Adiós, Evo

More than anything else, the history of Latin America is a history of change. Its collection of revolutions, coups, elections, interventions and civil wars is long enough to keep even the most voracious historian busy, so it’s with an uneasy sense of déjà vu that Bolivia says goodbye to its longest-ever serving president, Evo Morales. His 14-year tenure came to an abrupt end on Monday, when he was advised by the police and military to step down “to restore peace and stability” after his controversial re-election in October. At the time of writing, Morales is in political asylum in Mexico, and the exact nature of the political situation back home is unclear.

Who is Evo, though? Morales was first elected back in 2006 as the head of the Movement towards Socialism (MAS) party, on a strong anti-neoliberal, pro-indigenous and pro-worker platform. Known nationally as a trade unionist for coca leaf growers, he was lauded as being the first native president in Bolivia’s history, being of the Aymara ethnicity. He found himself at the helm of the poorest country in the continent, with an illiteracy rate of 16% and absolute poverty levels in excess of 35%, and sought primarily to divert the massive profits earned by extraction of natural resources back to the people. The MAS oversaw the effective nationalisation of hydrocarbon industries, increasing Bolivia’s earnings from the sector eight-fold overnight. These earnings materialised as improved infrastructure and were consolidated by extensive social reforms, aiming to elevate the status of women, indigenous groups and peasants. The fruits of the MAS’ labours came in the form of the eradication of illiteracy within 3 years and a halved poverty rate alongside consistently strong economic growth. Importantly, these encouraging indicators came despite Morales’ staunch refusal to cooperate with the IMF or World Bank, thus demonstrating for many the possibility of total autonomy from global neoliberalism for developing countries.

Ideologically, Morales always positioned himself as a socialist but the extent to which he carried this through is disputed. His government allowed multinational corporations to continue their operations in Bolivia for the most part, as long as they did so “legally”. Furthermore, although his cabinets were filled with indigenous people and women after each election cycle, they tended to become more traditional and homogenous as time went on, with many citing this as evidence of Morales’ skin-deep radicalism. However, one of the more interesting aspects of his governing ideology, affectionately referred to as “Evoism”, was its focus on traditional indigenous styles of government. For example, land reform was organised on a strictly communitarian basis, with farmland being distributed to traditional communities rather than to individuals. In addition, the teaching of native languages like Quechua and Aymara in schools was made mandatory, and attendance of indigenous people in education was encouraged – now, more than half of students in university are of indigenous heritage.

Of course, it hasn’t all been smooth sailing. Morales came under particularly heavy fire in 2014 when he campaigned for the abolition of presidential term limits, leading critics to accuse his government of autocratic behaviour. He claimed that more time was needed to deliver the promises of his previous campaigns, but this constitutional amendment formed the setup for the crises of the past few weeks. Throughout his tenure the most vehement criticism came, unsurprisingly, from the United States: his fighting for the rights of traditional coca leaf farmers led the DEA to accuse Morales of supporting the narcotics trade, and his government’s close relationships with Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela were causes for concern for Washington, which has tended historically to frown upon too much anti-imperialism in its southern neighbours.

It’s with this history in mind that we come to the recent unrest, and indeed unseating, in Bolivia. On 20th October Morales won his third re-election, but the result was immediately disputed and declared void by internal and external observers - most notably by the Organisation of American States (OAS), who reported finding “clear manipulations” in the ballots. Upon receiving the report, Morales called fresh elections but the protests that had formed soon enjoyed the support of the police, the opposition, and eventually the army: the embattled president had no choice but to back down per their ‘request’.

The coup has prompted much speculation. Some observers noted that in the weeks prior to his removal, Morales declared void a contract with a German corporation to mine Bolivia’s rich lithium reserves on the basis that the deal didn’t provide enough benefits for locals. Given that the country is estimated to contain at least 30% of the world’s lithium supply, and considering its importance in the production of batteries, many see an incentive in opening up Bolivia’s reserves for easier exploitation. Others see the ousting as a bolstering for the US’ influence in the Andes amid increasing social unrest in the area, possibly cementing Bolivia as a country friendly to its interests in the same vein as Colombia, Chile and Brazil. On the other hand, people have argued that leaders of the left in Latin America often become stagnant in their wedding to power, as perhaps in the case of Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega. The true nature of these events will only become clear in time. For the moment, an interim government led by Senate vice-leader Jeanine Áñez has 90 days to call new elections according to the constitution, and no doubt spectators the world over – including Morales himself – will be watching with bated breath.