Democratic Discrepancy

In politics we often see Democracy as the inherited right we have to manage national and personal affairs. We often prefer this type of government since it is the best attempt to represent the will of most people, tends to be progressive, usually has a self-regulating economic system motivated by the self-interest of individuals and tends to promote economic mobility. Yet as every other type of government it isn't perfect, and in a country with socioeconomic characteristics like Bolivia, the flaws and failures within Democracy became divisive variables and the starting point of the "Process of Change." The Process of Change emerged in the hopes to empower indigenous populations that were in fact underrepresented within a young Democracy that was in the process of consolidation, while simultaneously transitioning to a Socialist Democratic Bolivia -or that was the initial plan.- This transition however, has backslid and will completely reversal the consolidation of the Democratic Bolivia, putting it at risk of collapsing and leading us to an authoritarian regime sustaining the hegemonic power of one particular group.

So, lets analyze the Democratic discrepancy in Bolivia by examining how these five proposed steps taken by Evo Morales and his administration have backslid the process of consolidation, while making the Democratic process highly ineffectual in order to begin the transition to the authoritarian regime.

1. The People: Evo Morales had the most important factor to his favor; his indigenous background. Morales intelligently used his popularity within indigenous populations to advance the political platform empowering indigenous populations. Not only Morales represented a high percentage of the population, but he also played in favor of a key socio-cultural trend within the indigenous populations, the coca leaf protection. Morales was able to appeal to millions by focusing on emotion, using historic events of exclusion and discrimination rather than reason and academic wisdom, gaining immediate approval, satisfaction and stubbornness of who are now his sympathizers. By now he has covered the most important factor within a Democratic process, the backing up of people. In fact, he got the highest approval rates during his first two terms.

2. Divide et empera: The next step is to cause division among Bolivians, divide and rule, probably the oldest political strategy, especially among dictators since it ceases the threats to the one in power. Suddenly Bolivia was divided into two; the indigenous Bolivia carrying the Wiphala, changing our traditions and promoting the liberation and empowerment of all indigenous populations within the Plurinational State of Bolivia, and the "white" Spaniards descendants and those who do not identify with any indigenous population still holding onto past traditions. Morales was able to polarize the entire electorate and political sphere, and since we still think in tribal terms, it was simple to adopt the "we vs. you" furthering more the cultural segregation and promoting the already existing regionalism in Bolivia. At this point neither Democracy nor Socialism could work, but Morales using the illusion of a Democratic government advanced to the third step in the transitional process.

3. The "mob rule": By now Morales' got the approval of the majority of the population and we now that within a Democratic process, the effectively "rule of the people" we the people elect our leaders, meaning the majority decides over the minority. This however, in a highly polarized country may actually be harmful to the legitimacy of the government, because it assumes that all opinions are the same, putting the same value on the opinions of educated people, uneducated, law-abiding and crooks as the same. Therefore by intelligently using the slogan "we are more" they used the "size" variable increasing the voting turn out and giving the people who are being influenced by emotion rather than logic -step 1- the actual power to choose our leaders, the ones defending only the interest of core constituents within the government of Morales.

4. Lack of legitimacy and failure to develop credibility: At this point we are living under the illusion of a Democratic government. The government is centralized, the industry is nationalized, the economy is regulated by the government, it lacks transparency, there is absolutely no credibility on government institutions and public officials -given the fact that many of them were involved in drug trafficking- and the government fails to comply with the will of the people. For instance February 21st of 2016 -21F- referendum day, an attempt to allow the electorate to practice direct democracy making them believe they still controlled policy. But 21F was in fact a deceptive instrument of political decision-making, considering it asked a question with unconstitutional bases, approving or rejecting the unconstitutional project to allow the president and/or vice-president to run again. (unconstitutional project because it contradicts the constitution adopted during Evo Morales' term, which explicitly imposes that the presidential term be 5 years with a possibility of one reelection). Even so, the "NO" won with 51% rejecting the unconstitutional project, yet Morales is running again for the presidency. So, if this isn't the will of the people, maybe is the will of the previously mentioned core constituents.

5. Protectionist government: It is safe to say that Democracy has collapsed when the government defends the interest of a group of people. Bolivia plays a strategic role in the illicit drug-market as producers and transit country. The coca cultivation – raw material of cocaine hydrochloride – is protected by law as it is a right for indigenous populations since it belongs to the Bolivian identity, which makes it very difficult to eradicate. This among the social and political conflicts fragmented in the Bolivian history the traditional aspect and illegal production of coca plants are two of the biggest challenges to any governing body, except obviously for Evo Morales, the still indigenous leader of the cocaleros of the tropic of Cochabamba. Perhaps the political influence of coca growers is much bigger than expected and perhaps the new power dynamics is collapsing with the Democracy in Bolivia in order to turn Bolivia into a shelter for drug trafficking and organized crime, hence numerous policies entail a series of protectionist measures to maintain his supporters' economic power -coca production- and remain in power -his re, reelection-

The question is, is Morales shaping and controlling the political behavior in favor of indigenous populations or coca growers instead? Either way, Democracy is non-existent in Bolivia and the Process of Change is already in place transitioning to an authoritarian regime in order to maintain the hegemonic power of the already mentioned constituents, but with the elections coming up in October, we need to analyze what further steps Morales will take to remain in power and conclude the transition to "Socialism". Keep in touch for further discussions.