Bolivia and the Road to Democracy?

At Easter, in locked-down Bolivia, priests, wielding religious statues of the apostles, sprinkled holy water and blessings over four cities from air force helicopters. It reflected the religious zeal of the caretaker president and giant Bible flourishing Jeanine Áñez who had been a little-known evangelical politician from Bolivia’s tropical lowlands, Áñez was catapulted to power last November with one job: to hold new elections as soon as possible and to “rebuild democracy”.

Even critics of Evo Morales argue that Anez has instead deepened divisions in the multi-ethnic nation of 11 million people – and is using the coronavirus pandemic to further her own political ambitions. In January, Áñez declared her own candidacy for president in the forthcoming elections – a U-turn on her previous promises. She is no longer the neutral referee but has entered the electoral game with the advantage of holding the whistle. She has since postponed the polls originally scheduled for the 3rd of May, explaining that elections should wait until the worse of the COVID-19 pandemic was over. But with lockdown measures easing dramatically from 1 June, some question the rationale for postponing the electoral rerun until September or beyond. The move has fuelled denunciations of a power grab.

Last month, generals in combat uniforms barged into the senate, demanding that the MAS-majority body approve promotions awarded by the Áñez administration. Arturo Murillo, her hardline interior minister, has threatened to deploy fighter jets to the Chapare – a coca-growing region and Mas stronghold – to take on alleged narcotraffickers. A new law threatening those who “misinform or cause uncertainty” over coronavirus with up to 10 years in jail – with Murillo warning the MAS presidential candidate, Luis Arce, by name – was dropped earlier in May following international outcry.  Her administration has leaned on prosecutors to bring corruption, sedition and terrorism charges against dozens of former Morales supporters. Left-wing journalists have been harassed and detained. The Áñez administration kicked out Cuban doctors, re-established ties with Israel, abandoned regional forums, and courted Donald Trump. Her policies appear to be to restore neoliberalism under the paradigm of Latin America as the backyard of the United States.  

Áñez has been “a disappointment”, according to Eduardo Rodríguez Veltzé, a Bolivian judge and former diplomat. 

“Instead of establishing a tolerant environment that guarantees free and fair elections, she decides to become a candidate, make a show of persecuting and dismantling the MAS, and govern in an opaque, abusive and openly ideological way,” he argued.

So far Bolivia has seen more than 8,000 coronavirus cases in Bolivia and 293 confirmed deaths. In the past few months, medical officials have allegedly used the pandemic to line their pockets. The health minister was arrested and fired in May after Bolivia imported 179 ventilators – which doctors later found were incompatible with intensive care units – for almost $5m, nearly three times their market price.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jun/01/bolivia-president-jeanine-anez-coronavirus-elections

Polio Returns

Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only two countries in the world where polio is still endemic. Some people don’t take polio seriously because there is no direct death involved in it, but it does have a huge human cost. Pakistan was very close to becoming  polio free, with only 12 cases in 2018, but last year the number of cases rose to 147. In the same year, Pakistan was  accused of covering up the resurgence of the P2 strain of the virus, which was thought to have been eradicated in 2014. So far this year 47 cases have been reported. The  virus spreads easily in summer and this year could see more than 200 cases. Experts fear that Pakistan is back to 2014 levels, the worst year in recent records.

Officials say the disease has spread beyond the three core areas of Karachi, Quetta and Peshawar, and is now present in central Pakistan. There is now also a fear among Pakistani officials that the virus could spread to other parts of the world. It would not take it a long time to spread.

“Nothing can be worse than this situation. We have positive samples everywhere. It is strengthening and spreading,” a scientific expert in the programme told the Guardian.

Trump’s freeze on US funding for the WHO, along with the focus on Covid-19,  has also made  it hard to fund the polio programme. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is one of the founding members of the GPEI, and also provides assistance and funds for the polio programme. “CDC-supported programmes and activities will be put at risk the longer a funding halt continues,” Benjamin Haynes, deputy branch chief of the CDC, told the Guardian.

Pakistan spends less than 1% of GDP on health services, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s 2019 report, while the WHO recommends an allocation of 6%.  Pakistan needs to invest in public health not in weaponry. 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jun/02/pakistan-polio-fears-as-millions-of-children-miss-out-on-vaccinations-due-to-covid-19

Anti-Fascism and Fascism

Fascism

What is fascism? Or, more pertinently, what was fascism, since the ideology and movement of that name developed in the specific historical conditions of the period between the last century’s two world wars.

The word itself originated in Italy as the name given itself by an ultra-nationalist group opposed both to parliamentary democracy and to left-wing parties and which employed direct physical force on the streets as a deliberate tactic against its opponents. But it was not through street fighting that the fascisti came to power. They did so constitutionally when in 1922 the king, with the support of a section of the ruling class and its political representatives, appointed Mussolini prime minister. Once in control of political power, the fascisti were able to consolidate their rule with Mussolini as dictator by dissolving parliament and banning other parties.

In Germany, the similar ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic movement called itself the “National Socialist German Workers Party”, or Nazis, but was also conventionally called fascists at the time. They were able to gain considerable popular and electoral support (over one-third of voters) as a result of the failure of the democratic and reformist parties to solve the problems caused by capitalism, in particular, the mass unemployment in the slump that followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929. They too came to power constitutionally when the German President, with the approval of other politicians, appointed Hitler as Chancellor in 1933. From this position of control of state power, the Nazis were able to ban all other parties and the trade unions and install Hitler as dictator.

One thing that Italy and Germany had in common was that they were relatively recent unified states, in 1870 and 1871 respectively. As a result, feelings of national unity were not as strong as in longer-established states such as Britain and France. The more virulent nationalism there reflected the ruling class’s need for a stronger central state that could overcome the remaining regionalist loyalties.

In the case of Germany, its attempt in 1914 to get a place in the sun commensurate with its industrial and trading strength, an inevitability at the expense of Britain and France which had carved out substantial colonial empires for themselves, had failed. But the problem remained for their capitalist class and any second attempt was going to be more aggressive because more desperate.

Anti-fascism

Anti-fascism was the ideology under which Britain and France, aided later by the US, fought the Second World War to see off Germany’s second attempt to find a place in the sun at their expense (they succeeded but only to see the US take their place as the dominating world power). Somewhat ironically, it was also the ideology under which their ally, Russia, fought its war over which power – Germany or Russia – should dominate eastern Europe; ironically because, apart from the anti-semitism, the Russian dictatorship was the mirror-image of the German one (leader-worship, mass rallies, concentration camps, etc).

As a result there have been two kinds of anti-fascism, one in defence of political democracy, the other in defence of the Russian dictatorship. The situation has been confused by the fact that the latter hypocritically employed the language of the former. So some anti-fascists have not really been “anti-fascist” if this is defined as opposition to one-party dictatorships. But who isn’t opposed to these? 

Who today wants to replace political democracy by a one-party or a one-man dictatorship? Not even far-right parties do. There are still some classical fascist groups around but their support is negligeable. All political parties with any degree of electoral support now favour governments being chosen through parliamentary and/or presidential elections.

It is an historical anachronism to describe today’s far-right parties which do have considerable support as fascist. Their ideas are still objectionable and dangerous, but they need to be opposed on some other basis than being fascist. On what basis, then, and how should they be opposed?

Anti Far-Right

Far-right parties have grown in recent decades as a result of two things – their opposition to immigration into their countries and the failure of conservative, liberal and social-democratic parties to solve the problems ordinary people face. 

As these problems are caused by the capitalist economic system’s imperative to put profit-making ahead of meeting people’s needs, governments formed by the conventional parties are doomed to fail and always do. The far-right parties have been able to exploit this to convince considerable numbers of people that the reason the other parties fail is because they are incompetent, self-seeking and corrupt, in much the same way as the classical fascists in the inter-world-war period were able to convince people that their problems were caused by democracy not capitalism.

The main reason, however, why these parties have attracted support is their opposition to immigration. They are xenophobic, racist, nationalist parties. That’s the basis on which they should be challenged. But how?

No Platform No Way

Basically, what’s involved is a battle of ideas. Such battles can only be fought with leaflets, pamphlets, books, meetings and, nowadays, websites, podcasts and social media. That’s the only way to change ideas, not by physically fighting with those who hold them nor by taking action, legal or extra-legal, to stop people expressing or promoting them.

That is why “no platforming” far-right organisations is not the way, and is even counter-productive. Stopping them holding meetings, breaking them up, and refusing to let others debate with them, are not going to change their ideas. In fact they are more likely to reinforce them. Physically confronting far-rightists, turning their demonstrations into street brawls or beating up their members is even less effective and, besides, reduces politics generally to the more primitive level of settling disagreements by fisticuffs rather than voting.

Of course in so far as there are fringe gangs and deranged individuals who physically attack immigrants, as happens from time to time, nobody is going to object to self-defence groups, but this is a different issue to combating the ideology of far-right parties, which don’t engage in such attacks.

So, no, the way to combat xenophobia and racism is not direct action to stop these views being expressed but to challenge and confront them as mistaken and dangerous, even in public debate with groups that advocate them. In fact refuting their mistaken and dangerous views in a public debate can be very effective.

Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Nationalism

What should be the content of the case against far-right ideas? This has to be more than just the general case that all humans are members of the same species with the same range of abilities and should be treated equally. This has to be an essential part of course but it is not enough on its own. Opposing these ideas cannot avoid bringing up the cause of the problems ordinary people face and which the far-right wrongly identifies and to which they offer a mistaken solution. Capitalism has to be mentioned and it has to be explained that the way-out is to establish a world of common ownership, democratic control, production to directly meet people’s needs and not for profit, and distribution of goods and services in accordance of the principle “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” In short, socialism properly understood.

The trouble is that most “anti-fascists”, even those calling themselves socialists (some are supporters of third-world dictatorships), are not anti-capitalism. They think that the problems ordinary people face can be solved within the profits-wages-money system that is capitalism. This is a serious weakness when it comes to making a case against the far-right since it rules out making the point that one reason for its rise in recent years is precisely the failure – impossibility in fact – of the conventional parties to solve these problems because they seek solutions within the framework of capitalism, so contributing to a situation which the far-right can benefit from. It goes without saying that of course the far-right can’t solve them either.

The other weakness is that most “anti-fascists” are nationalists, that is, they accept that the world is, and should be, divided into separate national groups entitled to inhabit a part of the globe and whose members share a common interest. Nations are in fact “imagined communities” whose members are divided into two antagonistic classes – the capitalists who own the means of production and who are the ruling class and the rest who work for them for wages. Nationalism is the ideology through which a national ruling class obtains and maintains the support and acquiescence of those they rule over. The “national interest” is their interest.

This is a misconception that “anti-fascists” share with the far-right. It means that nationalist “anti-fascists” are combating the ideas of the far-right on the far right’s territory, as when it comes to arguing whether or not immigration is in the “national interest”. Since the national interest is that of the capitalist class within each supposed nation in some cases the far-right is able to show that immigration controls and discrimination against “foreigners” are in the national capitalist interest,

Conclusion

Any campaign against the far-right views has to be waged on the level of ideas, not physical attacks or legal or extra-legal bans. It has to be based on recognising that capitalism is the cause of the problems such parties exploit to gain support and so a cause of their existence, and on a rejection of all nationalism of which xenophobia is just one end of the same spectrum. In short, the struggle against racist and xenophobic views should not be separated from the struggle for socialism properly understood as a world without frontiers. Adam Buick https://www.poliquads.com/post/anti-fascism-and-fascism

We need change

George Floyd's tragic death is not an isolated incident, not a mistake, an aberration or an exception. It was systemic of America's long and shameful record of violating the civil and human rights of its African-American citizens and the brazen inhumanity demonstrated by its police. The killing of George Floyd has reawakened outrage over years of deaths of African-Americans at the hands of police, renewing long-standing accusations of institutionalised racism.

African-American and Latino communities face more socio-economic insecurity and inequality, inadequate healthcare, shorter life spans, and higher incarceration rates than white Americans. Yet the response to these problems has not been to resolve them but to increase law enforcement and the militarisation of the police to contain the threat of protest. Instead of providing recourse via civic processes, voter suppression in these communities is rife and establishment political forces have continued block efforts to enfranchise these voters. 

Demonstrations against racism and police brutality spread to many cities across the US. Thousands have been arrested over the past few days. Demonstrators have marched in several countries in solidarity

"In city after city, we are witnessing actions that could be considered unnecessary or excessive force. We call for an immediate end to any such use of force and for law enforcement to ensure and protect the legal right to protest,” Rachel Ward, National Director of Research at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement. According to the human rights group, police tactics used so far can trigger escalating violence. "Equipping officers in a manner more appropriate for a battlefield may put them in the mindset that confrontation and conflict are inevitable," read the statement, adding that police "should demilitarize their approach and engage in dialogue with protest organizers". 

"The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly," US Attorney General William Barr declared.

Antifa, short for anti-fascists, is an umbrella term for amorphous left-wing movements with no designated leadership that is opposed to far-right ideologies. Some anti-fascists confront neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups at demonstrations. Trump has blamed Antifa as "agitators" for taking over the protests in US cities and announced he would designate Antifa as a "terrorist organisation". This finger-pointing distracts from the deep underlying causes that triggered the protests.

The suppression which African-Americans have suffered for so long was bound one day to erupt. For too long have they been denied the vote, subjected to a host of indignities and restraints. For too long has colour discrimination been a part of the American way of life. For too long has a coloured life been cheap so that, in some states, the murder of an African-American counts for little as in the recent case of the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery by two vigilantes. The predictable result of this has been protests leading to rioting but who, or what, must bear the blame for them?

The very existence of the ghettoes, and the ways in which the African-Americans protest by riots or burning are taken by the racists as evidence to bolster their conviction that African-Americans are sub-human and therefore deserve nothing better than confined and contained in more ghettoes, and to be subject to more prejudice and fiercer suppression. Socialists call on all men and women of the working class, whether they are black, white, brown or yellow, whether they are employed or unemployed, old or young, to join us in a growing political movement to end this violent, poverty-stricken way of organising society. It is ours for the taking as soon as we make up our minds to act all together. Many have died in the long history of the African-Americans and many will die in the future. Is the result of it all only to be the exchange of one kind of oppression for another?

Solidarity