Bolivia. According to Countryaah official site, President Evo Morales was confronted during the year with his perhaps biggest challenges since taking office in 2006. In April, Bolivia’s strong labor organization COB (Central Obrera Boliviana) went on strike in protest of the government’s pay offer to public servants. It was only after two weeks that an agreement was reached on a new wage increase that was quite modest in relation to COB’s original requirements and which was even well below the inflation rate in the country.
In August, new strong protests erupted against the decision to build a road across an area belonging to the Tioc people group and the Isiboro Sécure National Park (Tipnis). According to a government source, exploration for oil in the area was also planned. The dilemma for the president was that the majority of the thousands of protesters were Native Americans, one of his largest and most loyal support groups. By deploying armed police against the protesters, his credibility as a champion of Native American rights and the environment was doubly questioned. The demonstrations were extended to a general strike by the COB and demands were raised that several prominent government members should resign. Defense Minister Cecília Chacón independently chose to do so after only five months in office. Morales himself, who continued to emphasize the importance of road construction for national development.
|Gross domestic product (GDP)||$ 83,720,000,000|
|GDP growth rate||4.20%|
|GDP per capita||7,600 USD|
|GDP by sector|
|Proportion of the population below the national poverty line||45%|
|Distribution of household income|
|Industrial production growth rate||3.50%|
|Investment volume||17.2% of GDP|
|National debt||49.00% of GDP|
|Foreign exchange reserves||$ 8,287,000,000|
|Number of visitors||871,000|
In addition, Morales failed to regain confidence from the electorate in the unique election held October 16. For the first time in the world, public elections were held for the offices of the Supreme Court. From the outset being intended as a manifestation of radical grassroots democracy and making the judiciary more representative, the election was considered a failure. While voting participation was high due to the statutory voting obligation, the majority of votes were annulled, which seemed to be due to pure voter sabotage and because voters simply did not understand the technical and political choices.