Zero cocaine, zero narco-trafficking, but not zero coca

So Morales looks poised to assume the Bolivian presidency. Bolivia has seen 5 presidents in 4 years, and something in the vicinity of 200 presidents in 180 years of independence....or some such statistic in that ballpark. A cursory overview produces the hypothesis that democracy is manifest in coups and abdications rather than the traditional electoral process. At least this time around, although preceded by an abdication of who was then the new president in my travels in 2003, Bolivia has an election. Morales presents an interesting alternative for the country. He certainly is saying something "new" that has not been heard from the political elite before. But where do Bolivia's problems lie? With ineffective or corrupt politicians? Or with an angry, suspicious people that block attempts at progress? Different parties would have us believe one or the other of these alternatives in a polarized, extremist fashion. I present that it is a mix of these issues, with neither quite so atrocious as antagonists wish to make out. I'm no expert in a position to really advocate my own views, but perhaps I can poke some holes in the prevailing alternatives.

Let's start with Google News. The aggregate collection of headlines is studded with words like "narco-report," "coca farmer," "risk," "anti-US," "fraud," and of course, that current favorite bad guy's club--the Latin flavored axis of evil 2.0: Cuba (Castro), Venezuela (Chavez), and . Alternatively, we have sources from Canada, China, and even the BBC that precede headlines as above with appropriate "US frightened that" or something of that variety OR they present the distilled facts--a first-ever indigenous president in a nation that is 80% indigenous, a victory for a popular politician, degrees of socialist leanings but not actual US antagonism, continued legalization of the culturally important coca crop but not cocaine.

The NYTimes, while I had problems with the bias in the rest of the article (which was rather more traditionally rightist rather than the Times normal left leanings), had an interesting bit to say:
Coca Advocate Wins Election for President in Bolivia - New York Times: "His margin of victory appeared to be a resounding win that delivered the kind of mandate two of his predecessors, both of whom were forced to resign, never had. Eduardo Gamarra, a Bolivian-born political analyst from Florida International University in Miami, said Mr. Morales could be on his way to becoming 'the president with the most legitimacy since the transition to democracy' from dictatorship a generation ago.A Morales government would become the first indigenous administration in Bolivia's 180-year history and would further consolidate a new leftist trend in South America, where nearly 300 million of the continent's 365 million people live in countries with left-leaning governments."

This legitimacy factor, I believe, is rather an important one. Morales, for better or for worse, seems to have the will of the people behind him--and moreso than has been seen in quite some time. Questions of electoral fraud seem somewhat suspect (but possible), and I find this election to be quite significant, considering his significance as an indigenous farmer. What basis there is in fraud might be able to be found here, but I worry about the particular agenda of this site, rather apparent from its title. Rather than the Spanish-descended elite, power is, in theory, in the hands of the people. Is it appropriate? I'm always a big believer in meritocracies and rule by the intellectual elite, but a US-trained intellect, which was essentially the other alternative, is not per se the best under the circumstances. Does a US training really equip a politician/economist/public policy-type for the Bolivian reality? Doubtful. Very doubtful. Most of the last few politicians have had that background and have been ineffective or barred by the people.

Half Andean highlands and half rich Amazonian jungle, Bolivia sits on an immense about of natural wealth, but throughout its history, it has been exploited in high mercantilist fashion. From silver and gold during the Spanish years (including the world's richest and highest silver mine in Potosi) to the tin barons of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Bolivia has gone through boom cycles for its economy--but the wealth has always gone to only a few, predominately foreign, elites. These days, the fight is over natural gas, yet another resource Bolivia has in abundance. With rising petroleum concerns, natural gas is increasing the alternative fossil fuel of choice. Los Angeles has plans to build a LNG (liquid natural gas) receiving port at Long Beach, and Bolivia arguably stood to profit off this through exports to America. But the people are suspicious, that rather than the success stories shared by some of the indigenous tribes within the USA and Canada and the resources on their tribal lands, that Bolivians would once again merely be exploited. So the people revolted and plans were shelved, and we stand today two presidents later. Part of the rioting was over export through Chile, a historic enemy and favorite scapegoat due to injustices and wars leaving Bolivia landlocked in the nineteenth century. Morales leads a charge to put the resources in the hands of the people, but his plans seem frightful lacking in developed thought. Natural gas itself kept within country, in my opinion, will not contribute to a more diversified, stable economy. Tariffs and charges on exports may work, if they are not too too high. Perhaps some sort of corporation with large government ownership is the way to go, rather than simply brining in pure private concerns. For all that we rattle about Venezuela, plenty of people go to Citgo to fuel up.

The rhetoric regarding Latin America's "leftist" politicians seems obscured more by a reality of a refusal to submit limply to American interests. While smaller, these countries are looking for equal partnership and trade with the highest and most beneficial party. Sometimes that will be the US, at other times it might be China or Europe. The Roosevelt corollary is extinct. Latin America wants to be its own region. We can interact if its on a fair playing field. But the United States certainly has no inherent right just because its stronger and has a larger military. As in the film Syriana (a complex, intricate, but good film)--When a nation has 5% of the world's population, but half of its military spending, that country is on the decline. Not a pure quote, but you get the idea--it is time for America to recognize that we are not the "superpower" we once were and that equitable play is in our long term interest. Similarly, the drug war obscures a lot of cultural realities about coca and other crops. Coca has an abundance of legitimate cultural uses in Latin America, and legalized growth could well help to control illegitimate, drug-based growth. Attempts to ban growing leave local farmers with few alternatives and rotting fruits sitting on the street with no buyers. Coca is the only present crop that can sustain a living in many circumstances, and its use in tea and chewing leaves among other possibilities gives it a legitimate local market. Farmers in the open and controlled by the government are not underground selling to the drug market. Certainly not so simple, as part of the crop might be whisked off the top, but the US should rather fight any drug war it wants to fight in its own streets rather than on the supplier end. It has only built up a tremendous burst of ill will across once friendly nations.

That's my two cents. Stopping before I write an more unsubstantiated commentary, as much of what I'm getting in to merits a lot more research and quotes at my disposal to back my allegations.