FOR BOLIVIAN VICTOR, A POWERFUL MANDATE

POPULIST FACES PRACTICAL CONSTRAINTS

The sweeping if unofficial victory of Evo Morales in Bolivia's
presidential election Sunday has made the former coca farmer and
grass-roots activist the nation's strongest elected leader since the
end of the last military dictatorship in 1982 and has given him an
unprecedented opportunity to transform the impoverished Andean country.

The question, say both Bolivian and U.S. observers, is whether the
socialist candidate will use that mandate to follow through on
pledges for radical economic and political change -- pledges that won
him support among indigenous and poor voters -- or whether he can
demonstrate enough pragmatism to reassure foreign governments and
investors, whose support he needs for economic development.

Morales, 46, is a fiery politician and an Aymara Indian who
electrified Bolivia's poor but struck fear into the business elite
and irritated officials in Washington by opposing U.S. anti-drug
programs and spouting anti-imperialist rhetoric. Whichever path he
chooses, his victory stands to resonate far beyond the small,
landlocked nation with a history of military coups and wobbly
civilian governments.

"Morales faces a very difficult balancing act," said Michael Shifter,
an analyst with Inter-American Dialog, a nonprofit institute in
Washington. "There is a lot of rage and resentment in Bolivia, and as
a candidate he has capitalized on that. But now, in order to govern
successfully and keep the country economically viable, he has to
reach out to all sectors and show signs of moderation, while
convincing his supporters he hasn't sold them out."

As Morales joins a growing list of elected Latin American presidents
generally described as leftist or populist, he has two basic models
from which to choose. One is that of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who
has gleefully defied the Bush administration, formed a warm alliance
with Cuba's Fidel Castro and cracked down on domestic opponents in
the name of social change. The other is that of Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva of Brazil, who has developed disciplined fiscal policies, left
democratic institutions intact and avoided alienating the United
States, all while forwarding broad social programs to help the poor.

"The old threat in Latin America was that of military coups. The new
threat is that of authoritarian democracies -- leaders who get
elected and then use the state to repress opponents, push through
social change and stay in power," said Bernard Aronson, an
international consultant in Washington and a former State Department
official. "That is what Chavez is doing, and what Lula is not doing,"
he said. "The big question is, which way will Evo Morales go?"

Morales defeated pro-business candidate Jorge Quiroga, a former
president who conceded the election late Sunday after unofficial
returns showed Morales with 45 percent of the vote. Officially he
needed more than 50 percent to win, and the ultimate decision still
rests with Congress, but Quiroga's concession appeared to cement the results.

Until now, Morales has cultivated an image that is far closer to
Chavez than Lula. He has promised to nationalize Bolivia's largely
untapped natural gas reserves, has ardently opposed U.S. drug
eradication programs that have relied heavily on aerial
herbicide-spraying, and invoked the populist rhetoric of
anti-imperialism. During a recent economic conference in Argentina,
he joined Chavez in a protest rally outside while President Bush met
with other Latin American leaders inside.

On Sunday, he repeated some of his more provocative assertions,
saying he would never accept a relationship of "submission" with
Washington. Yesterday, he stepped up his criticism of U.S. anti-drug
programs, telling reporters in the city of Cochabamba that "the fight
against drug trafficking is a false pretext for the United States to
install military bases, and we are not in agreement."

Morales, who gained recognition as an indigenous leader of coca
farmers in Bolivia's Chapare region, has insisted on the distinction
between the traditional farming and use of coca leaf, and the
processing and trafficking of cocaine and other illegal drugs.
American anti-drug officials seek to continue programs to destroy
coca crops and have pushed for a closer relationship with security forces.

There was no immediate comment from the Bush administration on
Morales's apparent victory, but one official who requested anonymity
said: "We're keeping an open mind about it. We want to make it work,
but it depends on what decisions they make, what policies they
decide." A statement issued by the State Department Sunday said
relations would depend on the "convergence of our interests, and that
includes counter-narcotics issues."

In Venezuela, officials said yesterday that they were "very pleased
and satisfied" with Morales's victory but would "not get involved" in
Bolivian affairs. "We do not intend to manipulate Evo Morales or any
other person" in Bolivia, said Jose Vicente Rangel, Venezuela's vice president.

Some observers said the Bush administration could serve U.S. and
regional interests best by seeking compromise with Morales rather
than responding harshly to his anti-U.S. pronouncements and
inadvertently shoving him toward the embrace of Chavez and Castro.
They noted that he will face demands from his grass-roots
constituents to deliver on social promises, and that U.S. ostracism
could make it harder for him to appease them.

One Bolivian business leader, Carlos Kempff, noted worriedly
yesterday that some of Morales's radical supporters were already
threatening to defect if he did not make major policy changes within
90 days. If that happens, the businessman said, Morales could face
the same destabilizing pressures that have brought down Bolivia's
past three elected presidents.

"Morales's major policies give the U.S. pause, but he has a tightrope
to walk, and it would be unwise to isolate and push him," said John
M. Walsh, an analyst with the Washington Office on Latin America, a
nonprofit advocacy group. "If the U.S. wants to play rough, he has
other options for aid and patronage." But if good relations develop,
Walsh suggested, the United States could help Bolivia develop from a
poor, coca-dependent economy to a gas-exporting one.

Several analysts said Morales will also come under pressure from such
Latin American democracies as Brazil and Argentina to adopt more
practical approaches to issues such as natural gas development. They
noted that Bolivia is far poorer and has less infrastructure than
Venezuela, where record oil revenues have allowed Chavez to fund
social programs.

"Foreign investment in Bolivia has diminished significantly, and I
suspect Morales's election will further deter it until the rules of
the game have been established," said Aronson. "But he has already
backed off a little on the rhetoric suggesting he would nationalize
everything, and he will discover that without foreign investment, he
won't be able to build the infrastructure to move the gas. This will
really be a test of his pragmatism."