India’s independence from the British Empire was not achieved through armed rebellion or terrorist strategies, but through a pacifist movement, inspired and led by Mahatma Gandhi, which undermined the moral foundations of a colonial occupation that had subjugated 400 million people for two centuries. Non-violent resistance against repression and civil disobedience against the greatest colonial empire of the era made that “miracle” possible on August 15, 1947.
In Bolivia, as I write this, we are witnessing an inverse phenomenon: labor corporations, driven by political interests, murky financing, and heterogeneous demands, have resorted to violence against the civilian population and a legitimately constituted government. Their goal is to force the president’s resignation through extortion, hijacking the well-being, the economy, and the social peace of an entire country.
It is paradoxical that the State, empowered by law to exercise the legitimate use of force in defense of order, has opted for restraint. This attitude is questioned by the citizenry, who are harmed by the criminal actions of these corporations that, under a misunderstood “right to protest,” deprive an entire country of food, healthcare, education, work, and hope.
What motivates the government of Rodrigo Paz Pereira to endure this aggression without responding forcefully to the escalation of provocations?
It may be, in the first place, a political calculation aimed at the physical, economic, and moral exhaustion of those responsible for the conflict. Or perhaps its passivity stems from the fear of falling into the trap of these groups, which wait for any incident to “capitalize” on victims and brandish “massacres” to delegitimize the authority of those in power.
Personally, I prefer to think of an ethical choice—the same one shared by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mandela, and, long before them, Jesus Christ. They all understood that the logic of evil consists of dragging its victims into its own spiral of violence and hatred. In fact, Christ overcame evil, and even death, by refusing to answer evil with evil and injustice with curses, marking a path to victory.
Beyond the outcome of this conflict, it is imperative to establish “red lines” for social unrest. Just as the bloody Battle of Solferino (1859) gave rise to International Humanitarian Law, Bolivia must agree upon basic norms that all parties are obliged to follow, inspired by the Golden Rule: “Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.”
These red lines, which should never again be crossed by any party involved in social conflicts, range from respect for life—renouncing the use of lethal weapons (not just firearms)—to the protection of the most vulnerable sectors (the sick, children, and the elderly); respect for public and private property; and an ethical commitment that outrightly prevents infiltration and alliances with criminal organizations.
The legitimacy of these rules depends on their enforcement: the rule of law must prevail over impunity. Criminal acts committed within the framework of protests must result in rigorous criminal proceedings. It is essential to ensure reparations for damages through the seizure of the funds of the organizations involved and, if necessary, the suspension of tax disbursements to municipalities that act as epicenters of blockades, allocating those resources to repair the infrastructure and economy devastated by the complicity or direct participation of their inhabitants.
Trials and reparations: exactly as one would expect after a war.