The government and the Ombudsman’s office separately rejected the statements of the President of the Pro Santa Cruz Citizens’ Committee, Rómulo Calvo, against wiphala and viewed them as racist and discriminatory statements.
“A rag does nothing, a rag does not represent us,” were the words of the Santa Cruz citizen on the day of the confirmation of the national symbol organized by social organizations of the Movement for Socialism (MAS) across the country.
On the Twitter account of the Ministry of Justice and Institutional Transparency, the head of this state department, Iván Lima, questioned Calvo’s statements and considered this to be “somewhat unacceptable”.
“Minister @ivanlimamagne regarding the gross disqualification of the President of the Pro Santa Cruz Citizens’ Committee against the Wiphala:” It’s a little unacceptable. We have to explain to Mr. (Rómulo) Calvo that the national symbols represent the unity of the Bolivian people (sic), it says in the publication.
They issued a statement from the Ombudsman expressing concern that they are attempting to attribute the use of the Wiphala as a party flag “in terms of their origin, descent and symbolism, in order to adopt a discriminatory and racist discourse that aims to disqualify them “.
He recalled that since its origins in the Indianist and Qatarista movements to this day, this flag has been a symbol of the resistance of the nations and the indigenous indigenous peasant people and a national symbol enshrined in the political constitution of the state.
“In this sense, the disqualification of the Wiphala and the arson as a rag is an act of discrimination, as noted in their report by the Ombudsman and the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI-Bolivia),” the document adds.
The Santa Cruz citizen also called “ungrateful” those who came to Santa Cruz from other departments in search of better days and demanded not to be “sent” by the government in mobilizations like the one this Tuesday.
The Ombudsman’s office recalled that the 2019 crisis marked a rupture in Bolivian democracy and called on the various public opinion, political and civil society actors not to re-ignite “the open wounds” in Bolivian society.