NationStates Jolt Archive

An assembly boycotted by the rightist opposition to Bolivian President Evo Morales approved most of a controversial new constitution he supports during an all-night session guarded by miners and peasant farmers.

The assembly dominated by delegates from Morales' Movement Toward Socialism, or MAS, party, approved changes that would allow two consecutive five-year terms for presidents, greater state control of the economy, and more autonomy for provinces and indigenous communities.

[...] But several steps are necessary before the constitution can be enacted. First, a nationwide referendum is needed on one remaining article. Then, the assembly will vote on the entire text. Finally, another nationwide referendum is required on the full constitution.

[...] Bolivia's poor, indigenous majority has clamored for a new constitution and forming one was a key campaign promise of Morales, the country's first president of indigenous descent.

But the overhaul of the constitution has widened the rift between the mountainous, largely poor and indigenous part of the country that backs Morales, and the relatively wealthy western lowlands, where the opposition has greater force.

Of the assembly's 255 delegates more than one third boycotted Saturday's session, including Bolivia's two biggest right and center-right parties, who decry the process as a Morales power grab.


(link (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20071209-bolivia-evo-morales-new-constitution-presidential-powers.html))

sounds interesting, do we get to hate Bolivia now?

*waits for Fox to do a report*

So the poor and uneducated are going to dictate how the country goes? Sounds like a plan.

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20071209-bolivia-evo-morales-new-constitution-presidential-powers/f24NewsHeaderParagraph/image/20071209-bolivia-m.jpg
Can we have these guys and their dress sense in Parliament?

So the poor and uneducated are going to dictate how the country goes? Sounds like a plan.

I'm not sure you understand what "more autonomy for provinces and indigenous communities" means. Or do you object to referenda?


Can we have these guys and their dress sense in Parliament?

Preferably in the House of Lords. That would just be perfect. :)

Preferably in the House of Lords. That would just be perfect. :)
Although admittedly that's what the Commons probably looked like in the fifties.

So the poor and uneducated are going to dictate how the country goes?what is the Democratic alternative you propose? ;)

So the poor and uneducated are going to dictate how the country goes? Sounds like a plan.

We call it "democracy."

:rolleyes:

So the poor and uneducated are going to dictate how the country goes? Sounds like a plan.

*imagines country of useless stoner's* :eek:

We call it "democracy."

no, you see what they are doing is giving power to the "people" at the cost of the wealthy oligarchs

not the other way round :p

no, you see what they are doing is giving power to the "people" at the cost of the wealthy oligarchs

not the other way round :p

My mistake.

Evo Morales is a dictator!

Evo Morales is a dictator!

but a Moral dictator :)

but a Moral dictator :)Yeah. and he used his Jedi powers to defeat the All-Powerful totally-Corrupted (http://www.playthegame.org/Knowledge%20bank/Articles/Politics%20and%20Corruption%20in%20FIFA.aspx) FIFA Dark Lord (http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2006/corruption_sports/jennings_review) :D

We call it "democracy."

:rolleyes:

Like I said sounds like a plan but not a good plan. If they vote that way and its fair then good for them. However the poor and uneducated is not the best in determining a nations future. I bet we see much of the same over the next decades from Bolivia. That's alright though because I always enjoy traveling to nations that are behind in the times. That way I can see living examples of what it use to be like for the rest of the world.

*imagines country of useless stoner's* :eek:



no, you see what they are doing is giving power to the "people" at the cost of the wealthy oligarchs

not the other way round :p

If they do this all fairly then it is democracy. People however put down the wealthy however it is the wealthy that are the biggest contributors to modern society.

but a Moral dictator :)

But he wantz ur meanz of production!!!1!111!!1!!!one!!!!

That's alright though because I always enjoy traveling to nations that are behind in the times. That way I can see living examples of what it use to be like for the rest of the world.hmmm.

Bolivia is a very poor Country.

What made it a poor country? why? Because they elected Morales?

The Rich/educated Oligarchs -you like so much- were ruling the Country since before Morales was born, they made Bolivia what it is today..

Bolivia has already had one socialist government and all it did was drive the least-developed South American country even further into the mire. As long as the havenots can do what they want with what the haves have, then there won't be anything for either the havenots or the haves to have. Shall we start a list of all the countries where this has happened?

Shall we start a list of all the countries where this has happened?

Yes. Name one.

Bolivia has already had one socialist government and all it did was drive the least-developed South American country even further into the mire. As long as the havenots can do what they want with what the haves have, then there won't be anything for either the havenots or the haves to have. Shall we start a list of all the countries where this has happened?
Socialist governments are teh ebil. Just look at Scandinavia.









:)

How about Uganda, Zimbabwe, Congo, and that just part of Africa. Now you do some in asia...

How about Uganda, Zimbabwe, Congo, and that just part of Africa.

So in what way were the "have-nots" put in power in those places?

You know, I don't mind more self-control for indigenous communities, and various other political reorganisations.

But why do they always have to come with "more state control of the economy"? What possible connection is there?

You know, I don't mind more self-control for indigenous communities, and various other political reorganisations.

But why do they always have to come with "more state control of the economy"? What possible connection is there?

Containment of direct foreign investment?

"Hey, if Chavez can get away with it why can't I?"

As long as the havenots can do what they want with what the haves have, then there won't be anything for either the havenots or the haves to have. Shall we start a list of all the countries where this has happened?ok
.How about Uganda, Zimbabwe, Congo.The havenots did what they want with the rich/powerful of Uganda?... Zimbabwe? ... Congo?
:confused:
When did that happen?

Containment of direct foreign investment?
Wait, where is the connection? And do you consider foreign investment a bad thing?

Coincidentally, Evo Morales looks like a guy I saw once on Rescue 9-11 who tried to rape this boy's mom, but was arrested.

Wait, where is the connection? And do you consider foreign investment a bad thing?

The connection is that if there is state control, there is democratic control. In principle at least.


Not per se. Bolivia may see it as dangerous though, remember United Fruit Company?

The connection is that if there is state control, there is democratic control. In principle at least.
Did you ever get to vote for the boss of your public transport provider? Or the prices he charges? Or where he sends buses to, and where people have to walk?

Not per se. Bolivia may see it as dangerous though, remember United Fruit Company?
I'm sure some Bolivians may see it as dangerous. Of course, just as many Bolivians might remember that García Meza was Bolivian (and not just that - he was from the government, no less) and still turned out to be a pretty dangerous and mean fellow.

Of course, that just doesn't stick in the headlines as well as "foreigners did it!"

Did you ever get to vote for the boss of your public transport provider? Or the prices he charges? Or where he sends buses to, and where people have to walk?No. I voted for the one who negotiated the service contract. I didn't vote for the bus driver either.:)


I'm sure some Bolivians may see it as dangerous. Of course, just as many Bolivians might remember that García Meza was Bolivian (and not just that - he was from the government, no less) and still turned out to be a pretty dangerous and mean fellow.

Of course, that just doesn't stick in the headlines as well as "foreigners did it!" Indigenous peoples are actually more likely to manage their resources in a sustainable manner, instead of making a quick buck and leave. Have you been to Ogoniland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Survival_of_the_Ogoni_People) lately?

"Hey, if Chavez can get away with it why can't I?"

Except that Chavez didn't.

No. I voted for the one who negotiated the service contract. I didn't vote for the bus driver either.:)
Exactly. The idea that you somehow control the actions of this giant bureaucracy any more than you control the actions of some private corporation is misplaced.

Think of it this way, if you may: a private bus service needs your business to stay alive. It cares about you and tries to provide you with value to the extent that it requires to attract you and make you contribute to its survival. You and your peers are the final arbiter of whether or not this bus company can be successful.

A public bus service meanwhile doesn't need your business. It approaches its operations in terms of a "public service obligation", which translates into "we hand out alms, and you better be grateful". The size of its budget and the wages of its workers and bosses are not a function of whether people travel by bus, and therefore whether they do a good job, but of how well they can get decision-making politicians to hand them money. The whole system works in such a way that rather than turn to you, they will turn to some bureaucrat.

This bureaucrat may require your vote at some point. But he knows very well that you will never be able to vote on the bus service in particular. You will only be able to vote for a package of many politicians, many views and many issues all at once. He knows perfectly well that the next election campaign will be fought not on bus services, but on threats of terrorism, or global warming, or some even less meaningful scandal in a newspaper.

There is nothing democratic about state-controlled business. There never has been, and there never will be until the day that democracy (and therefore the entire notion of the state and how it works) undergoes a fundamental change.

Indigenous peoples are actually more likely to manage their resources in a sustainable manner, instead of making a quick buck and leave. Have you been to Ogoniland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Survival_of_the_Ogoni_People) lately?
I haven't. The kidnappings tend to put me off, as you can imagine.

Whether or not indigenous people are more likely to manage their resources...well, that's a question that can't be answered with anecdotal evidence. It would depend on a lot of things, including the indigenous tribe itself.

And if I have a field on which I could grow food, but never do, then that's very sustainable environmentally, but not particularly smart. So exactly what is meant by "sustainable" is another question.

But anyways, what does this have to do with FDI? If the indigenous people are the legal owners of a given resource, they can get into development partnerships, technology transfers or could simply sell the rights. Or, alternatively they could choose not to deal with outsiders at all. It's a question of the country's legal system, not the presence of foreign companies.

Exactly. The idea that you somehow control the actions of this giant bureaucracy any more than you control the actions of some private corporation is misplaced.

Think of it this way, if you may: a private bus service needs your business to stay alive. It cares about you and tries to provide you with value to the extent that it requires to attract you and make you contribute to its survival. You and your peers are the final arbiter of whether or not this bus company can be successful.

A public bus service meanwhile doesn't need your business. It approaches its operations in terms of a "public service obligation", which translates into "we hand out alms, and you better be grateful". The size of its budget and the wages of its workers and bosses are not a function of whether people travel by bus, and therefore whether they do a good job, but of how well they can get decision-making politicians to hand them money. The whole system works in such a way that rather than turn to you, they will turn to some bureaucrat.

This bureaucrat may require your vote at some point. But he knows very well that you will never be able to vote on the bus service in particular. You will only be able to vote for a package of many politicians, many views and many issues all at once. He knows perfectly well that the next election campaign will be fought not on bus services, but on threats of terrorism, or global warming, or some even less meaningful scandal in a newspaper.

There is nothing democratic about state-controlled business. There never has been, and there never will be until the day that democracy (and therefore the entire notion of the state and how it works) undergoes a fundamental change.I beg to differ. I think people are more interested in local than global issues. This of course depends on the public service in question.
I haven't. The kidnappings tend to put me off, as you can imagine.

Whether or not indigenous people are more likely to manage their resources...well, that's a question that can't be answered with anecdotal evidence. It would depend on a lot of things, including the indigenous tribe itself.

And if I have a field on which I could grow food, but never do, then that's very sustainable environmentally, but not particularly smart. So exactly what is meant by "sustainable" is another question.

But anyways, what does this have to do with FDI? If the indigenous people are the legal owners of a given resource, they can get into development partnerships, technology transfers or could simply sell the rights. Or, alternatively they could choose not to deal with outsiders at all. It's a question of the country's legal system, not the presence of foreign companies.Sustainable management of resources, and sustainability, environmental, social, or economical is by now a pretty well defined concept. Wikipedia will provide an outline. I won't cause I am trying to remove myself from this abominable forum for a few days. Later.

As for the connection with FDI, people are sceptical, because once a multinational company, say in the extracting industry, moves in, the national legal environment sometimes becomes rather - fluctuant. Legal ownership doesn't account for much if there is sufficient money involved.

National government may of course rip natives off as well, as Neesika will probably confirm, but it seems that people still trust their own elected government better than foreign multinationals. Especially since those multinationals are seen as incarnations of US interest.

Anyway, I will have to get back to you on this. It's been an enlightenment.

Morales was more sincere than Chávez, and his reforms a lot less personal. I am not aware of the sweet spots on his reform, but nevertheless Bolivia is one of those countries I list as "In heavy need of socialist reforms, as long as they are social and democratic".

So the poor and uneducated are going to dictate how the country goes? Sounds like a plan.its called Democracy.. Unless you want the SantaCruz oligarchy to run the Country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The TransPecos
As long as the havenots can do what they want with what the haves have, then there won't be anything for either the havenots or the haves to have. Shall we start a list of all the countries where this has happened?

ok
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The TransPecos
How about Uganda, Zimbabwe, Congo.

The havenots did what they want with the rich/powerful of Uganda?... Zimbabwe? ... Congo?

When did that happen?

OK Let's see... In Uganda, Idi Amin and the ethic Indian community there. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe and his 5th Brigade against anyone with white skin or not culturally Shona. Mobuto Sese Seko in the Congo pillaged anything he could move to European bank accounts. It isn't a race thing and it isn't a color thing. It is simply the case that, with few exceptions, when anyone or any group that "hasn't" gains power, they take what the "haves" have. In the end, neither group ends up with anything. (Except of course those smart enough to abscond while they are still able...)

There are plenty more in Africa, quite a few in Asia and South America. Funny thing though, I can't thing of one on the continent of Australia...

Mobuto Sese Seko in the Congo pillaged anything he could move to European bank accounts.

Mobutu, not Mobuto.

Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine. I'll shut up now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The TransPecos
As long as the havenots can do what they want with what the haves have, then there won't be anything for either the havenots or the haves to have. Shall we start a list of all the countries where this has happened?

ok
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The TransPecos
How about Uganda, Zimbabwe, Congo.

The havenots did what they want with the rich/powerful of Uganda?... Zimbabwe? ... Congo?

When did that happen?

OK Let's see... In Uganda, Idi Amin and the ethic Indian community there. In Zimbabwe, Mugabe and his 5th Brigade against anyone with white skin or not culturally Shona. Mobuto Sese Seko in the Congo pillaged anything he could move to European bank accounts. It isn't a race thing and it isn't a color thing. It is simply the case that, with few exceptions, when anyone or any group that "hasn't" gains power, they take what the "haves" have. In the end, neither group ends up with anything. (Except of course those smart enough to abscond while they are still able...)

There are plenty more in Africa, quite a few in Asia and South America. Funny thing though, I can't thing of one on the continent of Australia...Your examples are not about the poorest segment of the population empowering themselves..

Here's hoping that Bolivia turns out better than Yugoslavia.

Here's hoping that Bolivia turns out better than Yugoslavia.Yugoslavia, Iraq.. we can provoke Chaos and devastation in any Country we wish by bombing the shit out of them. and eventually the Country itself will break.

Or we can undermine them and keep giving money/weapons to subversive groups.
all Bush need to do if he wants to break down Bolivia is to give and keep giving money/weapons to the subversive groups and eventually Bolivia will break up too.

You guys should check this one out:

Provinces plan to secede from the Union:

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/americas/20071215-bolivia-morales-provinces-secession-threat-constitution.html

I smell something like this happening:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E-nPYJD1-ms

Wait, where is the connection? And do you consider foreign investment a bad thing?
Yes, it's increases national dependence on the global capitalist market system when the nation should be looking towards a self-sufficiency planned economies which puts the rights and needs of the populace above profit.