Bolivia approves new constitution

[Yazman]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bolivia26-2009jan26,0,6365181.story


Reporting from La Paz, Bolivia -- Voters appeared to have handed Bolivian President Evo Morales a resounding victory Sunday, with exit polls showing they had approved a new constitution that will advance indigenous rights, strengthen state control over natural resources and permit him to seek another term.

Who knows more about this? I have been hearing about a new constitution in Bolivia for quite a long time although I have never been able to find a source that lists the specific changes in detail that are to be made in this new constitution.

It is interesting that this was approved in Bolivia whereas a new constitution was not approved in Venezuela, that has left Chavez as somewhat of an inactive laughing stock (in my eyes). This fate is evidently not one that will befall Morales.

Does anybody know anything specific about this new constitution? I do know that it will give autonomy to the separatist states which is perhaps a very bad thing, and there has been talk of autonomy for the indigenous peoples as well (that supposedly overlap the separatist states). What is going to happen here?

Can anybody provide more detail?

[Yazman]

This isn't seen as relevant?

[Herman]

It is. It's a positive step, but a very small step. Evo will have to do much better than that.

[BIG BROTHER]

fuck so i'm in the same as you man. Nobody cares about this? Does anyone have any specific details about the constitution?

[Yazman]

Yes, I would like to get some specific details here. Anybody got any leads?

[cyu]

If you're looking for articles, there are a bunch here: http://upsidedownworld.org/

...I haven't read them yet though, so I don't know the important details. If anybody wants to summarize the stuff worth spreading, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.

[Plagueround]

I found a few bits of AP information on sfgate.com. I don't know how reliable it is, but it doesn't seem to present a bias, just notable parts.

RE-ELECTION — Presidents can serve two consecutive five-year terms. Current constitution permits two terms, but not consecutive. Morales could thus remain in office through 2014.
INDIGENOUS RIGHTS — Recognizes self-determination of 36 distinct Indian "nations." Sets aside seats in Congress for minority indigenous groups but not for the Aymara and Quechua, who together represent the majority in Bolivia's western highlands.
LAND — Voters decide in the referendum whether future land ownership should be capped at 12,000 or 24,000 acres (5,000 or 10,000 hectares). Current holdings are grandfathered in. The state can seize land that doesn't perform a "social function" or was fraudulently obtained.
JUSTICE — Judges on Bolivia's highest court are elected rather than appointed by the president as current law provides. The state recognizes indigenous groups' practice of "community justice" based on traditional customs.
LOCAL AUTONOMY — Eastern lowland provinces are allowed to create state assemblies that control local issues, but not land reform or natural gas revenues. Indigenous groups are granted self-rule on traditional lands inside existing states. All autonomies have "equal rank."
NATURAL RESOURCES — The state controls all mineral and oil and gas reserves. Indigenous groups get control of all renewable resources on their land. Water is a fundamental human right that may not be controlled by private companies.
RELIGION — Both the Christian God and Pachamama, the Andean earth deity, are honored. Church and state are separate. Freedom of religion is guaranteed, and no mention is made of The Roman Catholic Church, a departure from the current constitution.
PRESS FREEDOM — Is guaranteed, though news media must "respect the principles of truth and responsibility."
HOMOSEXUALITY — Prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation but refers to marriage as "between a man and a woman."


Discuss.

[Killfacer]

The main thing i noticed was this:
"RE-ELECTION — Presidents can serve two consecutive five-year terms. Current constitution permits two terms, but not consecutive. Morales could thus remain in office through 2014."

What a suprise. Why can't he just hand over to someone else instead?

[Dagoth Ur]

What's wrong with consecutive terms?

[Killfacer]

What's wrong with consecutive terms?

Nothing, but when a leader changes the law so he can stay in for longer it is always a bad sign.

[Dagoth Ur]

Not if he changes it to oppose the bourgeoisie. Now while I don't personally believe that Morales or Chavez are proper socialists they're both far preferable over their local fatcats.

[Killfacer]

How many times have we heard something like that before? It's pretty similar to the lame excuse used by western governments whilst they destroy our civil rights: "We need these laws to fight terrorism!".

If the workers struggle in Bolivia is entirely reliant on Morales then it isn't really the worker's struggle it's Morales' struggle.

[Dagoth Ur]

Well that is the basic fallacy of revolution from the top down. But there is something to be said for strong leaders being preserved in the face of bourgeois attacks on worker's rights.

[Leo]

Not if he changes it to oppose the bourgeoisie. Now while I don't personally believe that Morales or Chavez are proper socialists they're both far preferable over their local fatcats.

Morales and Chavez are fatcats themselves though, both figuratively and literally.

[Killfacer]

Well that is the basic fallacy of revolution from the top down. But there is something to be said for strong leaders being preserved in the face of bourgeois attacks on worker's rights.

Well if bolivia is just Morales' vanity project then maybe he isn't worth your support.

[Charles Xavier]

I think you guys are mistaken in your analysis that these governments are solely defendant on Chavez and Morales, this is a lack of understanding in Historical Materialism. It is the class forces which put these governments into place. They didn't just come into being out of thin air. The consciousness of working people took a stand in putting them into power, why else would they be elected and not the opposition which has millions more to spend on advertisement and owns almost all the media? I am not saying these are revolutionaries, they do however represent an elevated class consciousness of working people, especially in regards to imperialism.

It is without a doubt while these are not communists governments, they are very much so some of the most progressive governments in the history of Latin America. In this regard we should support them.

[Glenn Beck]

I'm outraged that the peasants and workers of Bolivia would dare support a homegrown movement that has brought them clean water, literacy, juridical equality for the indigenous population, the separation of church and state, and health care without consulting us first!

[Killfacer]

I'm outraged that the peasants and workers of Bolivia would dare support a homegrown movement that has brought them clean water, literacy, juridical equality for the indigenous population, the separation of church and state, and health care without consulting us first!

I assume you're being sarcastic, in which case what point are you attempting to prove?

[Eros]

This is undoubtedly a progressive step, not perfect, but progressive. At the very least it will greatly improve living standards within Bolivia and hopefully act as to further politicise the workers and poor peasants there.

[GX.]

How many times have we heard something like that before? It's pretty similar to the lame excuse used by western governments whilst they destroy our civil rights: "We need these laws to fight terrorism!".

If the workers struggle in Bolivia is entirely reliant on Morales then it isn't really the worker's struggle it's Morales' struggle.
Certainly you can distinguish between the US and Bolivia, in that the government in bolivia is under actual pressure from reactionary forces.

[RedScare]

An excellent move forward, and hopefully only the beginning.

[Plagueround]

The main thing i noticed was this:
"RE-ELECTION — Presidents can serve two consecutive five-year terms. Current constitution permits two terms, but not consecutive. Morales could thus remain in office through 2014."

What a suprise. Why can't he just hand over to someone else instead?

Wouldn't you prefer someone being elected by the people to handing over power to whomever they feel like?

[Killfacer]

Wouldn't you prefer someone being elected by the people to handing over power to whomever they feel like?

I would rather he ended his reign now and refused to be re-elected. Putin is hugely popular in Russia, that does not mean that him trying to get another term is okay though.

[BIG BROTHER]

I think you guys are mistaken in your analysis that these governments are solely defendant on Chavez and Morales, this is a lack of understanding in Historical Materialism. It is the class forces which put these governments into place. They didn't just come into being out of thin air. The consciousness of working people took a stand in putting them into power, why else would they be elected and not the opposition which has millions more to spend on advertisement and owns almost all the media? I am not saying these are revolutionaries, they do however represent an elevated class consciousness of working people, especially in regards to imperialism.

It is without a doubt while these are not communists governments, they are very much so some of the most progressive governments in the history of Latin America. In this regard we should support them.

the comrade is right ^^^

its the masses of workers and peasants that put Evo in place. Of course like the comrade already mentioned that doesn't make Evo(or Chavez) a revolutionary. I mean the new constitution is certainly progressive but its still far from being something that will truly put the proletariat and peasants in power, or change property relations.

Ideally, and considering the power the reaction has in Bolivia I think it would have been rather possible for Evo to mobilize all workers and peasants and call for the creation of workers councils, etc.

I mean really considering the situation in Bolivia...

[Killfacer]

the comrade is right ^^^

its the masses of workers and peasants that put Evo in place. Of course like the comrade already mentioned that doesn't make Evo(or Chavez) a revolutionary. I mean the new constitution is certainly progressive but its still far from being something that will truly put the proletariat and peasants in power, or change property relations.

Ideally, and considering the power the reaction has in Bolivia I think it would have been rather possible for Evo to mobilize all workers and peasants and call for the creation of workers councils, etc.

I mean really considering the situation in Bolivia...

He will never do that because it would dimish his power.

[Niccolò Rossi]

It is the class forces which put these governments into place. They didn't just come into being out of thin air. The consciousness of working people took a stand in putting them into power, why else would they be elected and not the opposition which has millions more to spend on advertisement and owns almost all the media?

It is the class forces which put the [British Labour Party/US Democratic Party/Israeli Kadima Party] governments into place. They didn't just come into being out of thin air. The consciousness of working people took a stand in putting [Brown/Obama/Olmert] into power, why else would they be elected and not the opposition?

Sorry Georgi, this is not the position of a revolutionary socialist, this is liberalism.


It is without a doubt while these are not communists governments, they are very much so some of the most progressive governments in the history of Latin America. In this regard we should support them.

Today no faction of the capital is any more or any less progressive relative to any other and none are worthy of the support of communists. A new Bolivian constitution is not a step forward.

[Charles Xavier]

It is the class forces which put the [British Labour Party/US Democratic Party/Israeli Kadima Party] governments into place. They didn't just come into being out of thin air. The consciousness of working people took a stand in putting [Brown/Obama/Olmert] into power, why else would they be elected and not the opposition?

Sorry Georgi, this is not the position of a revolutionary socialist, this is liberalism.



Today no faction of the capital is any more or any less progressive relative to any other and none are worthy of the support of communists. A new Bolivian constitution is not a step forward.

The British Labour Party and the US democratic party and I dont know who that Israeli party is but these are parties of immense wealth, who represent the interests of the bourgeoisie.

The Labour party prior to the 1980s was a party of social democracy so their victory in the elections did represent a higher class conciousness, not a revolutionary conciousness, but they have sold out in order to be a party of solely the rich.

The Democratic party had the media and the big businesses on their side in the most recent election it was without a doubt your example has no connection to my examples.

We are talking about parties that came out of nowhere with limited funding and with big business out to humilate and sabotage them, why did the people support them and not the richer parties who held onto power for years and years who had more advertisement and more support of the media. No the working masses choose the left, coming to power in Latin America to lead forward a new government that is anti-imperialist and has a left-wing program.


If you don't think anti-imperialism and left-wing governments are progressive you are not a revolutionary socialist, you're a liberal hiding behind slogans.

These governments are a progressive step forward, they represent an end to neoliberalism and of Latin America rejecting the Imperialist policy of being Europe and North America's backyard. I don't know how nationalizing unused land, giving more rights to the majority, electoral reform, more trade union rights, higher minimum wage, better mass transit, cheaper food, nationalized energy and water is not progressive. If you don't think this is progressive, you truly don't understand the worker's movement.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The British Labour Party and the US democratic party and I dont know who that Israeli party is but these are parties of immense wealth, who represent the interests of the bourgeoisie.

It's good to see how knowledgeable and up-to-date you are with world events! Kadima is currently the largest party in the Knesset, of which Ehud Olmert and Shimon Peres are members. Of course, you'd this already, right...


The Labour party prior to the 1980s was a party of social democracy so their victory in the elections did represent a higher class conciousness, not a revolutionary conciousness, but they have sold out in order to be a party of solely the rich.

The British Labour party has been a bourgeois party since its formation over a century ago. It did not become a bourgeois party when it was "sold out" to the "rich". Labour has throughout it's history systematically been opposed to the real interests of the working class in defence of the British bourgeois state, acting as recruiting agents for imperialist slaughter in the First and Second World Wars, introducing statist measures to shore up the ailing British economy, committing Britain to the development of nuclear weapons as part of the US military bloc, defending the remains of the Empire in Malaysia, Aden and Palestine and sending in troops to break countless workers strikes.


We are talking about parties that came out of nowhere with limited funding and with big business out to humilate and sabotage them, why did the people support them and not the richer parties who held onto power for years and years who had more advertisement and more support of the media. No the working masses choose the left, coming to power in Latin America to lead forward a new government that is anti-imperialist and has a left-wing program.Again this is all irrelevant. The fact that the “masses” of Bolivia have identified with Morales' left-wing populism in no way tells us anything about the class content of his party or the government it leads. To do as you do as celebrate any demagogic movement spouting left-wing rhetoric shows you out to be nothing more than a liberal.


If you don't think anti-imperialism and left-wing governments are progressive you are not a revolutionary socialist, you're a liberal hiding behind slogans.

I don't think it is possible to speak of any authentic "anti-imperialist" movements outside of the revolutionary workers movement itself. Likewise, in the era of capitalism's decadence no bourgeois movement, no matter how "left-wing" it may be, can be "progressive".


These governments are a progressive step forward, they represent an end to neoliberalism and of Latin America rejecting the Imperialist policy of being Europe and North America's backyard. I don't know how nationalizing unused land, giving more rights to the majority, electoral reform, more trade union rights, higher minimum wage, better mass transit, cheaper food, nationalized energy and water is not progressive. If you don't think this is progressive, you truly don't understand the worker's movement.


How is replacing white bosses for brown ones, statification to sure up the economy, improving public facilities, increasing the power of the police within the workers movement, “reforming” the electoral circus or any other of these so-called “progressive” measures a step forward for the working class?

[Charles Xavier]

“Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie” (Communist Manifesto).

[Niccolò Rossi]

“Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie” (Communist Manifesto).

How does this quote respond to my post? I don't see any issue here?

[Tzonteyotl]

Does it really make a difference whether or not Morales, or whoever might succeed him, gets two terms? I mean, if the votes Bolivians cast in his favor and in favor of this new constitution prove they have an elevated level of consciousness, it shouldn't really matter who's the president and how many terms he/she gets, as the people will continually back progressive, revolutionary change.


These governments are a progressive step forward, they represent an end to neoliberalism and of Latin America rejecting the Imperialist policy of being Europe and North America's backyard. I don't know how nationalizing unused land, giving more rights to the majority, electoral reform, more trade union rights, higher minimum wage, better mass transit, cheaper food, nationalized energy and water is not progressive. If you don't think this is progressive, you truly don't understand the worker's movement.This brings up a side topic I've been thinking about lately. I mean, with the exception of nationalized land, all of the things you listed have been won here in the US (to varying degrees) from less-than-progressive governments. These concessions from a reluctant bourgeois system were a result of mass movements representing a higher class consciousness, to go back to your posts. Now, as revolutionary leftists, what exactly can we offer to the working class but reforms of this nature? Our goal, of course, is the elimination of the capitalist system. But for the here and now, for those struggling day to day as we speak, how do we convince them to join the socialist cause if we can't offer them anything to improve their lives now, and not in the (likely) distant future? So, in that sense, I can see what you're saying about these moves by Bolivians to be "progressive." It's just a bit puzzling to see "21st century socialism," and realize that it's really just reformism.

[Josef Balin]

It is the class forces which put the [British Labour Party/US Democratic Party/Israeli Kadima Party] governments into place. They didn't just come into being out of thin air. The consciousness of working people took a stand in putting [Brown/Obama/Olmert] into power, why else would they be elected and not the opposition?
Entirely true, except the second part of the last sentence.

[Charles Xavier]

How does this quote respond to my post? I don't see any issue here?
I responded to your post but the thread got divided up :(

[Herman]

I would rather he ended his reign now and refused to be re-elected. Putin is hugely popular in Russia, that does not mean that him trying to get another term is okay though.

Except for the fact that Putin is a nationalist authoritarian asshole, while Evo has actually pushed for genuine progressive change. This new constitution proves that (it even includes the right to recall ANY elected post).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I responded to your post but the thread got divided up :(

http://www.revleft.com/vb/begin-redefining-minimum-t90683/index4.html

[That's where the posts are]

[Killfacer]

Except for the fact that Putin is a nationalist authoritarian asshole, while Evo has actually pushed for genuine progressive change. This new constitution proves that (it even includes the right to recall ANY elected post).

The policies aren't relevant. They're both doing what they need to do to stay in power: Putin is attempting to make Russia feel strong again and Evo is "pushing for genuine progressive change". Nothing progressive about staying in power your whole life anyway.

[Mindtoaster]

I fail to see the problem

Allowing someone to be voted into office in free-elections as many times as the population wants is more democratic then putting a cap on the amount of terms a candidate is allowed to serve