Bolivia

[WMS]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed .

Perhaps you should learn something about Bolivian politics before talking. The guy who now resigned (Mesa) has been in power for less then 2 years, having come to power after the resignation of this predecessor. Until then he was a vice-president (without much power), and before that, I believe, a fairly neutral and well thought-off journalist. All his time in office he has been trying to hold the country together - well, now we'll probably have a civil war there.

Bolivia is sharply divided. The east (lowland) part of the country has oil and gas and is, relatively, wealthy (at least, potentially). The Western (highland) heartland of the country is dirt poor, populated by the traditionally disenfranchized native majority. Coca production is a major industry there. The east wants to produce and export oil. The west wants to nationalize oil (which, in practical terms, means leaving it in the ground, since the government does not have resources to invest in the exploitation).

The current president fell, having been sandwiched between the unreconcilable demands. The Congress passed a law, imposing (retroactively) high (50%) taxes on oil companies. The president disagreed, but let the law come into force by not vetoing it (neither did he sign it, to show what he thinks of it, but Bolivian Constitution makes all unsigned bills accepted, unless vetoed). However, for native leaders from the highlands this is not enough - the industry has to be nationalized. The problem is, the East  (mainly, Santa Cruz and Tarija provinces), which actually has the oil, is already demanding greater autonomy. Were the nationalization to pass, the East would, probably, instead demand independence.

At the very least, the country is ungovernable (left or right).  The country is so fractured, that any conceivable leader is entirely unacceptable to a large majority. A very bloody war is a very distinct possibility. One thing to be said for sure - there aren't going to be any winners

Excellent analysis, pretty much supported by Stratfor.

Evo Morales is a far-left authoritarian - he refuses to allow other parties to campaign in his strongholds - and just rabid. He is not a social democrat. If his forces somehow come to power, you WILL see civil war and possible partition of Bolivia.

Morales' opponents are far from perfect and have plenty of problems, but at least they support democracy more that the tyrant-in-waiting Morales will.

What a mess.

[WMS]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed .

Perhaps you should learn something about Bolivian politics before talking. The guy who now resigned (Mesa) has been in power for less then 2 years, having come to power after the resignation of this predecessor. Until then he was a vice-president (without much power), and before that, I believe, a fairly neutral and well thought-off journalist. All his time in office he has been trying to hold the country together - well, now we'll probably have a civil war there.

Bolivia is sharply divided. The east (lowland) part of the country has oil and gas and is, relatively, wealthy (at least, potentially). The Western (highland) heartland of the country is dirt poor, populated by the traditionally disenfranchized native majority. Coca production is a major industry there. The east wants to produce and export oil. The west wants to nationalize oil (which, in practical terms, means leaving it in the ground, since the government does not have resources to invest in the exploitation).

The current president fell, having been sandwiched between the unreconcilable demands. The Congress passed a law, imposing (retroactively) high (50%) taxes on oil companies. The president disagreed, but let the law come into force by not vetoing it (neither did he sign it, to show what he thinks of it, but Bolivian Constitution makes all unsigned bills accepted, unless vetoed). However, for native leaders from the highlands this is not enough - the industry has to be nationalized. The problem is, the East  (mainly, Santa Cruz and Tarija provinces), which actually has the oil, is already demanding greater autonomy. Were the nationalization to pass, the East would, probably, instead demand independence.

At the very least, the country is ungovernable (left or right).  The country is so fractured, that any conceivable leader is entirely unacceptable to a large majority. A very bloody war is a very distinct possibility. One thing to be said for sure - there aren't going to be any winners

Excellent analysis, pretty much supported by Stratfor.

Evo Morales is a far-left authoritarian - he refuses to allow other parties to campaign in his strongholds - and just rabid. He is not a social democrat. If his forces somehow come to power, you WILL see civil war and possible partition of Bolivia.

Morales' opponents are far from perfect and have plenty of problems, but at least they support democracy more that the tyrant-in-waiting Morales will.

What a mess.

Why is this all coming to a head now? IIRC, Bolivia was the site of a much-hailed monetary stabilization program in 1985-86 after the Latin American debt crisis. This program led to high growth in the country from 1990-97, and was recently hailed just last year as a "success story" in Jeff Sachs's The End of Poverty. By 1997, the country's economy had nearly recovered to its 1980 size. Since then, very little news had come out of the country until now.  Evidently there was support for privatization for 10 years, but now it has collapsed.

There's a continent-wide reaction against the pain caused by privatization, especially among the indigenous tribes who are radicalizing. It's my Undeveloped Country Conundrum: just how do you raise up these places? Nothing seems to work.

Also, there was enough of a time lag that people have forgotten how bad the hyperinflation of the 1980s was, when other policies were followed.

Finally, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez have sensed an opportunity and are flexing their muscles throughout Latin America, stirring up trouble all over the place, aided by Bush Administration inattention to the region.

I had hoped privatization would work better, but as a World Economic Systems textbook from my graduate years mentioned, it's difficult to do privatization correctly.

As I said before, what a mess.

[WMS]

Part of this is due to regional and ethnic tensions as well.

When is that not part of Latin American events?

[WMS]

Excellent. Especially if this is the bastard who allowed .

Perhaps you should learn something about Bolivian politics before talking. The guy who now resigned (Mesa) has been in power for less then 2 years, having come to power after the resignation of this predecessor. Until then he was a vice-president (without much power), and before that, I believe, a fairly neutral and well thought-off journalist. All his time in office he has been trying to hold the country together - well, now we'll probably have a civil war there.

Bolivia is sharply divided. The east (lowland) part of the country has oil and gas and is, relatively, wealthy (at least, potentially). The Western (highland) heartland of the country is dirt poor, populated by the traditionally disenfranchized native majority. Coca production is a major industry there. The east wants to produce and export oil. The west wants to nationalize oil (which, in practical terms, means leaving it in the ground, since the government does not have resources to invest in the exploitation).

The current president fell, having been sandwiched between the unreconcilable demands. The Congress passed a law, imposing (retroactively) high (50%) taxes on oil companies. The president disagreed, but let the law come into force by not vetoing it (neither did he sign it, to show what he thinks of it, but Bolivian Constitution makes all unsigned bills accepted, unless vetoed). However, for native leaders from the highlands this is not enough - the industry has to be nationalized. The problem is, the East  (mainly, Santa Cruz and Tarija provinces), which actually has the oil, is already demanding greater autonomy. Were the nationalization to pass, the East would, probably, instead demand independence.

At the very least, the country is ungovernable (left or right).  The country is so fractured, that any conceivable leader is entirely unacceptable to a large majority. A very bloody war is a very distinct possibility. One thing to be said for sure - there aren't going to be any winners

Excellent analysis, pretty much supported by Stratfor.

Evo Morales is a far-left authoritarian - he refuses to allow other parties to campaign in his strongholds - and just rabid. He is not a social democrat. If his forces somehow come to power, you WILL see civil war and possible partition of Bolivia.

Morales' opponents are far from perfect and have plenty of problems, but at least they support democracy more that the tyrant-in-waiting Morales will.

What a mess.

Why is this all coming to a head now? IIRC, Bolivia was the site of a much-hailed monetary stabilization program in 1985-86 after the Latin American debt crisis. This program led to high growth in the country from 1990-97, and was recently hailed just last year as a "success story" in Jeff Sachs's The End of Poverty. By 1997, the country's economy had nearly recovered to its 1980 size. Since then, very little news had come out of the country until now.  Evidently there was support for privatization for 10 years, but now it has collapsed.

There's a continent-wide reaction against the pain caused by privatization, especially among the indigenous tribes who are radicalizing. It's my Undeveloped Country Conundrum: just how do you raise up these places? Nothing seems to work.

Also, there was enough of a time lag that people have forgotten how bad the hyperinflation of the 1980s was, when other policies were followed.

Finally, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez have sensed an opportunity and are flexing their muscles throughout Latin America, stirring up trouble all over the place, aided by Bush Administration inattention to the region.

I had hoped privatization would work better, but as a World Economic Systems textbook from my graduate years mentioned, it's difficult to do privatization correctly.

As I said before, what a mess.

While there is no question that free enterprise increases the supply of goods and services in an economy whereas socialism merely redistributes them, many countries have a problem converting to a relatively free economy in that there is no domestic base of would be enterprisers.

This is NOT a new phenomona.  Malaysia was dependent upon the ethnic Chinese, who were resented by the native population for their productivity.

So, outside enterprisers who actually increase a country's prospetity are resented.

The lack of a native entrepreneurial class is a pretty hard obstacle to overcome, whether on a countrywide or regionwide level...

[WMS]

Well said.

So long as the culture disdains economic achievement, poverty will continue despite the presence of mineral resources of great value.

As we will eventually see in the oil-rich countries once the money spigot goes away.

I'd say the extent to which corruption is tolerated in the culture has a lot to do with how developed they become as well.