Al Jazeera: The rise of Evo Morales

In 2005, Evo Morales made history by becoming the first indigenous person to be president of Bolivia.

He was elected on the promise that he would get the poor indigenous people that make up 60 per cent of the population out of poverty through a revolution in democracy.

Evo never imagined that this promise would lead to the worst period of socio-political instability that the country has seen for decades.

His election promises - to lift the poor indigenous majority out of poverty and share the country's resources more equitably - were met with huge opposition from the wealthy land-owning minority of European descent.

Filmmaker Rodrigo Vazquez spent three years following Morales, from his presidential campaign through the years of bitter struggle for constitutional and economic reform.

The film follows his rise to power and his first three years in government. The business elite, the corporate media and the landowners violently oppose the president's plan to redistribute the nation's wealth amongst the have-nots.

Peaceful peasant demonstrations turn into confrontations with right-wing paramilitary forces, there are battles between the rich and the poor.

The filmmakers' unique access to Evo Morales reveals a dramatic story of power struggles, street battles and strategic alliances. But mostly it is about the power of democracy itself.



Part I


Part II


Part III


Part IV

5 comments:

Locojhon said...

We need an Evo equivalent here in the USA, not another war criminal president.
Many thought Obama would be that kind of leader, but with his increases of US forces in the Middle East and his back-peddling on other important issues like torture and health care, it is obvious that he is not—not even close.
It is now equally obvious that Obama and Bush are merely on opposite sides of the same bankrupt coin--both are for an expansion of US empire, and too bad for any who get in the way.
One of the main differences between Bolivia and the USA is that the Bolivians are mainly indigenous, and in the USA, the one-time majority indigenous populations have been in large part destroyed/genocided--something that Obama has refused to recognize even on behalf of the indigenous of the state he was born in--Hawaii.
Obama had a chance to be the one president to stop the string of three war-criminal-presidents-in-a-row, and instead he chose to be number four, by continuing the practices of his predecessors, not the least of which is the continued use of Depleted Uranium Munitions (which to the rest of the world is an obvious war crime). Evo led the revolution in Bolivia—who will lead one here?
Viva Evo Morales y Viva Bolivia!!!

jbowen43 said...

It's tough for an honest man to take on the oligarchs and the U S government at the same time.

Socialism or Barbarism said...

Accepting that this is a bolivia blog - what is happening to indigenous in Peru. Reports are that 25 have been killed? How does this play into politics across the continent?

americamba said...

Hi socialism or barbarism:

As you know, in response to your rhetorical question, of course there is a connection. The same forces that are opposing Evo are those that García in Perú is beholden to. In both cases, the indigenous and the workers are disposable. Another connection is the role of the media in the hands of the elite. In Bolivia, the media are attacking Evo and in Perú, the media are full of the killing of the Police by the "barbarians". Sure it is a tragedy because the Police themselves are poor indians and mestizos. But at least they get killed to do the dirty work in their own country, not like their counterpats in the US who get killed for the same reason in Iraq and Afganistan. But that's enough from me. You know as well as I do what the connections are...

brooke said...

one man cannot make change. the people must rise up as well. there are too many corporations with too much money ready to do what they need to, in order to make profit. obviously. so yes obama seems off track, and his actions w/ the war in Afghanistan are greatly discouraging, however i do not think it's fair or realistic to say one man, or one president, can do everything her/himself.