Santa Cruz, Bolivia will head to the polls today in a department-wide referendum on a controversial autonomic statute, which would grant more administrative and economic powers to the state government. Not every Cruceño (resident of the department) will participate, however, as many share the opinion of the central government that the referendum is illegal and unconstitutional. The department electoral court is pushing forward with the referendum, without the backing of the national electoral court, and brings into question the legitmacy of the results, even though the referendum is expected to pass. The leaders of the referendum, primarily comprised of the departmental governor, members of the civic committee, and businessmen, with the support of a large percentage of the population say that the referendum is necessary. It is the response to the government's unwillingness to incorporate autonomy in the new Constitution. An earlier referendum two years ago overwhelmingly passed where Santa Cruz and three other departments voted “yes” on autonomy. However, the results of what that referendum actually meant were vague and open to interpretation and should have theoretically been part of the Constitutent Assembly. The proposed new Constitution does not go far enough with these demands according to civic leaders and opened the door to push forward on their own terms. Photo of campaign for “yes” vote in the referendum taken by Aka_Lusi and used under a Creative Commons license Critics claim that the new referendum on autonomy is a way for the rich and powerful to gain increased control and increased revenues from the natural resources. In addition, the statute would help resist further land redistribution, as many of the referendum leaders are large landowners. Others point out that the statute does not recognize or include many indigenous immigrates who have played a large role in the department's development. Finally, others point to words from the departmental governor, Ruben Costas, who said that the referendum will “give birth to a new republic.” These two contrary positions raises fears that supporters of the national government and backers of the autonomic statute may clash during referendum day. However, bloggers are hoping for peace no matter where they stand on the issue. Miguel Centellas of Pronto* provides some thoughts on the Referendum, as well as a bit of history on the issue at hand. Carlos Gustavo Machicado of Guccio's [es] prefers not to use the word “autonomy” because it reminds him of university autonomy, which “the only thing that has done is foment inefficiency, bureaucracy and corruption within the public places of higher education.” However, there are plenty of bloggers who are supporting and openly demonstrating their intention to vote “Yes.” Andres Pucci is in favor of some of the decentralization aspects [es] of the autonomic statute. Si un sindicato quiere personería jurídica, debe enviar a La Paz todo; si una empresa quiere aprobar su reglamento interno, debe enviar a La Paz todo; si un estudiante quiere defender su tesis, debe enviar a La Paz todo y esperar mas de 6 meses con la tesis aprobada por los revisores; si un profesional quiere sacar su título debe viajar a La Paz, pagar mas de 4 salarios mínimos, esperar 6 meses y volver a viajar para recogerlo. If a union wants to receive legal representation, they must send everything to La Paz; if a business wants to approve their internal regulations, they must sent everything to La Paz; if a student wants to defend their thesis, they must send everything to La Paz and wait six months for the thesis to be approved by the reviewers; if a professional wants to get their diploma, they must travel to La Paz, pay the equivalent of 4 months of minimum salary, wait 6 months and return to pick it up. One of the arguments against the autonomic statute is that it will cause a division within the country and that it could cause secession. Sebastian Molina of Plan B [es] categorically denies this argument and points to a recent inteview on CNN with President Evo Morales. Molina points to when “Patricia Janiot (CNN anchor) asked him what proof he had to show that there were separatist intentions in Santa Cruz, the president said that he had them but it would be best not to talk about that. The interview ended there, he had no arguments.” Even though it is expected that the “Yes” vote will win in Santa Cruz, many bloggers from Santa Cruz are criticizing the process and attitudes of some of the referendum's leaders.