Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Morpheous,
While I agree with you about the need for effective regulations, they have not worked in poor Third World countries.
Those who are dirt poor will kill whatever necessary in whatever numbers necessary to support themselves and if things get tough, they will not hesitate to break any regulation if it means feeding their families.

The rich on the other hand and the powerful lawless can go in to a poor corrupt capitalist Third World country, bribe whomever necessary and strip the country bare of whatever it is will bring in a hefty profit and regardless of the environmental impact or the impact on resource stock.

It's not theory. It is what's gone on in the capitalist Third World countries for hundreds of years as the kleptocrats of a particular country's ruling classes conspire with the First World resource robbers to mutually loot the country and stick the poor with the bills.

I maintain that capitalism of the cut-throat variety that is practiced in the poor Third World creates inequalities in the distribution of the wealth of each country. It creates huge debt that takes well over half of these countries' money.
How can any such country build infrastructure: roads,schools, hospitals a decent place to live and put into place workable regulations if the money is taken by the IMF, World Bank every year?

Ever see Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" ?
Well those poor villagers in the film are very representative of the billions of poor in the world today who are getting robbed non-stop and there are no samurai in the world to stop the bandits.

Who's going to pay off that debt?
or should the question be: who's going to forgive all that debt?

How can you fix the great inequalities where the top 5% own some 80% of the wealth of so many countries?
Do you think they'll regulate themselves into living a middle class life?
Sure, when chickens grow teeth they will..

I do not believe you can patch up capitalism to work in a resource poor and debt-laden Third World Africa.

The answer lies elsewhere.

[wolmersboy]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
Morpheous,
While I agree with you about the need for effective regulations, they have not worked in poor Third World countries.
Those who are dirt poor will kill whatever necessary in whatever numbers necessary to support themselves and if things get tough, they will not hesitate to break any regulation if it means feeding their families.

The rich on the other hand and the powerful lawless can go in to a poor corrupt capitalist Third World country, bribe whomever necessary and strip the country bare of whatever it is will bring in a hefty profit and regardless of the environmental impact or the impact on resource stock.

It's not theory. It is what's gone on in the capitalist Third World countries for hundreds of years as the kleptocrats of a particular country's ruling classes conspire with the First World resource robbers to mutually loot the country and stick the poor with the bills.

I maintain that capitalism of the cut-throat variety that is practiced in the poor Third World creates inequalities in the distribution of the wealth of each country. It creates huge debt that takes well over half of these countries' money.
How can any such country build infrastructure: roads,schools, hospitals a decent place to live and put into place workable regulations if the money is taken by the IMF, World Bank every year?

Ever see Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" ?
Well those poor villagers in the film are very representative of the billions of poor in the world today who are getting robbed non-stop and there are no samurai in the world to stop the bandits.

Who's going to pay off that debt?
or should the question be: who's going to forgive all that debt?

How can you fix the great inequalities where the top 5% own some 80% of the wealth of so many countries?
Do you think they'll regulate themselves into living a middle class life?
Sure, when chickens grow teeth they will..

I do not believe you can patch up capitalism to work in a resource poor and debt-laden Third World Africa .

The answer lies elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cakes,
I know that we disagree on much BUT surely we must all agree that Africa is very rich in natural resources! After all, why would the developed nations, along with China, be jockeying for mining/oil exploration rights in Africa if there was nothing there?

[Morpheous]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
Those who are dirt poor will kill whatever necessary in whatever numbers necessary to support themselves and if things get tough, they will not hesitate to break any regulation if it means feeding their families.

[/ QUOTE ]This is true in any country; the regulation will NOT be targeting these people.

[ QUOTE ]
The rich on the other hand and the powerful lawless can go in to a poor corrupt capitalist Third World country, bribe whomever necessary and strip the country bare of whatever it is will bring in a hefty profit and regardless of the environmental impact or the impact on resource stock.

[/ QUOTE ]This is also true; the regulation WILL be targeting these people.

Capitalist Communism - China today
Democratic Socialism - Cuba today
Democratic Dictatorship - USA & UK today

Believe it or not all the above have one thing in common. CAPITALISM! Maybe not in the way you define it but, they all have to capitalise on their productions and natural resources to make their economies sustainable and grow. "Capital" = finance and income.

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

This is what what when some miss the point entirely. Maybe methaphors are easier. The question is: regarless of the car, our drivers are not winning. Others want to debate the style of the car.

Why are we always losing? Heroes like Mugabe and Mbeki end up destroying the people.

Why are black countries always throwing away oppurtunities? Why is there no tangible plan for long term success? Why is there no economic transpiracy?

For idiots that keep harping about resources, remember, poor countries are begging and pleading for MORE usage of their resources, not less. Rich countries are blocking access to their markets. So, in truth, there is an UNDER utilization of black resources. For EXAMPLES: The US, Japan and EU block cheaper third world sugar, wheat, cotton, rice, etc. The US block cheaper third world raw iron to maintain higher cost American mines, etc.

Why don't some of you open your eyes and stop advocating lies. Please, give that resource nonsense a rest. BLACK nations are trying to trade more. It is not economic colonialism. It is economic exclusion.

The question still stands. It is complicated one to answer.

Yes Wolmers, some have lost the point.

[Blackstar*]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Stupid Chinese imperialist bullying

China's ambassador to Zambia, Li Baodong, did a stupid thing a few days ago. Angered by a meeting between a Zambian presidential candidate, Michael Sata, and a group of Taiwanese businessmen, and Sata's subsequent declaration that Taiwan is a sovereign nation, Ambassador Li threatened that China would cut diplomatic relations with Zambia. (Reports in Zambian newspapers also suggested that Baodong had gone ever further, announcing that Chinese investments in Zambian mining, construction and tourism interests were on hold until after the Sept. 28 election, but China is denying those accusations.)

To longtime China watchers, the inept undiplomatic behavior of Ambassador Li immediately brought to mind China's saber-rattling at Taiwan during that nation's presidential elections in 2000. Back then, China threatened dire consequences if DPP candidate and Taiwanese independence advocate Chen Shuibian was elected. The strategy did not work -- if anything, it backfired, enraging voters and pumping up turnout. And even though Zambian observers believe that Sata has no chance to win the upcoming election, one could excuse the incumbent, Levy Mwanawasa, for being annoyed. Bullying is a poorly thought out campaign tactic, not just in Zambia, but in the larger international arena of public relations.

The ostensible excuse for the fracas, China's ongoing diplomatic jockeying with Taiwan, is but a sideshow, however. What this eruption tells us about the emerging nature of the African-Chinese relationship is far more significant. China's been a major player in Zambia for decades. Initially, it was all about building third-world solidarity against Western imperialist capitalist running dogs. But now China ain't nothin' but a turbo-powered money-grubbing hound dog itself. China's quick march into Africa, buying up minerals and other commodities across the continent, all the while blithely ignoring human rights disasters in countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan, has been widely remarked upon in recent months. In Zambia, the story is copper. Zambia has a lot of it, and China has a bottomless appetite for it.

In 1998, a state-owned Chinese company paid $20 million for an ownership stake in a bankrupt copper mine in Chambishi, a town in the aptly named Copperbelt Province located in north-central Zambia. The initial reaction was reportedly enthusiastic. A revived mine would bring jobs and associated economic development. (Reports in the Chinese press say that Chinese companies employ more than 10,000 people in Zambia, and China has been busy building critical infrastructural projects -- roads, railways, power stations -- to assist in its resource extraction. China is the third largest foreign investor in Zambia, after South Africa and Britain.)

But anyone who knows much about the working conditions of Chinese miners would be justified in worrying about the life expectancy of African workers in a Chinese-run mine. In 2005 alone, according to China's own statistics more than 5,000 workers died in Chinese mining accidents. The Chambishi mine began renewed production in 2003. In April 2005 46 miners died in a horrific explosion. Then, in July of this year, five miners were shot during a riot over conditions at the same mine -- whether directly by Chinese managers or by Zambian police is still not clear.

Suffice to say, the bloom is off the rose for popular sentiment over Chinese economic involvement in Zambia. In such a context, Ambassador Li's threats seem even more imbecilic. Perhaps Zambia isn't very high on China's list of diplomatic postings?

China's total numbers for trade and investment in Africa are still dwarfed by the U.S. and the European Union. But China's growth rate in the last five years is phenomenal. Imports of commodities and exports of manufactured goods are both shooting up, as is foreign direct investment. Some see this as good for African economic development. But as an excellent study commissioned in April by the U.K. Department for International Development, "The Impact of China in Sub-Saharan Africa," reports in detail, there are plenty of negative consequences in Africa from China's worldwide surge.

To choose just one example: While African consumers, just like Americans shopping at Wal-Mart, benefit from the low prices of Chinese manufactured goods, on the global market, African textile makers are being clobbered by Chinese competition. Since the WTO-mandated end of textile quotas at the beginning of 2005, numerous African nations have experienced significant employment declines in their export-oriented textile industries. It has also long been noted in the international economic development world that commodity booms do not automatically equate with economic growth. Quite the opposite, the so-called resource curse suggests that having abundant resources for foreign exploitation can actually hold development back.

For Zambia's rulers, Chinese investment is currently a lifeline. President Mwanawasa's embarrassingly obsequious apology to China is testimony to that. On Sept. 1, reported the Times of Zambia, he called Sata's remarks unfortunate.

"He said he had communicated to the Chinese ambassador to rescind the decision not to invest in Zambia, saying if that happened the people would suffer as Chinese investment had created many job opportunities for Zambians."

"'You heard what the Chinese said two days ago. They said they are going to suspend investment until after September 28 because if certain politicians are elected into office, they would want to leave before they are chased away. China has given us aid since Independence in the mines, road construction and they have done a lot of things,' he said."

"He was hopeful that the Chinese people would accept his apology and continue investing in Zambia."

Shouldn't China be the party apologizing here? For interfering in another sovereign nation's internal politics? For the conditions of workers at the Chambishi mine?

Then again, who's really at fault? The copper mined by the workers in the Copperbelt travels a long journey, but some significant percentage of it only passes through China, on its way to retail outlets at your local mall. That copper is likely part of the chips in our iPods or hybrid automobile engines. In three weeks, there will be an election for president in Zambia contested by men whose names I never heard of before this morning. But Chambishi's really not that far away, is it?

[Wahalla]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Why would the Chinese take over a copper mine if they would not make a profit ? Why could the Zambians not run the mine at a profit ???? Who operated the copper mine ???

Considering the chi nese safety record, does this not raise some fears ???

The chinese will spend little on local training, will import even the cooks... My experience with Chinese in Africa has been mixed.. They will spend little in the local economy importing every thing

I once watched a texan deck a little chinese fella for being rude/rascist to a bar maid in Lagos airport..A red neck decking a communist for rasism to an African...

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

This is a terrific thread... and of great importance to Jamaica. It's like trying to take a look at oneself, a real look and that is very hard to do... for any of us.

One thing that's important in doing good business these days is credit. And ones credit ranking means a great deal about where one has been and what kind of potential you have in the future. What it really means is this, DO YOU KEEP YOUR AGREEMENTS? If you agree to do something, can we rely on you to come through?

This credit takes into account everyone you have ever done business with. They have come up with a number that represents what the world thinks your odds of coming through on your agreements is.

That number for the countries in question here, isn't very high. Of course there are always sympathetic reasons for NOT coming through, BUT changing that number, improving that number, takes monumental changes in behavior. It's like being different.

[Wahalla]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Look in the GleANER today you will see a story we signed over 86.5 % of any future hydrocarbon production to Petrobras....

Last week Chad Kleptocrasy kicked out Texaco and Petronas because they only had 12.5...

You cannot have poltitians doing buisness if they dont have the skill set to do it... This is a repeat of the same post colonial devlopment paradim in Sub Saharan Africa.... Dont blame Petrobras if or when they start producing oil with cliches of forgien explotation. Today you saw it happen.... They had a contract...

Somehow I beleive in honopuring contracts!

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

The Chinese are racists against everyone in degrees. Naturally, blacks are on the bottom of their scale.

Several years ago, there were riots at a Chinese university. Black were hunted down and murdered. A black man got a Chinese woman pregnant. There was no outrage against such racism.

Now, the Chinese are Sudan biggest supporter. They are Mugabe's biggest supporter. The Chinese are everywhere in Africa. Since they are not American or European, their activities face no monitoring. Even if it was, the Chinese do not care.

So, be it. We continue the tradition of betrayal. We support those that oppress us.

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

wahalla, you continue to buy into the lie. Do not. They are not ignorant. They know the game being played.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Wolmersboy,
I think Blackstar's post answers your question quite well.
Yes, many countries in Africa have a multitude of natural resources but they are most often owned or controlled by a very small number of people who get just about all the money.
In the case of foreign owned or run businesses, the money is split betweenthe operators who expatriate the money and the small ruling elite , often corrupt who either get the rest to do with as they please but who in most cases do not have that money filter down as is the case in capitalist economies.

A country can have unlimited riches but if it lacks the knowledge or more importantly, the money to exploit them, it is often financially raped by the rich neocolonial countries.

Even principled socialist Cuba has been forced into deals with capitalist firms in order to gain some of the money it badly needs notably in tourist hotels and oil field development.

The difference in Third World Africa and Third World Cuba is that whatever monies the socialist Cuban government gets from these deals goes into the general welfare and in capitalist and neocolonial Africa it goes into the pockets of the top 5%.

Black-led countries are doing poorly because they are poor and have capitalist /free market economies that do not work in underdeveloped countries that lack the money and talent to develop.

When you have a situation where 80% of a country's population lives in poverty, there is no way that country can do well.
Neither can we even think that capitalism and neocolonialism will ever reform to the point where all people can live decently.

In the United States, which is the richest and most successful country on Earth some 47,000,000 people have no healthcare insurance and about 25% live in poverty.

If decent living conditions cannot be guaranteed to all the citizens of the most successful capitalist country, what hope is there for dirt-poor sub-Saharan Africa operating under the same kind of corrupt, cutthroat economy ?

[Wahalla]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
wahalla, you continue to buy into the lie. Do not. They are not ignorant. They know the game being played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what it is my friend....Like the man said it is not about development..... At best it is short term satisfaction at worst well it is what we all know it is....

I wont say what it is that would be slander or liable... The better option is to call them stupid.. What I dont want to hear is people complain 5- 10 yers doen the line with cliches about explotation.. you sell the jewels it is not yours...

[wolmersboy]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
Wolmersboy,
I think Blackstar's post answers your question quite well.
Yes, many countries in Africa have a multitude of natural resources but they are most often owned or controlled by a very small number of people who get just about all the money.
In the case of foreign owned or run businesses, the money is split betweenthe operators who expatriate the money and the small ruling elite , often corrupt who either get the rest to do with as they please but who in most cases do not have that money filter down as is the case in capitalist economies.

A country can have unlimited riches but if it lacks the knowledge or more importantly, the money to exploit them, it is often financially raped by the rich neocolonial countries.

Even principled socialist Cuba has been forced into deals with capitalist firms in order to gain some of the money it badly needs notably in tourist hotels and oil field development.

The difference in Third World Africa and Third World Cuba is that whatever monies the socialist Cuban government gets from these deals goes into the general welfare and in capitalist and neocolonial Africa it goes into the pockets of the top 5%.

Black-led countries are doing poorly because they are poor and have capitalist /free market economies that do not work in underdeveloped countries that lack the money and talent to develop.

When you have a situation where 80% of a country's population lives in poverty, there is no way that country can do well.
Neither can we even think that capitalism and neocolonialism will ever reform to the point where all people can live decently.

In the United States, which is the richest and most successful country on Earth some 47,000,000 people have no healthcare insurance and about 25% live in poverty.

If decent living conditions cannot be guaranteed to all the citizens of the most successful capitalist country, what hope is there for dirt-poor sub-Saharan Africa operating under the same kind of corrupt, cutthroat economy ?

[/ QUOTE ]

So there is no hope...so then what? Blacks should just sit and wait for some benevolent European to give them what is rightfully theirs?
You still miss the point. This is not about what someone else can give us. This is not about styles of government. This is about doing for ourselves. Look, the Middle Easternn countries have sponsored embargos and raised prices when it was in their interests. Why can't Zambia do the same with copper? If the Chineses need it that bad, make them pay for it! Build some schools, build roads--whatever! Use the tools that you have to get what you want. Everybody else does it to us. Why can't we do it to them?

[Blackstar*]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
So there is no hope...so then what? Blacks should just sit and wait for some benevolent European to give them what is rightfully theirs?
You still miss the point. This is not about what someone else can give us. This is not about styles of government. This is about doing for ourselves. Look, the Middle Easternn countries have sponsored embargos and raised prices when it was in their interests. Why can't Zambia do the same with copper? If the Chineses need it that bad, make them pay for it! Build some schools, build roads--whatever! Use the tools that you have to get what you want. Everybody else does it to us. Why can't we do it to them?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I'm talking about! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70458-applaud.gif[/img]
Black countries have the resources and the impoverished work force that capitalism needs to develop and prosper. None of the state-of-the art weaponry, computers, appliances, etc. can be built without raw materials from AFRICA and to a lesser extent Latin America and the Caribbean. So wah mek?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Wolmersboy, Blackstar, Walhalla, All,
The following article from Znet shows how Third World countries can get back their countries and their national wealth.
The problem up til now has been that when other countries attempted what Bolivia is now doing, they were prevented from doing so by the Western colonial powers and in the last 50 years notably the rabidly anti-communists and pro-colonial United States.

Compare what Bolivia is doing, what Evo is doing and why and how to the neo-colonial states in Africa.
Things can be fixed if the rich and powerful countries currently stealing Africa's wealth stop doing so.
Love of money being the root of all evil, this is rather unlikely but not impossible.

The article:

Capitalism Hurts Latin America Now Bolivia Gas for Sea Bolivia's Water - and
Peaceful revolution is taking shape
A rare interview with Evo Morales as he begins a profound transformation of his country

by Judy Rebick
September 09, 2006
The Toronto Star
Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
Sucre, Bolivia — On Sunday, Aug. 6, President Evo Morales opened a Constituent Assembly here that in his words will re-found Bolivia on an entirely new basis. After weeks of negotiations with smaller parties, the Movement towards Socialism (MAS), Morales's party, now has the two-thirds majority necessary to control the Assembly.

In a rare interview with him recently, he explained his vision for the Assembly: "First of all, we must finish with the colonial state. Second, finish with the neo-liberal model. Our democracy has to non-violently guarantee the cultural revolution (of the majority indigenous peoples). It is culture that will change all of the structures of the state. We have to finish with the colonial state."

Peasants, indigenous people and youth are already pouring into the streets of Bolivia's official capital, Sucre, in response to Morales's call. Members of the Assembly were elected on July 2. Sunday morning will see a massive procession of all the different indigenous cultures of Bolivia, many in their traditional dress.

The Assembly is not only symbolic of a re-founding of the country with the indigenous majority finally in power but it promises to take some fundamental measures to change the country. The main opposition party is already protesting that Morales intends to use the Assembly as a way around the Senate where he doesn't have a majority.

A peaceful revolution is happening in Bolivia, one of the poorest countries in the world. The indigenous majority has taken over the government and is beginning a profound transformation of the country. Their plan is based on the values and culture they have fought to maintain for more than 500 years against colonization, marginalization and discrimination.

The Quechua and Aymara people as well as smaller nations of indigenous people make up an estimated 70 per cent of the population of Bolivia, yet the minority mestizo (mixed race) elite have always ruled. In May 2006, a party representing this indigenous, mostly peasant or campesino majority came to power in a landslide victory. The Americas' first indigenous president won an unprecedented 54 per cent of the vote in a field of eight candidates.

I met recently with Evo Morales, the leader and the symbol of what could be the most dramatic transformation of a country in recent history. The only comparison that even comes close is South Africa when the black majority took power in May 1994 under the leadership of Nelson Mandela.

Evo, as everyone here calls him, first outlined his vision: "The indigenous communities have historically lived in community, in collectivity, in harmony not only with each other as human beings but with mother earth and nature. We have to recover that. If we think about our goals in life as equality and justice, if we think of humanity, then the model of the West, industrialization and neo-liberalism, is destroying the planet earth, which for me is the great Pachamama (the supreme goddess of the Aymara and Quechua religions). And it's heading towards destroying humanity. It really can do that. And from Bolivia we can make a modest contribution to defend life, to save humanity. That's our responsibility."

While Morales talks about the coming to power of the indigenous majority as a 500-year struggle, he explains the key moments in the process took place over the last 20 years.

"After they imposed the neo-liberal model, the battle was the campesino indigenous movement against this neo-liberal model. And the fight can be summed up in two ways: for power and territory. We needed to recuperate political power in order to recover the territory, including all natural resources."

And there have been massive and successful struggles against various aspects of neo-liberalism since the early 1990s: from the famous water wars against the privatization of water in Cochabamba in 1992 to the fight, led by Morales, to protect the traditional growing of coca against U.S. attempts to eradicate it, to the brutal gas wars of 2003 where people in the El Alto just outside La Paz fought to stop the sell-off of natural gas and won at the cost of 70 dead and 200 wounded.

Morales explains that the Bolivians made a commitment in November 1992 at the Continental Indigenous Summit to move from resistance to the taking of power.

The Movement towards Socialism (MAS) led by Morales is not a political party in the classical sense. It is what people here call a political instrument of the social organizations. All the indigenous campesino organizations got together and formed a political organization that could contest elections. While these organizations started the MAS, they were joined by various elements of the middle class, including intellectuals and elements of the urban Left.

And you can see it everywhere. Most of the ministers and deputy ministers are themselves indigenous leaders of the social movements. Government offices are filled morning to night with campesinos who have come from the country to see their minister, usually without an appointment.

With typical modesty Morales says: "I've learned in my first months in government that it's impossible in six months to resolve everything. But we've made some important steps in the social issues as well as in structural ways." Here are some of the major steps:

The most dramatic move so far is what they call the nationalization of the hydrocarbon industry. Though rich in mineral resources with the second largest reserves of gas in South America, Bolivia is poor. People here say too many of their resources were stolen or sold to foreigners at fire sale prices, hoarded by a small group of rich Bolivians or wasted through massive corruption. In May, Morales signed a decree placing the energy sector under state control and with typical finesse, gave foreign energy firms six months in which to sell at least 51 per cent of their holdings to the state or leave the country. The economic plan of his government is to use these resources to develop small-scale industry and create jobs.

Next came the agrarian revolution. The new plan is to redistribute 20 million hectares to landless campesinos. They began with state owned land, which is already being redistributed. Their next step is to recover unproductive privately owned land that was illegally obtained. The only private land they intend to expropriate is where there is no other option to provide land to indigenous people and here the state will pay compensation. Perhaps the most radical element of the land reform is that land is being distributed to traditional communities, not to individuals.

Morales explains: "Where I was born there isn't private property. Where I was born there is no individual property. This is the collectivity, this is the community. We live in community and that is really living."

While most of the leadership of the MAS is male, there have been some important steps towards gender equality. Twenty-five per cent of the cabinet is women, including the ministers of health, the interior and justice, who is a former domestic worker.

The new president of the Constituent Assembly is an indigenous campesino woman. The indigenous women's organization is proposing to the Assembly that all elected and appointed officials be 50 per cent female.

Morales is big on symbolic change, too. For example, the first act of his government was to reduce the salaries of all elected officials as well as state managers by 50 per cent. They used the money saved to hire 3,000 new teachers. At the same time, they increased the minimum wage by 50 per cent. Other changes include a massive literacy campaign and the provision of free health care with the help of thousands of Cuban doctors.

But probably the biggest symbol of the MAS government is the coca leaf. In the office where I met him hangs a portrait of Che Guevara made out of coca leaves.

Morales: "The idea that coca is cocaine is totally false. For example, you can have coca in pie. We campesinos, we would like to benefit from the coca leaf but in legal ways not in illegal ways. And we are hoping that little by little we can achieve justice. The coca leaf cannot continue to be hidden, imprisoned in its own house. It's important to liberate it and undertake a process to do this."

The opposition to the government is mostly centred in the Santa Cruz area among the wealthy landowners. So far its most powerful expression was a majority regional vote for autonomy in the referendum held at the same time as the constitutional assembly elections. Oddly for Canadians, the desire for autonomy is not based on cultural specificity but rather on keeping control of resources.

Morales's popularity is growing. A recent poll makes him by far the most popular leader in South America with 81 per cent support. Observers comment that a big part of the growth of his popularity among the middle class is his honesty and commitment to combat corruption.

Morales still lives in his old neighbourhood in a poor barrio, never wears a suit and works from 5 a.m. to past midnight every day. "He gives us hope," a young teacher told me. "For the first time, we have hope."

This article first appeared in the Toronto Star