By Oscar Antezana:

Canada has just delivered a lesson that goes far beyond international trade. Mark Carney’s government decided to suspend its trade negotiations with the United States rather than accept conditions it considered unfair and contrary to the national interest. The decision comes at a cost. By a vast margin, the United States is Canada’s main export market, and a prolonged confrontation could mean fewer investments, factory closures, lost jobs, and higher prices.

Yet something extraordinary happened: a broad majority of Canadians supported their government. An Angus Reid survey found that 76% believed it was right to walk away from the negotiations rather than accept a bad deal. Even a majority of those who had voted for the opposition Conservative Party backed the decision. It is not that Canadians are indifferent to the cost. Many worry about their jobs and the economy. But they seem to understand that there are moments when defending the national interest requires accepting personal sacrifices.

Why can one society react this way while Bolivia finds it so difficult to do the same?

The question is urgent. Bolivia needs painful economic and institutional decisions. Restoring fiscal stability, correcting distortions, rebuilding reserves, reforming public enterprises, restoring institutional independence, and reestablishing legal certainty will inevitably affect vested interests.

Any Bolivian government knows what may happen, but fear of social unrest ends up delaying decisions, which only worsen the situation.

One clear example is that the government will have to eliminate the diesel subsidy; otherwise, it could jeopardize a loan from the International Monetary Fund. Many people perceive this as an IMF imposition or a “right-wing” policy and therefore as neoliberal. Whether neoliberal or not, it is necessary. However, its legitimacy is weakened because it did not originate within the government itself.

The first difference with Canada lies in institutions and trust.

Citizens are far more willing to accept sacrifices when they believe that the rules apply equally to everyone, that courts are independent, that statistics are reliable, and that public resources will not end up financing corruption or privileges. When that trust disappears, a behavior emerges that is understandable but destructive: every group tries to protect its own interests before anyone else’s.

The second difference is leadership.

Governing does not consist of discovering what people want to hear and giving it to them. In critical moments, it means telling unpleasant truths. A government that asks for sacrifices must explain clearly: this is what it will cost; these sectors will be affected; these will be the compensations; these are the results we seek; and these are the indicators that will allow us to verify them. Then it must be accountable. Without credible information, sacrifice looks like abuse. With transparency and verifiable results, it can become a collective effort.

The third difference lies in civil society.

Bolivia has an extraordinary capacity for sectoral organization but a weak capacity for collective action. Transport workers defend transport workers; cooperative members defend cooperative members; business owners defend business owners; unions defend their affiliates; regions defend their own regions. Defending particular interests is legitimate. The problem arises when a sector believes it is justified in imposing enormous costs on the rest of the country in order to protect its own interests.

A blocked highway perfectly illustrates this distortion: a few hundred people can prevent hundreds of thousands from working, producing, traveling, or trading. This raises an uncomfortable question: who represents the citizen who does not block roads?

There is also a deeper dimension: the erosion of public norms and values.

Rebuilding Bolivia therefore requires much more than changing authorities. It must begin with civic education that goes beyond teaching national symbols. Moral values must be rebuilt. The message is simple: honesty, respect for the law, hard work and discipline, care for public goods, merit, among others. But the results will only appear in ten or twenty years.

Therefore, we simultaneously need an intensive and sustained national campaign, lasting for years, to rebuild civic values. The government can promote it, but it must not appropriate it. Universities, businesses, professional associations, unions, schools, churches, media organizations, social groups, municipalities, and departmental governments must all participate.

All of this will help rebuild a sense of nationhood.

Patriotism is not only about singing the national anthem or being moved by the flag. Patriotism also means accepting the cost of a decision that may personally or sectorally harm us when we understand that it benefits the country. The private sector—for example, agribusiness and transport operators—should not oppose eliminating the diesel subsidy while simultaneously demanding a reduction in the fiscal deficit. The same principle applies to national and subnational authorities.

Each actor should contribute proposals that have a high probability of achieving consensus, such as allowing private-sector diesel imports, rather than merely opposing change. The partial reform proposal presented by the LIBRE party is another example.

But governing is precisely about doing today what will prevent a disaster tomorrow, and having the leadership to explain it and persuade others. Canada is demonstrating that a society can close ranks, even in the face of economic costs, when it believes there is something greater worth defending.

Bolivia needs to recover that capacity.