Reflection on Santa Cruz

Hello all few of you who may look at this site.
Since life here in Bolivia is, we´ll say, not fast paced
I´ve started writing some political opinion and social commentary pieces. Here is the first one I wrote. It´s about the recent referendum vote in Santa Cruz. After lots of dialogue with lots of folks and some good help from Caitlin, these are the conclusions I´ve come up with.
enjoy

Democracy Through Racism

By Jaron Berliner

Can a racist referendum really be the most democratic step in a nation's history? Such question is being asked around Bolivia following the referendum put forth by the populace of the country's easternmost state, Santa Cruz. A direct attack upon, and also a deep questioning of Evo Morales' leftist government, the vote produced little in terms of results other than to further fracture a country already greatly divided. Santa Cruz, the wealthiest state in the Republic, is indicative of the colonial residue that coats the entire continent. Much like an aged snow before warming, colonialism still lingers on street corners in dirty, brownish heaps.
While this sentiment may appear overwrought, the referendum is, at its core, based on racism. Just as with persons of African descent in Brazil, the United States and throughout Europe, those of indigenous blood are similarly oppressed in Bolivia. Only here they are the majority. Nearly 50% of the populace still exists as subsistence farmers, living day to day on cultivatable crops or in many circumstances forced into begging, making Bolivia the poorest nation on the continent.
However, Santa Cruz is not alone at the forefront of this deep rooted conflict between the wealthier mestizos and the poor indigenous. Three more states, Pando, Beni and Tarija are determined to go forth with their own referendums for autonomy in the following month. But there seems to be no clear consensus on the intended outcome of these votes against Morales' blooming socialism.
Frenzied crowds gathered in plazas screaming vehemently for autonomy while skirmishes between fractured political parties tainted the day of the vote (red state/blue state ain't nothing compared to these primal, stone throwing battles.) Yet, with all this passion and fury, it remains difficult to decipher what autonomy truly means for any of the discontented states. Apart from fiscal selfishness and vague party lines such as, "Today we said to the world that we are autonomous. Viva Santa Cruz,"[1] from Branko Marinkovic, president of the Pro Santa Cruz Committee, there is little idea of what autonomy truly portends.
Though the vote did pass in a sweeping majority, 85.4% to 15.6%, nearly 40% of Santa Cruz's population refrained from voting many at the behest of the national government, who continue to publicly declare the referendum unconstitutional. Thus supporters of Morales interpret the results as far from overwhelming, arguing that the 39% in abstention, in addition to the other 15%, totals more than 50% of the state's populace.
As an impartial viewer to the political theatrics, it feels little more than another act of under-planned pageantry, a group of elites grasping onto the last ledges of power in a rapidly changing country. Santa Cruz is the capitalist oligarchy fighting and flailing against Morales' impending socialist dawn. Even if the national government, for some reason, acquiesced to the results, the chances of Santa Cruz existing as a singular and successful republic are slim to none. Neither the infrastructure nor support exists for a peaceful and successful secession.
One young citizen of Cochabamba, a city vying for its own autonomy, does not support Morales but was able to distance himself from the factionalizing influence of the referendum. He expressed that the vote was not good for Bolivia as a whole, saying that it hurts business, damages tourism and is little more than a lot of "blah blah blah" without a definite result.
This is not to say that all the drama was for naught. These could be the growing pains of a nation openly dealing with a reshaping of its national power structure. Morales is the first indigenous president in South American history, symbolic of a previously disenfranchised people coming to terms with their strength in numbers.
This brings us back to racism. There is little doubt that Morales' public position to attempt a greater equality for all Bolivians (proposed land reform, nationalizing the gas industry and foreign telecommunications company Entel) instigated the referendum for autonomy. Santa Cruz's elite refuse to give up their land and money, creating a vote born of racial distaste and political disagreement. That is not what is important to take away, however. What is truly on display is a developing country converting its political priorities towards a socialist structure, where the discontented broke with a violent, coup-ridden history, and chose to express themselves via a pure form of democracy, the referendum. They did not take up arms against a majority, democratically elected official. Regardless of the referendum's racist backbone, it is democratically birthed, and that is progress.
In this conflict, both sides have chosen democratic means to promote their dissonant political and personal agendas. On the day of the vote, dissenting indigenous activists showed up in the tens of thousands to exercise their civic rights, peacefully waving the Bolivian flag, a deluge of red, yellow and green for unity. Since there is no looming Republic of Santa Cruz, this vote could be little more than the thrashing of the affluent coming to terms with the fact that they are the political minority in a country determined to rectify its unequal past. Either way, it appears this conflict will be settled through peaceful, democratic means. And that is significant for South America's poorest nation.
[1] Los Tiempos. May 4th, 2008. Cochabamba, Bolivia. Referendum Section. Page 4.