Where ‘Che’ left off

THINGS JUST KEEP GETTING more complicated down south. Evo Morales, the president-elect of Bolivia, has promised to make himself America’s “nightmare.” Two days after his election Dec. 18, he referred to President Bush as a “terrorist.” Oh, and have we mentioned that he used to be the leader of a

coca-growers’ federation, and that he is intent on pulling out of Washington’s coalition of the willing in the drug war and encouraging the production of coca?

Bolivia, South America’s poorest nation, represents the latest triumph of the left in the hemisphere. Morales openly admires Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and his Movement to Socialism (with its promising “MAS” acronym in Spanish, meaning “more”) is the beneficiary of long-standing ethnic and class resentment. Morales will become the first indigenous president in a country long dominated by a white minority.

Bolivia, where “Che” Guevara was famously martyred in the eyes of Latin America’s left, presents the Bush administration with a formidable test of patience. The country has been a laboratory of globalization, and it is sometimes seen as a failed test case for free-market policies because they have done nothing to translate natural gas riches into a better living standard for the vast majority of the population. It’s no wonder two elected presidents have been forced out of office by angry protests.

Reality is more complicated. Much like in other Latin American countries, the favored free-market policies of the 1990s were undermined by rampant corruption, and as a result the free market was never all that free. By now, the drive to privatize state enterprises and to attract foreign investment has been thoroughly discredited, even though they are as badly needed as ever.

The problem for Morales as he transitions from romantic revolutionary to president is that his stale statist slogans about kicking out foreign vultures and defending “el pueblo” are a recipe for disastrous policy. Some of Morales’ recent statements suggest that he knows he cannot succeed if he undermines property rights or the rule of law, but the outsized expectations of MAS’ radical sympathizers will make it harder for him to enact moderate policies.

Rather than ape the authoritarian demagoguery of Castro and Chavez, Morales would do well to emulate Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. “Lula” also was a longtime leftist activist whose election was mourned in Washington and by international financial markets. But he has governed Brazil sagely, pursuing ambitious social programs without threatening those who opposed him.

If Morales is to follow in Lula’s path, it will prove disappointing to many of his supporters who signed up for the revolution. And this is why the Bush administration will need to show a lot of patience. The best way for Morales to placate his more extreme supporters, even as he may be letting them down on substantive issues, is by indulging in some anti-American rhetorical flourishes.

And the worst thing Washington can do, in terms of driving Morales into the embrace of Castro and Chavez, is overreact to such rhetoric. The wiser course is to respect the democratic verdict in Bolivia and allow Morales to figure out what kind of leader he wants to be.