Bolivians head to the polls on Sunday in a referendum on a new Constitution the drafting of which took over two years and was marked by an ever deepening conflict between Evo Morales’ leftist government and parties that have dominated Bolivian politics for half a century. The conflict has led many observers to believe that the territorial integrity of Bolivia may be increasingly at stake. The heated debate that has on several occasions erupted into violence has exposed Bolivia as a fragile and cleft state splitting the country in two on north-east to south-west axis. Of Bolivia’s nine provinces, five are likely to vote against the new Constitution and four in favour but its passage seems likely because the more heavily populated areas are likely to overwhelming back the new charter. The more populous but poor and heavily indigenous western provinces will vote for the Constitution but in the wealthier, natural gas rich and mestizo north-eastern provinces, support for the new Constitution is minimal.
The new Constitution is many things. Above all, it is a rejection of neo-liberalism, an economic ideology that in Latin America reaches the status of a pejorative. Under the new charter, the state will control all mineral and oil and gas reserves. Indigenous groups would get control of all renewable resources on their land. Water is a fundamental human right that cannot be controlled by private companies. The definition of water as a fundamental human right is noteworthy for it bears reminding that the Bolivian city of Cochabamba in 2000 became the epicenter of the battle against the excesses of neo-liberal privatization. Then an international consortium (US Bechtel Corporation along with Italy’s Edison and Spain’s Abengoa) won the rights to the Cochabamba water public utility and then hiked water rates by as much as 200% after winning a 40-year concession in closed-door negotiations. After privatization, water bills amounted to 20% to 30% of the income of poor households that constituted over 60% of the residents of the city. Families earning as little as $80 to $100 dollars a month began to be charged $20 dollars a month for water. Not surprisingly, full-scale protests ensued. In retrospect, the Cochabamba water wars, as the episode came to be known, marked one of the tipping points in Latin America’s rejection of neo-liberalism. The door on privatization, especially of public utilities, was closed. This Constitution locks that door and throws away the key.
(more…)