By H. C. F. Mansilla, Brújula Digital:

There are two major obstacles to the country’s progress: (a) the political class, mediocre in every respect and lacking in ethics, and (b) the bulk of the population, influenced by the popular culture of authoritarianism and irrationalism.

The Bolivian Legislative Assembly. Photo: ABI. Archive.

This is a good opportunity to take a brief critical look at political science in Bolivia. Generally speaking, one must acknowledge the remarkable analytical and explanatory level this discipline has achieved in recent decades, a level that forms part of the accomplishments of Bolivian intellectual and artistic production, which has displayed notable quality since colonial times, although this has not always been recognized as such within the country itself. Although this is a well-known and recurring phenomenon in all cultures, it must be pointed out that political activity in the prosaic reality of everyday life stands out precisely for the opposite reason: it is a lamentable practice in every respect.

In international comparison, and in the field of journalism aimed at the general public, Bolivian political science analysis also possesses exceptional value. I would highlight as particularly commendable the opinion columns published by the daily newspaper Brújula Digital and the reflections appearing in the weekly publication Péndulo Político, which rank among the best on the entire continent. For the sake of historical fairness —an always uncomfortable subject— we must also recall the socially critical analytical articles published by La Razón (La Paz), the newspaper owned by Carlos Víctor Aramayo, until April 1952.

Contemporary political science naturally faces complex challenges that it will have to overcome through critical thinking. The main challenge, and one that will remain so for a long time, is the dispassionate examination of government actions and state structures. As Eduardo Leaño, director of the Political Science program at the Public University of El Alto, points out, Bolivian society has more than enough reasons to question its ruling elites, which have failed to escape the vicious cycle of large-scale corruption, institutional weakness, a lack of long-term vision, and declining public trust.

These issues require careful political science research, since parties and programs of widely differing orientations coexist with longstanding recurring phenomena, such as the political culture of authoritarianism and the collective inclination toward strongman leadership. These phenomena have persisted for centuries and tend to be regarded as obvious and natural. Consequently, they do not provoke widespread public rejection.

The chronicles of recent years in Bolivia have reminded us of the vigorous persistence of traditional values, ranging from everyday machismo to irrationality in bureaucratic practices. The consequences are varied, and all of them are related to the absence of practical-political rationalism, something that remains very scarce in Bolivian society. A considerable portion of the population is reluctant to understand abstract concepts such as the rights of others, cultural pluralism, the rule of law, and long-term thinking. The aforementioned factors are phenomena associated with rationalism, which was extremely scarce during the colonial period and has not been properly established throughout the republican era.

What might be one of the outstanding tasks of political science today? We need a modern, democratic, tolerant, and pluralistic left that understands others —that is, its opponents— a left open to using reason to solve political problems, supportive of the rule of law and ethical perspectives that overcome the moral indifference inherent in all socialist regimes pursuing radical reform.

This is important because the Bolivian left, in its many different forms, is vigorous, popular, and deeply rooted in the country’s general mindset. Without its support, society will not change.

In Bolivia, the left is extremely weak in terms of theoretical production, but very strong at mobilizing the masses, skilled at recruiting public officials, and undoubtedly successful at manipulating public opinion. Leftists at every educational level display a marked aversion to acknowledging negative traits within the national-popular sphere, supposedly the source of all virtues. Left-wing and populist regimes have proven to be a remedy worse than the socio-historical disease they intended to cure.

We also need a modern right wing, genuinely liberal and tolerant and —most difficult of all— one that has learned from the mistakes and horrors represented by many far-right regimes throughout the past hundred years. Those who call themselves liberals are actually conservatives, imbued with an inquisitorial spirit and, deep down, genuine representatives of the old culture of authoritarianism. They despise environmental protection and women’s emancipation. They, too, belong to the ranks of dogmatists: those who never have doubts, those who offer simplistic solutions to complex problems, and those who do not think for themselves.

What is happening in the 21st century is the global weakening of the pluralistic democratic system and the growing strength of authoritarian regimes, a trend that can be detected throughout the world. Perhaps the historical development of the People’s Republic of China shows us the inexorable path of the future: liberalism in the economy and trade, authoritarianism in politics and culture.

In summary, we can identify a classic and recurring problem in the social sciences. There are two major obstacles to the country’s progress: (a) the political class, mediocre in every respect and lacking in ethics, and (b) the bulk of the population, influenced by the popular culture of authoritarianism and irrationalism.

H. C. F. Mansilla is a philosopher and political scientist.