolivia.
In a December 2005 interview with the Chilean newspaper, El Mercurio, Quispe had harsh words for both Morales and his vice president. According to Quispe, he knows Morales only by name but, at one time, was a friend and associate of Alvaro Garcia Linares, who he now refers to as a "traitor." He says he introduced Linares to the Aymara culture and saw in him a hope for the Indian culture. He says that Linares is now a neoliberal with the appearance of an Indian agenda. He goes on to say that the movement of Morales and Linares, MAS, is a "specimen of a brothel where many prostitutes of the senior level of the left work. And that Alvardo García is one of the prostitutes."
Quispe reiterates that the honeymoon for Morales will pass after 90 days and people will be expecting him to deliver on the many promises he made during the campaign. He says Morales has to deliver land to the Indian population along with new roads, hospitals, electricity and drinkable water. According to Quispe, Morales is an opportunist and during the campaign, promised a tractor to every Indian. If Morales, doesn't deliver the population will know him as a liar, and will stop supporting him. "The tree is known by its fruit. It is necessary to see if the fruit is bitter, sweet, or wormy; we are going to put it to the test" he says.
What type of government will Morales follow is the question on many people’s mind? Quispe maintains Morales will sell out and form a “liberal state with an Indian face.” Of course, to Quispe any type of trade or business dealing, even it is from a state-run business, is liberalism. Quispe wants to destroy the whole edifice of modern technology and return to the primitive economy of earlier Indian societies. As a presidential candidate, during the last election, he received two percent of the vote.
Other prognosticators think that such people as the president of Brazil, Lulu will have a positive effect on Morales. Lulu, who rose from the ranks of the working class to become president, has followed a moderate path since taking office, establishing friendly relations with the United States and striving to open the Brazilian economy to the effects of the modern world. Petrobras, the Brazilian state-run petroleum company, is one of the major players in Bolivia with an estimated 30% share in the market. For awhile, Morales promised Lulu that he would not nationalize any of the Brazilian holdings and is only looking for better distribution of the profits. This promise was broken by the Bolivian government and all petroleum holdings are scheduled to be nationalized in the coming years. Along with this, the Bolivian government has been confiscating large farms owned by Brazilians called latifundios, many of them on the frontier of the two countries.
Along with this, Bolivia and Venezuela have recently announced plans to establish 21 new military bases in Bolivia. One of these bases will be on the frontier with Chile. In one of his speeches, Hugo Chávez stated he was looking forward to taking a swim on a Bolivian beach. He later backtracked on the statement but the fact that he made it, points to the importance Morales has placed on regaining an outlet to the sea for Bolivia. This is an ancient point of nationalism in Bolivia, shrewdly exploited by Morales. It is also a case of a chaotic and failed country pointing its finger at a successful country that is signing free-trade agreements with United States, China and other open economies throughout the world.
With the help of Chávez’s petrodollars, one can only speculate on what will happen in Bolivia when things start to crumble. Will Morales go to the ancient nationalism and use Chile as scapegoat for his failed regime? Will he once again pound the drums for a Bolivian return to the sea, and the reconquering of ancient territory? In the meantime, Chile has not remained idle. Their military expenditures under the last government of Ricardo Lagos, a socialist humanitarian, were the highest in their history.
The Future
The image of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and other Marxist leaders casts a giant shadow in the history of Evo Morales. Hanging prominently on a wall in his presidential palace is a life-size portrait of Che Guevara. He is rumored to consult with Castro on important issues, and now with his illness, articles have appeared linking him with Raul Castro. On his trip to China, he was quick to praise Mao and name his as one of his favorite examples for State leadership. Although he may refrain from the rigid communism of Cuba and total state ownership of property, he has proclaimed this as his ideal. How far he may stray from this ideal and how much he is willing to compromise is open to question.
The vice president of Bolivia is Alvaro Garcia Linares, a Marxist intellectual who admits to reading Kant and Engels at the age of 13. In the early nineties, Linares was an armed guerilla and later spent five years in a Bolivian prison studying Marx. Linares is reported to be the intellectual force behind the Bolivian revolution. I saw him on television in October of 2006 accusing opponents of the regime of being "anti-patriotic, selfish and infantile." He was strong and forceful, and seemed to have the conviction of his beliefs. Without a doubt, American administrations could use a man of his ideological ability and talent, although definitely from a different perspective. He is certainly far from another pragmatic Republican or Democratic, who will compromise on everything and anything, and can’t see the consequences beyond the latest public opinion poll.
Certainly, with Bolivia as with any other country, a socialist experiment will not produce the opportunity nor the wealth for a better standard of living and a more productive society. How much help Morales will be able to receive from the socialist with money in Venezuela is still speculation but could always add to his longevity in office. Yet, in the end, he will have to decide on which road to follow, the road to an open society, or the road to a closed, highly regulated socialism where incentive, opportunity and choice are forbidden words and the State is the benefactor and high priest of everyone’s life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)