“Here are the lions” said the Romans about an unknown region, full of dangers; a saying that fully fits the “three-headed” referendum that President Arce has announced, venturing into a political terrain full of unknowns and populated by “lions” ready to feast.
I will not dwell on the two referendums that aim to amend the Constitution: other colleagues who are experts on these issues have done so with a crystal-clear clarity that, as usual, will not be enough to dispel the fog of electoral interests.
I will refer, however, to the announced consultation on the elimination of the fuel subsidy. To this end, I will rely on my experience (I participated in the organization of the gas referendum in 2004) and on my knowledge of energy issues.
An initial comparison with 2004 allows me to show a clear difference between the government of that time and the current one. Contrary to Carlos Mesa’s clear position regarding the expected responses, there is no clear definition of what the government expects from the referendum and no convinced propaganda in favor of such a position. It is possible that President Arce “quietly” hopes that the people are inclined to eliminate the subsidy. I remember that in the failed attempt to make fuel prices honest in 2010, the then “super minister” Arce campaigned in favor of his decree. In fact, interviewed by a television channel, we agreed to justify the measure, albeit with different nuances.
It is possible that this frustrated experience (Evo Morales had to back down to defuse a popular uprising) is still present in the unconscious of the current president and led him to call a referendum to try to do the same as 14 years ago, but this time “obeying the people”.
However, it is not enough to cover one’s back with the vote, expected even if not requested, in favor of the elimination of the subsidy. The real lions, the hungry ones, are in the formulation of the question, as I learned in 2004.
The simplest version of the referendum question would be: “Do you agree with the elimination of the subsidy on hydrocarbons?”, a simple formulation, but not without great ambiguity.
First of all, “eliminating the subsidy” technically means many different things: eliminating it all at once or gradually, universally or sectorally, with or without social compensation. This simple observation confirms the clumsiness of the referendum in question, because, in the final analysis, its execution corresponds to the government. In fact, a deputy minister has anticipated that the elimination will be gradual over time and gradual in impacts. The same thing happened in 2004: Mesa campaigned for the referendum, but a political agreement in Congress wrote the hydrocarbons law.
Returning to the issue, the greatest ambiguity concerns the definition of which subsidy the application refers to. If “hydrocarbons” were specified, this would affect gas and oil and only indirectly their derivatives (fuels). If the elimination affected all fuels, the cost of diesel, petrol, LPG and natural gas in its many uses (domestic, vehicular, industrial and thermoelectric) would be changed.
But, if the subsidy for natural gas is to be maintained, because of the chain reaction it would have on the cost of energy, the question should be more transparent and ask the voter if he agrees with eliminating the subsidy only for diesel, gasoline and LPG.
In short, it is essential to be clear about what you want to consult (and, possibly, do), because in the formulation of the question there are lions.