Below is the text of a (very) brief comment I was invited to make as part of their “Featured Q&A” on the current situation in Bolivia—particularly w/ reference to the conflict between the central government & the department of Potosí—for today’s Latin American Advisor (a daily newsletter put out by the Inter-American Dialogue). I always enjoy the challenge of giving a commentary on something as complex as Bolivian politics in 250 words or less.

Just a shameless plug a few things of mine that just came out in print. Two are specifically on Bolivia; the other is a published version of the writing/discussion assignment I developed based on American Idol & presented at the 2009 APSA Teaching & Learning Conference.

The latest controversy in Bolivia pitting Evo & Costas (the opposition/regionalist governor of Santa Cruz) is over style masquerading as substance. This Friday is 6 de Agosto, Bolivia’s national holiday. Instead of celebrating the event in La Paz (the political capital) or Sucre (the historical/constitutional capital), Evo’s government has decided to hold the official national ceremony in Santa Cruz. The dilemma, then, was over the use of the wiphala : whether or not it should be raised & whether or not it represents all Bolivians.

Evo Morales has interjected himself into the recent Colombia-Venezuela political crisis. Speaking to the Bolivian press, Evo underlined that Bolivia is a pacifist country but is prepared to defend itself if drawn into the Colombia-Venezuela conflict. This was an odd statement to make for a strictly pacifist country (as Bolivia’s constitution proclaims), but also because Bolivia borders neither country & is nearly a thousand miles away from the conflict.

The two weeks since I’ve returned from Bolivia have seen a dramatic development: the country’s largest indigenous organizations are directly challenging Evo’s government. In response, the government has chosen to attack USAID, blaming it for fomenting dissension & division w/in the social movements that have traditionally backed MAS. The logic is fairly simple: No legitimate indigenous group/leader would ever challenge Evo unless he/she/they was/were manipulated by foreign interests. But this argument has several problems.

I arrived yesterday, very early in the morning, in La Paz. Coming down from the airport, I did what I frequently do: sound out taxi drivers for the political scuttle but. It’s not “scientific” certainly, but cabbies tend to have a pretty good knowledge of the political goings on (they are organized in very active sindicatos & they spend a lot of time listening to the radio). So I decided to ask, as innocently & naively as I could, if he could explain to me why El Alto didn’t vote for MAS in April the way they did in December (in December Evo won 90% of the vote in El Alto, but his party’s mayoral candidate managed less than 40% only four months later). The answer floored me.

It looks like the model of “pacted democracy” has returned to Bolivia—but this time w/ few of its charms & all of its problems. Between 1985 & 2002, Bolivian politics revolved around the reality that no single party could win an electoral majority. Therefore parties negotiated coalitions. Over time, this became increasingly difficult—particularly as public confidence in parties declined, in part because coalitions were often “greased” w/ numerous side deals.