In Depth: Reflections on the Autonomy Camba

The leftist movements tend to be champions of nationalities (such as the Basques, Catalans, Palestinians, etc..) Or regions (such as several in the mountains) they perceive as 'oppressed'. But the right also take hold in some regions usually have autonomist traditions (such as the Atlantic Coast in Nicaragua, Ecuador Guayas, Zulia in Venezuela and the east in Bolivia). While none of these regions has a history as a separate nation there are many characteristics of 'homeland' geo-cultural differentiation and brushes with the capital they have long standing.

If the distances camba the highlands have roots. Until recently there was no paved highway connecting La Paz to Santa Cruz. The East was not part of the Inca Empire, has a very different Castilian 'mountain' and has a social and cultural structure of their own.

A very common response in many socialists is the regionalist movements accuse Santa Cruz, Zulia and Guayaquil as an instrument of the oligarchy and imperialism. It is true that the pro-'libre now 'hegemony seek to promote them and to weaken governments that raise land reform or nationalization or labor.

When the Socialist government rejected all these demands pro-autonomy and put all the mass movement that there are some regionalists can strengthen their geographic strongholds (in the case of Bolivia in the Altiplano), but also help to push the critical regionalist capital into the arms of pro-market forces.

Evo Morales says the Santa Cruz referendum failed because if you add the less than 40% of absenteeism with 12% of votes for non-null and blank and you get to that one half of that department did not approve the autonomy statute. Usually in all elections absentee rate has not fallen below 20% to 30% of the vote, and that does not mean that those who voted to reject the results.

But the same data Morales acknowledges that the demand for autonomy if it has popular support in the most prosperous of his republic because at least half of the Santa Cruz supporters.

A politician must act according to the realities and not their own desires. While Morales was able to neutralize camba regionalism as its vice president leading an Oriental or searching from the beginning to combine pro-autonomy reform with agriculture.

Today he has two choices. One is to follow a route as that which took Lenin in the Soviet revolution when he confronted resistance from other nations of the Russian Empire (including Poland, Ukraine, etc..) And in which he accepted the determination of these at the same time throwing a radical redistribution of property to break the power of their opponents.

Another is to follow the path of the British Labour (the party who, like Morales, has roots trade union), who must accept that in Scotland (where he was born and Blair Brown) there is a pro-independence with its own judicial and educational system and social laws very different from the rest of the country. The Labour does not mobilize the population of England and Wales against Scottish nationalism but tries to take some measures pro-autonomy while seeking to undermine separatism. The result is that the majority of Scotland did not support secession.

But Morales is not one way or another. He refuses to accept autonomy and does not take action against what he calls the "Camba oligarchy 'who presents as an instigator of separatism. Seeks to reconcile but it does firmly. Want to appear as a Democrat but will not accept a referendum that is hostile.

If Morales does not take a clear path runs the risk of undermining its social base in Santa Cruz and Half Moon bringing its plans to open a long historical period 'anti-imperialist' in Bolivia can go being undermined.