Book Review: Evo Morales

It came to our attention late, but about a month ago I started seeing a lot of Facebook posts about Evo Morales granting Mother Nature equal rights to human beings.  This is the first legislation of its kind in the world, and it occurred, appropriately, on the International Day of Mother Earth.  The first article of the Law of Mother Earth says that every human activity has to "achieve dynamic balance with the cycles and processes inherent in Mother Earth."  It defines Mother Earth as "a unique, indivisible, self-regulating community of interrelated beings that sustains, contains and reproduces all beings."   

This happened in April, 2011 and it really hit Facebook pages in November and December.  By the time I started seeing the story I was already working on a post about Evo Morales:

What can we make of the President elect of Bolivia - a man who, in 2006, received 53.7% of votes, the greatest victory in his country since democracy was restored in 1982 (the most prior to his election was Sanchez de Lozada's 34% of the vote, gained in 1993)?  What do we make of this man who nearly died when, in 1959, his mother bled heavily during labor as, without medication nor midwife, she delivered Evo over a sheered sheep's leather?  Can we make sense of a president who lost four siblings to curable diseases?  Evo walked three miles along a narrow horse path to get to grade school, and he never went to high school.  His sister, Esther, currently runs a butcher shop out of the front of her house in Oruro.  What can we make of this man that is good friends with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez?  What do we make of his words, pronounced on the day of his inauguration as President of Bolivia: "I want to ask all of you, with much respect to the native authorities, to our organizations, to our amatuas (Andean ritual specialists): Watch over me and, if I am unable to advance, push me forward, brothers and sisters"?  We hear in the news that he is a cocalero, that he supports the manufacturing of cocaine.  Is that right?  According to personalities on Fox News, he is, first of all, a Dictator, and second of all, a drug addict.  The chewing of Coca leaves, argue these personalities, is the same as ingesting cocaine.  Check out this short clip:



So what are we to make of this man who is so different from anyone we have come even close to experiencing in American politics and leadership?  The following is a book review of "Evo Morales, The Extraordinary Rise of the First Indigenous President of Bolivia" by Martin Sivak.  Through it, we will hopefully come to a better understanding of the cocalero, union leader, and President elect.

Morales began his political career reluctantly as a campesino (peasant) union leader.  From an early age, he was a natural leader.  The campesino movement he was involved in from the beginning was fundamentally a fight against the United States for national sovereignty.  Bolivia, a country victimized by imperialism from the day the Spanish arrived, endured many coup d'etat's and changes in power and, despite being rich in resources, endured extreme poverty, hyperinflation, and economic and political crisis since it achieved independence from Spain in 1825.  In 1982, the left-wing government initiated the democratization of the country, but could not stop the onslaught of hyperinflation of 8,767% in 1985.  In crisis, an important Decree was passed, backed by the US, that led to Bolivia's neoliberal orientation:  Decree 21.060 included a reduction of government, liberalization of the economy, and an opening up to foreign businesses, leading to the privatization of state companies.  US influence infiltrated the area, US business started buying up natural resources, and US federal aid arrived in exchange for certain concessions, including the eradication of the traditional coca leaf crops.  Needing such foreign aid, Bolivian leaders sought a dependent relationship with the United States and accepted the impositions of Washington.  What was at stake was national sovereignty and the ancestral relationship with the coca leaf - something Morales holds dear.  The coca leaf, in fact, became symbolic of the fight for sovereignty and the battle cry became, "Causachun coca!  Wañuchun yanquis! (Long live coca!  Death to the Yankees!)".

Morales, a natural leader, grew up as a man, fighting for the survival of his people's coca crop, his blood boiling with anti-American sentiment and disdain for political leaders 'bought' by the United States.  Sivak writes, "When he won his seat in Congress in July 1988, he decided to dedicate himself entirely to the union.  He often repeated the principles defined by his new mantra, 'to be honest and direct with his constituents and at the front of all marches and rallies" (43).  Throughout his career as a union leader, Morales fought bravely.  He was involved in road blocks that resulted in death, he marched hundreds of miles in protest, he gave speeches, he was threatened, he was illegally arrested and beaten, the Bolivian government threatened to exile him, he was offered freedom in exchange for his support of coca eradication plans and he refused.  With every step the governments of Bolivia took to stop him, he and his union grew stronger.  He became President elect on December 18, 2005.

One of the first measures passed by President Morales was to cut his salary 57%, to $1,875 per month.  In addition, he tried to save money and cut administrative costs at every corner.

As an example: "Because it wasn't possible to fly to La Paz that night, the delegation discussed where they should sleep.  Rebeca Delgado suggested her six-person cabin.  'There's no electricity, but we could buy fuel for the lamp,' she explained.
'The seven of us will fit,' the president ventured.  His vice president said he needed to read some documents.
'We should look for some gasoline then,' Delgado concluded.
'We'll sleep in the cabin, and then we won't have to pay for a hotel,' Evo insisted.  He would have saved about $25" (28).

Stories like this line the book by Martin Sivak.  Morales, the head of state, sleeps with the peasants, talks with the peasants, invites the unions to the capital, flies on run-down airplanes, and plays soccer with the people.  In order to relieve tensions and begin talks on the right foot, Morales organizes soccer matches between the government and union/organization leaders who want to negotiate.  Setting up a productive atmosphere to negotiate is important for Morales' government because, for Evo, politics is negotiation amongst brothers and sisters.  Sivac writes, "He... grew up in the school of campesino unionism.  It's his political origin, and for many years he understood politics as a sum of assemblies, negotiations with politicians and officials, and fights in the streets and roads" (43).

When Obama was elected president, stressing change in his candidacy, many voters hoped he would put together a progressive administration.  Instead, he swore in many of the same leaders Clinton did.  Evo provides, in contrast, a radical model of change.  He elected ministers that were not involved at all with previous administrations.  In fact, "No member of his intimate circle had ever been a civil servant before" (194).  Additionally, he threw out governmental customs that reeked of foreign influence and replaced them with rituals that were profoundly Bolivian.  He got rid of international meals in the Burned Palace and held a ko'a in the Burned Palace in January 2006 to help expel bad energy from the building.  "The amautas (Andean ritual specialists) set two tables - one with a white cloth and the other with a colorful one - and presented him with the incense.  They asked for his health, for a good governmental administration, and for him to find a wife soon.  Morales ordered that the ritual be repeated in each corner of Plaza Murillo.  The bad vibes, he maintained, had passed through the Palace walls" (193).   He works tirelessly for incredibly long hours and governs through the creation of committees.  Sivac writes that "The creation of committees is pure Morales" (58).

It's no secret that Morales is not well-liked by US politicians, although Bill Clinton did tell him in passing, overheard by Sivak, that "If I were a Bolivian miner, I would have voted for you" (181).  Things that get him in trouble in the United States is his insistence in referring to the United States as an Empire.  When Evo spoke of the coca leaf in the UN General Assembly, he made the United States angry.

He said, "Coca is green, not white like cocaine.  It doesn't make sense for it to be legal for Coca-Cola and illegal for traditional and medicinal consumption.  [...]  The seizure of drugs has increased 300 percent in Bolivia, but the US government doesn't accept that there are limitations on how to modify our laws.  I want to say with utmost respect to the US government: We're not going to change a thing.  We don't need blackmail or threats.  The so-called certification or decertification [a controversial legislation that offers Bolivia trade benefits in exchange for drug-war cooperation] of the fight against drug trafficking is an instrument for the colonization of Andean countries" (181).

He has additionally banned the US ambassador Goldberg from entering the Burned Palace, openly insulted Bush at the UN, accused US aid of going to his political opposition, refused to accept US aid in exchange for certain demands in the war on drugs, and he has opened up relations with Iran, claiming that because the US is not an ally, he will seek allies with those not influenced by the US.

During his trip to New York to participate in the UN General Assembly, he met with Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

There is a lot more to be said of Morales and his presidency, not least of which involves his role in creating a new constitution for Bolivia and the fight the conservatives brought to his government over the issue of autonomy.  I would like to close this discussion, however, with a consideration of Morales' ultra-left governmental orientation and its potential.  Sivak writes, "In US power circles, the predominant interpretation of the phenomenon of Bolivia is to present a leader emotionally connected with the indigenous and poor majority and influenced and financed by Chavez.  The notion of a mentor relationship underestimates Morales more than it overestimates Chavez.  That portrayal, glossed with the vilifying labels of populism and authoritarianism, proves insufficient to explain the results of the presidential election of December 6, 2009.  Morales obtained 64.2 percent of the votes and took two-thirds of the seats of the brand-new Plurinational Legislative Assembly" (226).

Under his presidency, "social programs have been designed for school children, seniors, and young mothers... The literacy program has been a major success in a country with high levels of illiteracy, leading UNESCO to declare Bolivia free of illiteracy in 2009" (227).

In a climate where so many Euro-American government leaders are thinking along the lines of cutting programs and reducing the role of governments in order to ward off economic collapse, Morales has done the opposite.  As corporations and wealthy business-men have not been able to influence his policies, Morales has authentically increased the role of government and social programs while taking back that which has been stolen from Bolivia's people:

"The economy's good performance has been accumulative and remarkable.  During the years of the Morales administration, the reserves in the Central Bank have increased from $1.7 million in 2005 to $8.58 million, there has been fiscal surplus and a low deficit, the peso has risen in value against the dollar, and inflation has been restrained.  In a country familiar with the traumatic experience of hyperinflation, such stability and confidence are crucial to understanding the support of the lower and middle classes" (227).  Such great performance has been attained through the painful process of nationalizing resources.  In the US, the most powerful and profitable companies do not pay taxes to the US government.  In the same way that Bolivia took back resources crucial to its development, imagine if we were to take back resources crucial to our own.  Imagine if we were to appropriately tax US companies.  We could solve our debt problem and give our children a better education, improve our roads and infrastructure, provide universal health care, and provide social security.  We could increase government-size and its social programs while simultaneously solving the debt crisis.

Let Bolivia be an example and the character of Morales something to aspire to.

Sivak, Martin.  Evo Morales, The Extraordinary Rise of the First Indigenous President of Bolivia.  New York:  Palgrave Manmillan.


Also, here is a link to the first article published on The Mighty Blog, about Central/South American activism.

Song: All The Money In The World

Here is The Mighty Have Fallen's commentary on the Economy, Corporatocracy, Greed, and the Real Power of Money as a Social Phenomenon.  Anita and I wrote the lyrics to this song with inspiration from the Occupy Wall Street movement.  One day Anita was tripping out about the fact that bonds are essentially the sale and purchase of debt.  But where exactly is this money?  Where does the billions of dollars the US owes exist?  I contend that, in a physical sense, it exists on hard drives.  In a real sense, as in the way it affects lives, it can't be understood so easily.  People don't eat because they can't afford it.  People commit suicide over money.  People get ulcers over money.  People lose their homes over money.  This money, these debts, do not exist in any physical way, but just as a social construct - a psychological game that we all participate in (and must participate in).  This song is meant to point out the tenuous nature of billions of dollars of debt - the artificial existence of it - to point out that there is no stash of gold, we are getting ulcers over data stored on hard drives.  People are suppressed, disempowered, manipulated, and ignored as a result of data stored on hard drives.

Enjoy!

All The Money In The World by tmhfband

Lyrics for All The Money In The World:

Listen close we haven't time
The things I say you cannot find
They hide the truth so you can't see
The media is brought down to its knees

The secret of your bank account
The secret ropes that tie you down
Conceal the truth so you can't see
They care of nothing but their filthy greed

All the money in the world

All the money in the world

All the money in the world

All the money in the bank

Invested in some other place

And what's a billion dollars mean

When it's nowhere to be seen

The debt you owe is bought and sold

Bonds are like a great black hole

And in the end it's in our mind

We only owe that which we define

And for other jams we've recorded recently, check out these links:

I Want To Know

The Start Of Something

"Prolonged Detention" - How Is This New or Different from Bush?

There has been a lot of buzz and clips posted on Facebook lately about Obama's "Prolonged Detention" plan for suspected terrorists.  People are writing about it as though President Obama has introduced something radically new and terrifying to US legal system.  While a lot of people have justified worries and criticisms, I think it's important to note that the changes Obama's making to the way we imprison suspected terrorists is miniscule.  It leads me to ask: how is "prolonged detention" different from Bush's way of handling suspected terrorists?


The ONLY difference I can see is that "prolonged detention" will occur on US soil.  This sounds radically different from Bush and Cheney, until we put it into perspective.  Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay, where, according to Robert Gates, as many as one hundred people are currently being indefinitely held without a charge, many having been tortured.  Obama, wanting to keep his promise, is in a position of freeing Guantanamo Bay prisoners or trying them in a court of law.  


William Glaberson writes for the New York Times, "But some proponents of an indefinite detention system argue that Guantánamo’s remaining 240 detainees include cold-blooded jihadists and perhaps some so warped by their experience in custody that no president would be willing to free them. And among them, the proponents say, are some who cannot be tried, in part for lack of evidence or because of tainted evidence."


So Obama seems to be in a tough spot - he has prisoners held since the naming of the "War on Terror" that can't or won't be convicted if they were tried in a court.  But there's a danger, possibly increased through the US's own poor treatment of such prisoners, that these people will be dangerous upon their release.  What's the solution?  Move Guantanamo Bay to the States.  


Obama's plan for 'closing' Guantanamo Bay seems to me to be a plan to move Guantanamo Bay.  The criticism brought against Obama's plan is well-founded and I agree with most of what I've read.  The thing I wish to call attention to is that Obama is not making a radical change.  We aren't going to start imprisoning people without trial, we are going to continue to imprison people without trial.  They will just live in a different place and, according to Obama, there will be more oversight with regard to their detention.


If you think Obama's plan is radical and new, just consider these frightening stories from a book by Nancy Chang called "Silencing Political Dissent," published in 2002, nine years ago.  Chang gives us the harsh reality of preventive detainment, and makes me think some of the detainees are being held without trial so that they won't bear witness to the war crimes carried out by the US over the last decade.  


"The government's secrecy surrounding the preventive detention has not only concealed facts suggesting that the detentions are illegal; it has concealed the dangerous and punishing conditions imposed upon the detainees.  As the stories of more and more detainees are made known, a gruesome picture has emerged. Untold numbers of detainees with no links to terrorism or records of violence, charged with no more than minor immigration violations, have been placed in solitary confinement for months at a stretch.  They have been housed in small windowless cells under bright lights that remain on twenty-four hours a day.  They have been deprived of reading materials and other diversions and have been given infrequent opportunities to shower and exercise.  Upon leaving their cells, they have been subjected to strip searches and body cavity searches, and they have been placed in 'three-piece suits' consisting of leg restraints and a belly chain linked to a set of handcuffs.  At the other extreme are detainees who have been housed in overcrowded pens with convicted murderers and other violent criminals. 


"Reports of ethnic and religious epithets being hurled by prison guards and fellow inmates, along with false accusations of responsibility for the September 11 attacks, appear to be commonplace among September 11 detainees.  Two Egyptians reported that the FBI agents who initially interrogated them repeatedly yelled and swore at them.  In addition, a number of detainees have been injured at the hands of their prison guards.  Syed Amjad Ali Jaffri, a plaintiff in Turkmen v. Ashcroft, complained that his face was slammed into walls and kicked by prison guards.  His lower front teeth were loosened in the process, and although he was in extreme pain, he was not allowed to see a dentist.  While prison guards stood by, a Pakistani man was reportedly beaten by fellow inmates shortly after a newspaper article was circulated in the prison stating that he was under investigation for terrorism.  Osama Awadallah reported that during the three weeks he was kept in custody as a material witness, he was repeatedly abused, both physically and verbally, by prison guards.  In one incident, he was grabbed by the hair while he was shackled and forced to face an American flag by a prison guard who told him, 'This is America.'  


"In addition, a number of detainees have complained that they were not provided with necessary medical treatment.  An Iranian man was reported to have suffered a stroke that went untreated for three months while he remained in solitary confinement.  And Rafiq Butt, a fifty-five-year-old Pakistani restaurant worker, died of a heart attack in October 2001 while being detained in the Hudson County Correctional Center.  Butt was reported to have been picked up based on a tip to the FBI from a pastor of a church near his home, and his only transgression was overstaying his visitor's visa.  He had already agreed to leave the United States but had been prevented from doing so because he had not yet been cleared by the FBI.  Butt's tragic end shows how preventive detention, secrecy, and acutely stressful conditions of confinement can be a deadly combination."  


In conclusion, the critique of Obama's Preventive Detention plan needs to go further, into a critique of the "War on Terror,"  and a critique of the US government and the lengths they will go, in the name of "National Security," in denying human rights, the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', and abusing Habeas Corpus.  As the Occupy movement does so well, let's make this a critique of systemic problems, and not kid ourselves to think that Obama is acting out of turn.



I wholeheartedly disagree with Rachel Maddow that Obama proclaimed a "radical new claim of presidential power," although I also passionately agree with her critique of preventive detention.  It's important, however, to see this as systemic and a logical outcome of the "War on Terror."