Morales, friend of Castro, Chavez, leads Bolivian polls

By Jan-Uwe Ronneburger Dec 16, 2005, 17:44 GMT

Buenos Aires/La Paz - Bolivia's leading candidate in Sunday's presidential election - Evo Morales - is a socialist Indio who wants to legalize coca, nationalize the oil industry and redistribute the poverty-stricken country's wealth.

And despite remarks by some of his supporters, he appears intent on claiming a legitimate path to the presidential palace instead of the mob rule that ousted at least two previous Bolivian governments.

That's why Morales dismissed as a 'total idiot' his supporter Roman Loayza, a fellow leader in the coco farmers' union and the Movement Toward Socialism party, who publicly proclaimed that Morales would come to power 'by hook or crook'.

Loyaza, an MAS senator, provoked worries abroad of renewed mob rule, claiming claimed that their movement was 'not peaceful but confrontational, and Evo Morales will become president, no matter what'.

The remarks were heard especially loud in Washington, which has led and funded the campaign to shut down Latin America's cocaine production and crossed swords repeatedly with two of Morales' closest friends in the region - Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Huga Chavez.

The confrontational remarks also poisoned the message that Morales has been trying to send to middle class voters, and provided ammunition to his main opponent, former conservative president Jorge Quiroga of the We Can (Podemos) party.

Quiroga, 45, has asked interim President Eduardo Rodríguez to investigate the apparent threat. Roberto Mustafá, president of the Confederation of Private Businessmen of Bolivia, demanded Loayza face criminal charges of inciting armed rebellion.

Although Morales moved quickly to distance himself from the words, political onlookers in Bolivia worry that the threat rings true.

Morales, 46, leads the polls with 36 per cent - short of the majority he would need to win outright. Under election rules, the final decision falls to the Parliament if no candidate gets a clear majority.

But Quiroga, 45, is close behind with 30 per cent, and he could in fact snatch the presidency by piecing together an alliance in the about-to-be elected new parliament. In addition to choosing a new senate and chamber of deputies on Sunday, voters will pick their regional parliaments and governors.

Should that occur, political observers in La Paz expect unrest to flare up - complete with the street blockades and strikes that ultimately drove president Gonzalo Sachez de Lozada, who was elected in 2002, and his successor, Carlos Mesa, from office.

That's because the impoverished majority in this Peruvian country is especially allergic to the red flags of 'neoliberalism', cuts in social services, the push by the U.S. for a broad free trade zone within Latin America, and dealings with multinational energy companies that want to exploit the country's rich oil and natural gas reserves.

If Morales is elected, he will be Bolivia's first president to represent the indigenous 70 per cent majority Indios.

But even then, trouble is expected, if Morales fails the high expectations from the country's 8.8 million people. The one-time miner who moved with his family to Bolivia's lowland coca country after mines were closed indeed faces difficult challenges in quickly improving living and economic conditions.

His plans to nationalize the oil and natural gas industries and to redistribute property from large to small farmers will likely provoke bitter resistance from wealthy Bolivians. This could fuel the secession efforts of the relatively rich regions around Santa Cruz and Cochabamba who will get their chance to vote on autonomy in a referendum in July 2006.

How the military would react in such as situation remains unclear.

The role of the United States is not underestimated in La Paz. The Bush administration would prefer the conservative Quiroga over Morales.

Bolivians in fact have a joke about U.S. influence in the region. 'Why has there never been a coup in Washington?' Answer: 'Because there is no U.S. Embassy in Washington.'