It almost seemed as if Evo wasn't going to be able to get a word in edgewise.  Here he was, the "hope" of the indigenous, of the poor, of the left in Bolivia and across the continent, trying to address the ten thousand people who had marched from near and far to congregate in La Paz's central plaza de San Francisco.  Instead of being universally adored, he was being bombarded by chants of "Nacionalizacion!" so loud the beginning of his speech was lost.  It took Jaime Solares, head of the COB (worker's federation) and supporter of nationalization, to calm the crowd and allow the deputy of MAS to speak to the masses.

This brief moment of confrontation between leader and people, between labor/community organizations and party politician, between moderate stance and radical proposition, almost says it all.

The current deadlock that grips the Bolivian movement for social change seems simple to explain, yet it is in reality, thoroughly complex. On the surface, it looks like this: Bolivia has a wealth of natural gas that it's been exporting for years via transnational corporations who have profited immensely, while the country as a whole has received little in return  and the impoverished majority of Bolivians even less. Years of marches, a national referendum and one
ousted president later, Bolivia has a new gas law that raises the taxes and royalties on the corporations but that doesn't go far enough, according to anyone who values the rights of the global south more than the desires of muti-national energy companies. There are numerous, organized and strong social movement groups (organized according to occupation, gender, region, neighborhood, etc.) who are all putting the gas issue at the front of their agendas. These movements have leaders who are thoughtful, experienced and tactical.

They also all have a large base, people who are not only willing to come out to a demonstration, but also who will eagerly close their businesses in protest, throw dynamite at police, blockade streets or march 250 kms for what they believe in. However, the groups disagree on goals (50% royalties or full nationalization); they disagree on strategy (remove Mesa to force a new government or let him enact the change);  and the leaders and groups have, to put it simply, beef with one another.

This conflict illuminates, in my eyes, so many of the fundamental questions those who struggle for social justice are facing today and perhaps always have....

First, strategy: Which goals are prioritized? When to work "tactically," weighing every repercussion of every move and when to just fight for what you believe in? When do you use the streets and when the ballot box, when do you use your mouths and when your fist? How long do you continue on one path before deciding it's time to change roads?  What immediate objectives can be sacrificed for the greater good? When do we take small steps and when do we go for it all?

Association: Does it always make sense to identify and associate along the same lines: be it occupation, ethnicity, neighborhood, gender, class, regardless of the specific issue being contested? Given the social fabric of world is changing daily, how do we reevaluate identity and association? What are appropriate roles for outsiders and allies?

Cooperation: Will historical memory or cultural tension always plague future coordination? When do we forgo past division to unite for a common goal? How do you build trust across constituencies? Are coalitions only useful on an issue by issue basis? Once together, who mediates discussion and decision and who ensures that the priorities of one group do not dominate those of another?

And, leadership: Who should be empowered to make decisions and what is the process through which we empower them? When should decisions be made collectively and when by the leaders alone? How do we balance experienced leadership with new invigorated blood? How often should we critique our leaders and when should we have enough trust to simply follow? When the leaders want to go one way and their people the other, what do you do?

Here in Bolivia, whether you want to analyze these questions or not, what you are left with is what I see. Thousands of campesinos, urbanites, young, old, men, women, stand in San Francisco waiting for a call to arms but instead hear speeches that all say the same thing and yet nothing at all... while another large base of Fejuve and the Aymaras in the Altiplano sit in their bloqueos that have effectively shut down the city of El Alto but refuse to come down to La Paz to associate with MAS... while groups in Oruro, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz stage smaller actions in solidarity with La Paz... while the world watches to see if the Bolivian people can get it together to once again be victorious against the forces of corporate globalization.

There is not a person in Bolivia that doesn't believe that if the all social movements collectively decided they wanted the government to  fall and to have Mesa's head on a platter, that it couldn't happen within 24 hours. But as of now, it's not. Instead, I'm sitting writing to you as the cocaleros go off to find beds for the night, and the miners return to where they came from.
Everyone says they will march tomorrow, that they will take the Plaza Murillo, that they will close the Parliament, that they wont stop fighting until they get what they "demand." Which is what again?

May 24th, 2005
Jean Friedman-Rudovsky