The IMF vs Hollywood vs Bolivia vs. Iraq
To understand why the protesters were so angry, in the movie Our Brand Is Crisis, you have to separate the IMF itself from what IMF programs represented to many Bolivians.
What the movie is really saying
The film argues that:
Foreign political consultants helped elect a president.
Campaign promises were used to win votes.
Once elected, those promises were quickly abandoned.
The people—not the politicians or consultants—paid the price.
The IMF becomes the symbol of that broken promise. (However, when it became the symbol in the movie, it began a series of questions about the IMF and developing countries)
In one of the most important scenes, the candidate promises not to invite the IMF into Bolivia without first asking the people. After winning the election, he immediately begins working with the IMF, leaving many supporters feeling betrayed. (Wikipedia)
Why were Bolivians so opposed to the IMF?
The opposition didn't begin with that election.
For nearly twenty years Bolivia had accepted IMF-backed reforms.
Many of those reforms included:
Privatizing state-owned companies
Cutting government spending
Reducing subsidies
Raising utility prices
Selling national industries to foreign investors
Laying off thousands of government workers
Economists often call these structural adjustment programs.
The IMF viewed these reforms as necessary to stabilize Bolivia's economy.
Many Bolivians experienced them very differently.
From the IMF's perspective
The IMF's mission is to help countries that are facing:
inflation
debt crises
collapsing currencies
balance-of-payments problems
In exchange for loans, the IMF usually asks governments to make economic reforms intended to restore financial stability.
The IMF argues that without these reforms:
inflation gets worse,
debt grows,
currencies collapse,
investors lose confidence.
Many countries have recovered after IMF programs.
Others have struggled.
From many Bolivians' perspective
Many citizens believed:
"We keep following IMF advice, but ordinary people keep getting poorer."
They saw:
higher unemployment
higher living costs
foreign companies buying national assets
widening inequality
indigenous communities remaining poor
To them, the benefits seemed to go mostly to:
international investors
large corporations
wealthy Bolivians
rather than to working families.
The "Water War"
One event especially shaped public opinion.
In 1999–2000, Bolivia privatized the water system in the city of Cochabamba.
Water prices rose dramatically for many families.
Large protests erupted.
The government declared martial law.
Several people were killed or injured.
Eventually the privatization contract was canceled.
Although the IMF did not directly set local water prices, many Bolivians associated privatization policies with IMF-backed economic reforms, making the institution a powerful symbol of those policies. (Film Comment)
The "Gas War"
Then came another crisis.
Bolivia has enormous natural gas reserves.
Many citizens believed foreign companies were making huge profits while ordinary Bolivians remained poor.
Mass demonstrations erupted.
Dozens of protesters were killed.
President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada eventually fled the country.
These events occurred shortly after the election depicted in the documentary that inspired the film. (Rotten Tomatoes)
Was the IMF actually responsible?
This is where economists disagree.
Critics argue:
IMF policies emphasized austerity too much.
Privatization happened too quickly.
Social costs were underestimated.
Foreign corporations benefited disproportionately.
Supporters argue:
Bolivia's economy was in severe trouble before IMF involvement.
Inflation had previously reached extreme levels.
Reforms stabilized the economy.
Many problems stemmed from corruption, weak institutions, and poor implementation—not from the IMF itself.
Both perspectives have evidence behind them, which is why the debate remains active.
What the movie wants viewers to feel
The film is less about macroeconomics than about democracy.
Its central question is:
Who really governs a country?
Is it:
the voters?
elected leaders?
international lenders?
political consultants?
financial markets?
The ending suggests that political campaigns can manufacture public opinion, but they cannot erase the real economic frustrations people experience. (Wikipedia)
Why this matters in regard to Iraq and the IQD
Both Bolivia and Iraq have worked with the IMF at various times, but their situations are quite different:
Bolivia (early 2000s): The controversy centered on privatization, austerity measures, and social unrest following years of economic reforms.
Iraq (today): IMF engagement has focused more on banking reform, fiscal management, anti-money-laundering measures, and strengthening the financial system rather than large-scale privatization of state assets.
For IQD investors, IMF involvement is not automatically "good" or "bad." It generally signals that a country is pursuing reforms intended to improve financial stability and credibility, but the social and political impact depends heavily on how those reforms are designed and implemented.
