Bolivian President Rodrigo Paz faces a mounting governance crisis as protesters have clashed with police in La Paz and blocked roads nationwide. Six months into his term, Paz lacks a legislative majority and a strong party base. What are the demands driving the protests, and how united are these movements around a single political agenda and former President Evo Morales? How effective has Paz’s response been, and to what extent are the protests a threat to Paz’s hold on power?
Roberto Laserna, director of the Center for the Study of Economic and Social Reality (CERES) in Cochabamba: “The ongoing protests began as a mobilization against the enactment of a law that allowed the voluntary reclassification of land properties seeking to expand the rights of small owners. However, the law was interpreted as an attack on Indigenous communities, which then began a march from the northern region of Pando toward La Paz. The law was repealed, but by then other organizations had joined the protests, mainly from the Aymara highlands and from sectors linked to informal mining. The government sought dialogue with several of these groups, signing agreements in response to their demands, but this was interpreted as a sign of weakness. At the same time, it attracted opposition groups calling for the resignation of President Rodrigo Paz and new elections, while also encouraging other sectors to demand a tougher response from the government. The demands are therefore diverse and not necessarily convergent. There are multiple leaderships, and not all the mobilized groups have consistent organizational structures, which makes dialogue difficult. Former President Evo Morales is attempting to take advantage of the protests in order to regain influence or even restore his power, which has been severely weakened by the criminal accusations he faces and by his responsibility in the economic crisis. Some groups are demanding symbolic reparations, while others are simply exploring opportunities to capture fiscal resources. Finally, it is also important to take into account the growing demands for order among urban sectors, which could also lead to direct actions against the protesters, who are predominantly rural. Despite the efforts of their leaders, protests have not become truly massive and remain highly concentrated in La Paz and its surrounding areas, but have already caused major economic damage, have become a source of anxiety and discomfort for broad sectors of the population and have weakened democratic governance. The outcome is unpredictable. The situation could escalate very rapidly. The government is making efforts to avoid that, but it is paying a very high political price, because it appears weak, which in turn invites further pressure.”
Kathryn Ledebur, director of the Andean Information Network in Cochabamba: “A loose coalition of La Paz Indigenous communities and social movements have paralyzed La Paz, provoking shortages of food and other necessities. Their demands have included dialogue on inflation, a minimum wage increase, land tenure guarantees and social inclusion. They now demand Paz’s resignation. Although government officials and the Trump administration blame Morales for the conflict, his role is peripheral. A small group of his followers protested in La Paz for less than a week. The Morales focus further infuriates protesting groups unaffiliated with the ex-president. They primarily voted for the Paz-Edmand Lara ticket to avoid a far-right Jorge Quiroga presidency. Protests have extended to rural areas. Paz quickly limited populist Lara’s power and allied with former rival Doria Medina. The primarily male, upper middle-class cabinet is divided, with no clear governance strategy, plan for state income or cohesive message. They stigmatize protesters as ‘bloodthirsty,’ ‘minorities’ and ‘vandals,’ funded by ‘drug traffickers and organized crime,’ terms parroted by Trump officials. Their limited concessions and unwillingness to engage in dialogue are worsening the crisis. Although most middle to upper class Bolivians oppose blockades and deeply resent shortages, they also are tired of Paz’s haphazard, uncoordinated leadership. Right-wing politicians criticize Paz, including Doria Medina and Quiroga, as well as Santa Cruz elites. Most demand the administration call a state of emergency to repress marchers. Human rights groups and Lara denounce excessive use of force by military and police, including the shooting death of an Indigenous protester. Meanwhile, right-wing para-state groups publish frequent threats to mobilize violently and lift blockades.”
Eduardo A. Gamarra, professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Florida International University: “President Rodrigo Paz’s patient approach to dealing with a nation-paralyzing protest may prove to be more than a tactical choice; it may be his principal democratic asset. In a country characterized by overwhelming distrust of all political institutions, regional cleavages and ethnic conflict, any premature use of force will be interpreted not as the restoration of order, but as another episode of state abuse. That is why restraint matters. Paz has not moved immediately to crush the protests; he has allowed time for the country to see the nature of the conflict, the persistence of the blockades, the damage to supply chains and the limits of negotiation. This does not make force desirable. It makes the question of force politically and morally distinct. The current blockades are no longer only a form of protest; in some areas, especially La Paz, they have become a direct challenge to governability and to the rights of citizens who need food, fuel, medicine and free transit as they seek the president’s resignation. The government moved to open humanitarian corridors through the blockades to allow the passage of food, medicine, oxygen and other essential goods. That sequencing is important: before escalating, the government framed its response in terms of humanitarian necessity rather than political revenge. If Paz eventually declares a state of emergency, it will not be because the protests are inconvenient or politically hostile. It will be because the state has exhausted ordinary channels and essential circulation has been obstructed. That is why Paz’s restraint may earn him something his predecessors often lacked: a credible claim to legitimate coercion. That is not a blank check, and there can be no repression without accountability. However, Paz can earn the right, under constitutional limits, to use proportionate force to clear blockades, reopen roads, protect hospitals and supply chains, and reassert the authority of the democratic state. Paz’s challenge is to show that order and legality are the same project. His task is not to defeat protesters as such, but rather to re-establish the basic premise of democratic life: that grievances can be expressed, but no group has the right to hold the country hostage.”
The Latin America Advisor features Q&A from leaders in politics, economics, and finance every business day. It is available to members of the Dialogue’s Corporate Program and others by subscription.
