Editorial, El Diario:

After more than fifty days of violent protest marches and brutal road blockades, a period of calm has finally arrived for most of the population affected by such pressure tactics. The city of La Paz has been particularly harmed, as it is frequently a center of social unrest due to its status as the seat of government and a destination where social groups converge to present a wide variety of demands, some legitimate and others clearly motivated by partisan political interests.

However, when the time comes to analyze the consequences of the recent pressure measures, a heated debate emerges between those who now act as the opposition—namely social sectors led by a discredited COB (Bolivian Workers’ Center)—and officials of the national government. On both sides, there is initially little sign of self-criticism, and each attempts to convince the public that it was on the right path. On the one hand, COB leaders, who changed their demands several times before ultimately calling only for the resignation of President Rodrigo Paz, argue that their marches and road blockades were necessary because the president failed to fulfill his campaign promises. Government officials, meanwhile, contend that they prioritized dialogue in order to avoid confrontations between security forces and agitators that could have resulted in deaths—something radical opposition groups, eager to see Evo Morales return to power, would have exploited.

Nevertheless, both sides overlook the fact that, as a result of the confrontation between the current opposition and government supporters, the majority of the population suffered for nearly two months. The economic damage inflicted on productive sectors, importers, exporters, transport operators, and even rural migrants living in cities has been enormous. There were even deaths on the highways due to the arbitrary detention of vehicles during the blockades and because those enforcing the blockades refused to allow passage even to ambulances carrying people in urgent need of medical attention.

For all these reasons and many more, nothing can justify such reprehensible pressure tactics or the government’s delay in declaring a state of emergency so that the population could return to its activities, which have now become little more than a means of subsistence due to the economic, political, and social crisis left behind by the disastrous MAS governments that held power for twenty years. Consequently, for COB leaders merely to apologize for the decisions they made and claim that people have failed to understand that they were only seeking the common good only serves to fuel public anger. Nor should there be complacency regarding the government’s slow response to the recent social upheaval.

It is therefore urgent to prosecute both the intellectual authors and the direct perpetrators of the deplorable road blockades and acts of violence committed by radical groups, most of them supporters of MAS. Society should always safeguard rights such as life, work, and freedom of movement, while also preventing the loss of jobs and export markets earned through hard effort. Finally, the fact that, in the twenty-first century, outdated methods of struggle such as these pressure tactics continue to be used reflects the mediocrity of the current union leadership.