After encouraging the same kind of noisy tactics, like striking and blocking roads she says:
Strong tactics will not deliver a satisfying victory if they are not a part of a directed strategy with clear goals because the target always needs to know exactly what it is you desire. In this case, without some semblance of unity among the protesters—at best an agreed upon proposal of demands that includes formula for implementation and at worst a semantic alignment in what these mobilizations are aiming to achieve—they leave themselves open to self defeat.
But without agreement among groups on those what those demands are, the Gas War is in danger of being prolonged again or worse: those with the drive to change their nation’s course could end up feeling angry, disempowered and unwilling to wage this battle again.
The 'movement' is disjointed. They want Mesa out, and the gas nationalized, but beyond that there is no 'real' plan. They are bound to be discontent by whatever ends up happening.
1 comment:
I am appalled at that article. No one bothers to do the math. Even if they have 50,000 protestors, that still only represents approximately .05% of Bolivia's population. Even if the Congress doesn't represent the true will of the people, there is no excuse to hold a city/country hostage by these tactics. Like she identified, the blockades hurt the poor first, but that's okay because at least the marchers are getting taken care.
She seems to think that the marchers in fact represent the "will of the people", but from I know the vast majority of working class (even the working urban poor) just wants the roadblocks to end so that they can work.
It sounds like she is helping to organize some of these marches. I wonder whether her visa (an assumption that she is there on a visa) allows for her to get involved in internal Bolivian politics?
Post a Comment