What does Evo Morales’ defeat mean for Bolivia?
Bolivian President Evo Morales will have to step down in 2019, despite his best efforts to extend his time in power. Last week, a 51% majority voted against a referendum that would have allowed him to run for a fourth term. When the official results came in, thousands took to the streets to celebrate, while nearly half of the country was crushed.
It was a meaningful election for Bolivia, and signals the end of an era. It was such a close race because, on the one hand, people want to support a president who changed the history of a country. But the majority rejected the idea of one person, even Morales, having the ability to hold power for multiple terms. I believe this defeat can be seen as an opportunity for a new generation of Bolivians to step up to the plate.
I remember meeting Evo Morales three years before he was elected president for the first time. He was a humble coca-leaf farmer and federation leader. He had a great sense of humor in spite of being in the mist of a violent struggle with the government. I never imagined the farmer I met would become president, nevertheless push forward the agenda he did.
Fast-forward three years, and I was a journalist covering Morales’ campaign and witnessing the indigenous majority become enamored with him. After Morales cast his vote in that election in 2005, I walked with him to the steps of the small plane that brought him from his hometown in El Chapare to La Paz to hear the election results. That was the beginning of a 10-year journey in which I have seen Morales the farmer change and become an iconic image for Latin America’s left, walking side by side leaders like Jose Mujica, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
With Morales as president, for the first time, the indigenous majority felt there was someone in power looking out for them. Bolivia is an indigenous nation — more than 62% of the population self-identifies with one of 36 different ethnic groups. Yet in Bolivia being called an indio, indigenous, is still an insult.
As president, Morales clearly stood up for the poor. According to the World Bank’s conservative estimates in 2008, 57% of the population lived in poverty, compared to 39% in 2013. His party MAS, or Movement Towards Socialism, nationalized many of the most profitable industries like natural gas, oil and telecommunications. That substantially increased government earnings. Much of that extra money went to social services.
After Cuba, Bolivia became the most literate country in Latin America. Children now receive free lunch and breakfast and a stipend for attending public schools. Government-subsidized clinics appeared through the small towns in the countryside where doctors used to not go, because there was no money to be made. The list of social services and good deeds of Morales and his government can go on for several pages. Still, his government was not free from corruption and scandals.
I believe even a deteriorated version of Morales’ government is a much better option for the country than what the right-wing leaders have to offer. If the old political parties are back in power, they will certainly privatize the national companies again and cut social services to the poor. It would be a step back for the people who fought for equality even before Morales was in the political arena.
But I would not support his reelection or the perpetual reelection of any one, just in principle. I don’t believe Morales is the only option for Bolivia or the only person capable of working for the poor. I see this defeat as an opportunity for Bolivia’s left and liberal leaders to shape and form young leaders who can continue to work and follow the direction set by Morales.
