With 93% of the vote counted, Bolivia's Evo Morales has an outright majority of 54% - an unassailable lead. Meaning that he wins outright, and that there will be no Congressional vote. This in itself is a victory for Bolivia - normally their Presidents fail to win a majority, and are instead appointed by Congress - but its also a massive win for Morales. He is the Bolivian people's clear choice, and his legitimacy is unquestionable.
It will be interesting to see what he does with his political capital, but I bet the Americans aren't happy...
Interesting that you equate popular support with legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteSure, he's been voted in by a majority. But some of the things he's hinting at doing (nationalising natural resources, for example) are just plain wrong, regardless of how many people sanction it.
As an aside, I do like the fact he's promised to legalise the production of coca leaves. I imagine the "War on Drugs" political opportunists will be somewhat pissed off :-)
Popular support is legitimacy. The only basis for authority is the consent of the people.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a blank cheque, but people who would regard a popularly-elected leader as illegitimate simply because they are left wing are clearly wrong.
Somewhat scary that there are intelligent people out there who now, without apparent irony, equate the legitimacy of a government with its adherence to a particular economic philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThis argument has also been used by people within the US administration to try justify attacks Venezuela's Chavez (an equally popular leader).
It seems the 'infidels' can expect no mercy from fundamentalist neo liberals
I think you're missing my point - which is that no ammount of popular support can allow an authority figure (president, prime minister, whatever) to commit crimes.
ReplyDeleteThese include crimes against person (e.g. murder, torture, slavery) and against property (e.g. theft). Nationalisation *is* theft.
Duncan: I'm not a Libertarian, and I don't think property rights are in any way absolute. And neither, it seems, do Bolivians. Particularly when the property in question was extracted from them by questionable means without their consent.
ReplyDeleteDuncan are you really equating nationalisation with murder torture and slavery. The phrase 'nationalisation is theft' is as extreme as the (opposite) anarchist clique 'all property is theft' and represents a highly debatable ideological position. A democratic society surely has the right to balance private (or corporate)rights to property and profit with state ownership and management of resources if it is seen to be in the interests of general well being. To describe a government whose views about where this balance should be set differ from yours as 'illegitimate' is ideological fundamentalism.
ReplyDeleteSo stop calling them rights, then.
ReplyDeleteDuncan are you really equating nationalisation with murder torture and slavery. The phrase 'nationalisation is theft' is as extreme as the (opposite) anarchist clique 'all property is theft' and represents a highly debatable ideological position. A democratic society surely has the right to balance private (or corporate)rights to property and profit with state ownership and management of resources if it is seen to be in the interests of general well being. To describe a government whose views about where this balance should be set differ from yours as 'illegitimate' is ideological fundamentalism.
ReplyDeleteI dont like the legalization of drug growing but I think that nationalization can be a good thing at times. For example one might nationalize the ownership of land in order to build a road or one might nationalize the power infrastructure if the business which owned it was failing to supply reliable power.
ReplyDeleteOf course nationalizing an industry and running it less efficiently than the previous owners is just stupid. Governments have a tendancy to do the latter.