Friday, November 28, 2008

New Bolivian Constitution, To Be (1) or Not To Be (2)

Today we will continue with the evaluation for the proposal of new constitution, as I did in a revious post, I will separate the Pros and Cons and propose a score for it, this time I go from article 20 to article 30.

TO BE (1)
Article 25. IV. Says that information that comes from the violation of personal mail or communication in any way cannot be used against its owner in a legal way; Very nice but article 25. I. actually say that the government can do this under judicial permit. As is written it seams that o matter what, this information that violates the privacy of persons can only be used to get them when they are doing something in fragrant, and not to get them because of it, but is not so clear.


Article 23.III began all right requesting for justice to produce a written document to private someone from his or her freedom but in the next paragraph, IV. Gives authority to anybody to private someone’s freedom if he or she considers a person is committing a crime, any crime. This will only give grounds for the legalization of paralele civilian entities, like the Ponchos Rojos, several maSSist groups already established around the country and even the fascist UJC which opposes the regime.

Article 26. II. 3. mentions that communal democracy might not be under equal opportunity of free, secret, direct, free and obligatory vote. Pardon me, but you cannot call that “democracy”. I seen several of this communal designations of authorities, and is very close to what Europeans suffered in the middle ages, small kingdoms run by a few influential (rich) families in the community.

Chapter 4 is really loaded with racism and intents to give “certain” people more rights or power over the land to “other” people. It starts with article 30.I. where it says that the original indigenous peasant nations and towns are those that existed before the Spanish colony and share culture, language, historic tradition, “institutions”, territory and cosmovision. What do they mean by institution, the cocalero peasants invading the Yuki nation in El Chapare?

Article 30.II.3. says that these selected group of original indigenous nations and towns can identify him or herself in their ID or/and passport; or any other identification document. Why? This will give obvious advantages and preferences to those that have this secondary name tags in their ID; not having it would be like walking in Nazy Germany with a David Star in the arm. The only good thing I see about this is that article 21. actually said that all Bolivians have the right to auto identify themselves culturally. So even the Bolivian “Jews” will be able to say they are actually quechuas and have it writen in their ID to avoid discrimination. Interesting will be for most of Bolivians, like me, that could say they belong to at least a couple of the nations, which want I should choose? Which one is more convenient? Since being simply a Bolivian will be, stupid.

Incongruence’s continue with the last paragraph of Chapter 4 where it says that afro Bolivians, which come, after the Spanish Colony, are going to be given the some rights than those given to the, sic, original indigenous nations and towns. Why should afro Bolivians, or any Bolivian, will really need special rights over the rest of the people, this is actually insulting to them, is like an invitation to become a racist.

This last chapter was difficult to swallow, any red blooded Bolivian would be ashamed to have it in the constitution and will be the reason of continuos fighting in the country do to racial issues. I will continue evaluating this proposal for new constitution, by I will need to find something very positive to counter weight Chapter 4. If elections will be held tomorrow, at the present time I will vote NO.

1 comment:

Kolla said...

In Australia many famous indigenous australians are in fact "mestizos" for example, the boxer Anthony Mundine has Irish ancestry, and the sprinter Cathy Freeman, her granfather was English and also she has chinese ancestry, but compared with most Bolivias, THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES INDIGENOUS AND ABORIGINES, NOT WHITES NO MESTIZOS, but as indigenous as the so called "autoctonos"...Even Barak Obama, being half white, I never hear him calling himself "zambo, or mestizo" but AFRO-AMERICAN
Well in your case is that you are just a white-wannabe but you are AN INDIAN, YES YOU ARE AN INDIAN LIKE ME, but compared to myself, you don't like to acknowledged and prefer to use the word "mestizo" which is in fact a LIE created by the Spaniards and the creoles to deny the existance of our etnicity and being proud of them (I never ever hear an Spanish, say that they are ARAB or MOORS when in fact arabs ruled 800 years in that country)
Doesn't matter if I have a much fairer skin or don't speak Aymara fluently (I am learning again for your info), I still recognise my roots and consider more Aymara than Spanish (the people above consider also themselves more aboriginal than English and they are proud of their heritage, and guess what, THEY ARE THE VOICES OF SUPPORT AND SPEAKERS FOR THEIR RACE AND ETNICITY IN AUSTRALIA, in spite of not being 100% indigenous; same think with BARAK OBAMA