By: Hugo Marcelo Balderrama - 22/11/2022
During the 2003 coup, after having betrayed President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, Carlos Mesa made an agreement with the subversives The October Agenda. Although the historian defends his actions under the discourse of: "I did not kill any Bolivian", objective reality shows us that it was a surrender before the Sao Paulo Forum.
The holding of a Constituent Assembly was one of the points that Morales and his henchmen agreed with Mesa. But it was not about drafting a new constitution to "empower" indigenous people and workers, as the panegyrists of the Movement Towards Socialism repeated, in addition to ending neoliberalism, but to screw the coca grower in power indefinitely.
The convocation and the development of the Constituent Assembly were marked by controversies, the famous 2/3 in the approval regulations, and violent actions, an assembly member was close to dying in one of the sessions. Finally, after the La Calancha massacre, on January 25, 2009, by means of a referendum, the new constitution was approved.
The defenders of the Evista constitution strongly pointed out the need for a change. Those of us who questioned the spirit of the new constitutional text had to face a battery of insults and attacks not only from Evo"s supporters, but from many people who, at least in theory, were opponents. But that is another matter entirely.
The Morales Constitution eliminated the rule of law, enshrined the retroactivity of the law and, copying the Castro regime, annulled private property. The central State assumed sovereignty in issues such as: education, international trade and agricultural production. Similarly, under the guise of national interest, economic freedom was erased. From that moment on, Bolivians were at the mercy of the whims of the blue gang members.
The Constitutional Charter prevents indigenous people from selling their land. Textually, Article 395 says: «Double endowments and the sale, exchange and donation of land delivered in endowment are prohibited».
In relation to the above, it should be emphasized that anyone who cannot sell or mortgage their land is not an owner, their condition is reduced to that of State tenant. For this reason, it should not surprise us that the Movimiento Al Socialismo has turned the Bolivian indigenous person into a hostage of his gang. For without property there is no freedom.
Unions and federations also intimidate their members by threatening to take away their land if they do not obey the guidelines of the collective. They are a kind of territories run by a pimp or a gang boss where he is the law.
The collectivization of the land had repercussions on the standard of living of Bolivian peasants, especially in the western part of the country. For example, the Global Hunger Index (IGH) 2021 shows that Bolivia has the third highest hunger index in the region. At the continental level, the country ranks 15th out of 21 Latin American countries. This study indicates that Potosí and Chuquisaca are in a serious situation. In addition, there is inequality in access to food and lack of income for families.
A consequence of the nationalization of agricultural production. Well, no matter how much the peasants work the land, nothing guarantees that the State will not evict them. Ergo, the younger generations prefer to migrate to large urban centers in search of new life opportunities.
The great Friedrich Hayek said: "The system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but also for those who do not." Sadly, the Bolivian Indian has neither.