By Raul Zibechi
Uruguayan writer and social researcher
Source: La Jornada
In late December there was an unprecedented event in recent history Latin America: the first popular uprising against a leftist government, led by rising fuel prices decided by the government of Evo Morales. It may be the most important political fact qualitatively below generated from the caracazo February 1989 against one of the first neoliberal adjustments in the region. If this were so, would open a new stage in social struggles in a period characterized by the general rise in food.
The historical importance of the Caracazo is that it was the first popular uprising against the model imposed by the Washington Consensus. An unpopular package was answered by hundreds of thousands in the streets, opening an unbridgeable gap between the top and bottom. The insurrection in Caracas showed that the model could be defeated if it overflowed the established channels for social protest, including trade unions, turned into retaining walls of rebellion.
The new historical period was followed by dozens of popular uprisings in Ecuador starting in 1990, which marked a break in the social struggles to install the indigenous agenda of territorial self-government in the political center stage. Since that year there was more than half a dozen popular eruptions forcing the fall of three presidents. The governments of Rafael Correa and Hugo Chávez are therefore the new popular movements.
In Bolivia, three major uprisings (2000, 2003 and 2005) marked out a series of fights that culminated with the election of Evo Morales. From the basement of the companies born powerful moves that changed the political map of Latin America.
What happened now is different. The popular reaction to the increase in gasoline (72 percent) and diesel (82 percent), broadcast on Sunday night December 26th, had to be suspended because the growing movement threatened to become social unrest. It was in the most Evista, those where the president won more than 80 percent of the vote, which campaigned against the decision government. The Altiplano Aymara and the Chapare coca-growing areas witnessed collective actions focused the anger of people against them that they had benefited from a near-unanimous support a year ago, when the president was reelected with 64 percent of the vote.
What happened in El Alto is perhaps the most important. Aymara city was the epicenter of the rebellion of 2003 and there Evo won 81 percent of the vote. On 30 December, the crowd attacked the headquarters of the organizations that spoke in favor of higher fuel, including the Federation of Neighborhood Committees, who starred in the 2003 uprising against Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and Central Obrera Regional (COR). They also attacked the mayor of the city and burned the toll booths El Alto-La Paz, burning a Venezuelan flag and portraits of Evo.
In late January the Ipsos institute released polls showing sharp decline in government support. Evo's popularity fell from 84 percent in 2007 to 36 percent in January 2011 and 56 percent of the population rejects its management. Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera, whose approval rating fell from 46 percent in November 2010 to 29 percent, harvesting 71 percent of reprimands.
The rebellion against gasolinazo shows five significant events. The first is that the popular movement has not been co-opted and maintain their independence, there were consistent despite government efforts to tame social policies are summarized in money transfers. What I got was to attract a few leaders, but at the cost of separating from their bases, they have shown they are not simple mass electorate.
The second is that the cycle is re-launching struggles against the limits imposed by the extractive. The attempt to increase fuel prices shows that the nationalization of hydrocarbons failed because it was a mere negotiating contracts with multinationals. But it also shows that the industrial leap broadcasting the government has not moved from the statements and not discussing an alternative economic model.
not having consulted the people and movements and how they are issued Decree 748, demonstrates that there is not refound or decolonization of the State, as a measure applied neoliberal neoliberal methods. This is the third conclusion, which puts all of the Bolivian process with a dilemma: either quickly or redirects's days are numbered.
Fourth, is a serious warning to all processes in the region, whether the mildly progressive or those enrolled in the XXI century socialism. We have entered an acute phase of the crisis of the world system, characterized by a tendency the lawlessness and chaos generated by the combination of higher commodity and global geopolitical dislocation. The events in Bolivia and southern Chile will be repeated and can overwhelm any government, even those with strong popular support.
Finally, it is necessary to make an ethical choice. When below target and destroy the premises of their organizations is because the levees of social protest are broken, or are so fragile they can not prevent it. Which side are going to drop when the crowds strike out against governments and leaders left? At this point there can be no less calculation in the sense of who benefits or harms ongoing insurgency. Be with the one below is the only compass in the midst of chaos.
Uruguayan writer and social researcher
Source: La Jornada
In late December there was an unprecedented event in recent history Latin America: the first popular uprising against a leftist government, led by rising fuel prices decided by the government of Evo Morales. It may be the most important political fact qualitatively below generated from the caracazo February 1989 against one of the first neoliberal adjustments in the region. If this were so, would open a new stage in social struggles in a period characterized by the general rise in food.
The historical importance of the Caracazo is that it was the first popular uprising against the model imposed by the Washington Consensus. An unpopular package was answered by hundreds of thousands in the streets, opening an unbridgeable gap between the top and bottom. The insurrection in Caracas showed that the model could be defeated if it overflowed the established channels for social protest, including trade unions, turned into retaining walls of rebellion.
The new historical period was followed by dozens of popular uprisings in Ecuador starting in 1990, which marked a break in the social struggles to install the indigenous agenda of territorial self-government in the political center stage. Since that year there was more than half a dozen popular eruptions forcing the fall of three presidents. The governments of Rafael Correa and Hugo Chávez are therefore the new popular movements.
In Bolivia, three major uprisings (2000, 2003 and 2005) marked out a series of fights that culminated with the election of Evo Morales. From the basement of the companies born powerful moves that changed the political map of Latin America.
What happened now is different. The popular reaction to the increase in gasoline (72 percent) and diesel (82 percent), broadcast on Sunday night December 26th, had to be suspended because the growing movement threatened to become social unrest. It was in the most Evista, those where the president won more than 80 percent of the vote, which campaigned against the decision government. The Altiplano Aymara and the Chapare coca-growing areas witnessed collective actions focused the anger of people against them that they had benefited from a near-unanimous support a year ago, when the president was reelected with 64 percent of the vote.
What happened in El Alto is perhaps the most important. Aymara city was the epicenter of the rebellion of 2003 and there Evo won 81 percent of the vote. On 30 December, the crowd attacked the headquarters of the organizations that spoke in favor of higher fuel, including the Federation of Neighborhood Committees, who starred in the 2003 uprising against Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and Central Obrera Regional (COR). They also attacked the mayor of the city and burned the toll booths El Alto-La Paz, burning a Venezuelan flag and portraits of Evo.
In late January the Ipsos institute released polls showing sharp decline in government support. Evo's popularity fell from 84 percent in 2007 to 36 percent in January 2011 and 56 percent of the population rejects its management. Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera, whose approval rating fell from 46 percent in November 2010 to 29 percent, harvesting 71 percent of reprimands.
The rebellion against gasolinazo shows five significant events. The first is that the popular movement has not been co-opted and maintain their independence, there were consistent despite government efforts to tame social policies are summarized in money transfers. What I got was to attract a few leaders, but at the cost of separating from their bases, they have shown they are not simple mass electorate.
The second is that the cycle is re-launching struggles against the limits imposed by the extractive. The attempt to increase fuel prices shows that the nationalization of hydrocarbons failed because it was a mere negotiating contracts with multinationals. But it also shows that the industrial leap broadcasting the government has not moved from the statements and not discussing an alternative economic model.
not having consulted the people and movements and how they are issued Decree 748, demonstrates that there is not refound or decolonization of the State, as a measure applied neoliberal neoliberal methods. This is the third conclusion, which puts all of the Bolivian process with a dilemma: either quickly or redirects's days are numbered.
Fourth, is a serious warning to all processes in the region, whether the mildly progressive or those enrolled in the XXI century socialism. We have entered an acute phase of the crisis of the world system, characterized by a tendency the lawlessness and chaos generated by the combination of higher commodity and global geopolitical dislocation. The events in Bolivia and southern Chile will be repeated and can overwhelm any government, even those with strong popular support.
Finally, it is necessary to make an ethical choice. When below target and destroy the premises of their organizations is because the levees of social protest are broken, or are so fragile they can not prevent it. Which side are going to drop when the crowds strike out against governments and leaders left? At this point there can be no less calculation in the sense of who benefits or harms ongoing insurgency. Be with the one below is the only compass in the midst of chaos.
0 comments:
Post a Comment