I’m Miguel Centellas, a political science professor at Mount St. Mary’s University. Because of academic interests, I post frequently on Bolivian politics. I also occasionally discuss interesting books, pop culture, and daily life in Baltimore.
Bolivia’s politics shifted south this weekend. Evo suspended a planned trip to the Sucre (on the 199th anniversary of Bolivia’s “declaration of independence”1) after university students & other local groups mobilized in opposition.
Sucre was the site of violent confrontations last December, as pro-government constituent assembly delegates were deliberating a final draft—w/o opposition delegates (who, depending on who you ask, were either boycotting the deliberations or prevented from attending them). Since then, Chuquisaca’s2 MAS prefect was forced to step down, as a regional movement burst to the forefront. Long dormant tensions between Sucre & La Paz resurfaced.3 Recently, Chuquisaca civic leaders wrested assurances from Evo’s government that it would allow residents to elect their new prefect (constitutionally, the president is still empowered to simply name & dismiss prefects). The end result is that Sucre/Chuquisaca has moved decisively into the opposition camp.
As in other parts of the country, the movements are polarizing now into urban vs. rural fronts. The conflict in Sucre this weekend was described as a clash between (urban) university students & rural campesinos. But this is complicated by the fact that Bolivia has in recent decades become significantly more “urban” (between one half & two thirds of the population today lives in “urban” communities). This means that many urban residents have “rural” ties. But it also means that “urban Bolivia” is today larger, more diverse, and more politically powerful than is “rural Bolivia.”
All this adds further tension as Bolivia looks forward to more autonomy referendums in Beni, Pando, and Tarija, a prefectural election in Chuquisaca, and a recall referendum on all national offices (including the presidency).
---- 1 The city of Sucre (then called Chuquisaca) was the site of one of the earliest declarations of independence in Latin America, w/ the “grito libertario” of May 25, 1809. From 1809 until 1825, various Bolivian guerrilla forces (either loosely under the command of José de San Martín or completely independently) fought against Spanish royalist forces. In 1825-1826, Simón Bolívar’s forces, under the command of Antonio José de Sucre, marched into Alto Peru (present day Bolivia) & began forging a new state: Bolivia. 2 Sucre is the capital of Chuquisaca department. 3 Until the 1899 Federal War, Sucre was Bolivia’s capital (it’s still the “constitutional” capital, La Paz is the “political” capital). But unlike Santa Cruz (and to a lesser extent, Tarija), Sucre/Chuquisaca hadn’t previously had a widespread, popular regionalist movement.
Evo suspended the trip fearing an escalation in violence after university youth (Sucre has a prominent FSB) assaulted and publicly humiliated campesinos in Sucre's central plaza, arriving to receive central funds for their rural municipalities. As you know, the rural-urban divide in Bolivia is as much about geography as it is about race. These events and those last year underscore how racism still plays an important role in Bolivian politics.
Posted by
D.Beaulieu
May 26, 2008 12:02 AM
Beaulieu: Absolutely correct, of course. But I would change "race" to "ethnicity" (which I think is a bit more precise). Our conceptions of race are too static, while ethnicity is much more openly viewed as malleable & as a social construction.
Race is a fictitious contruct and imprecise, but that does not mean that there is not racism across broad racial groups like the indian and non-indian divide. It is hard to say ethnicism. I know you disapprove of that duality analysis Miguel because it is imprecise, but it seems to manifest itself repeatedly and harshly. Like the recent events in Sucre where non-indians beat-up indian women and old men, took about 50 indians hostage, hurled racial slurs at them, made them disrobe in the central plaza and beg forgiveness from the city, and proclaim Sucre the capital. Such hostility and ruthlessness seems to go beyond a mere rural-uban divide. Though that dichotomy is instructive and the increased mixing of rural and urban that you describe is completely correct. Nonetheless, deep seated sentiments about the city as the bastion of "civilization" (their design was deliberately meant to promulgate a western ordering of society) and the view of indians as un-welcome, uncivilized invaders is a historical and contemporary conception and one based on ethnicity.
Posted by
Miguel de los Shanqueros
May 26, 2008 12:22 PM
My husband is a pastor and is at this moment in Cochabamba. Did this event have any effect on Cochabamba?
Posted by
Mary Jo
May 27, 2008 1:23 AM
No effect (except dismay). Bolivia is overall a pretty safe place, though the car/bus rides can be scary.
Posted by
John
May 27, 2008 6:55 AM
Shanqueros: My argument against the impression is in part because observers foment those divisions by reducing them. Again, ethnicity (which is a term I prefer to "race") is a social construct—but a large part of that construction happens in media. We come be believe were are "X" because (in large part) of a repeated reminder that we are "X." Another problem is that terms like race tend to be used more to homogenize a large group than necessary. Bolivia's "indigenous" population does not belong to one race—it doesn't even belong to one ethnic group. Beyond the two major highland language groups (Quechua & Ayamra), the various communities are historically made up of different ethnic communities. Failure to recognize that—and the divisions w/in & between those communities—does more harm than good. Likewise the "city" is not homogenous. Not even the middle classes (notice it's plural) are homogenous.
I see what you are saying Miguel and you make good points. There is though a pan-indigenous movement which seeks to self-identify as such, and engage in solidarity efforts with other indians. So it is not entirely imposed from the media or the outside. We could also turn that scrutiny to the east and the Nacion Camba. Is that a ficticious identity imposed in a similar fashion to create a false dichotomy with the highland "other" and exacerbate antagonism?
Posted by
Miguel de los Shanqueros
May 27, 2008 7:38 PM
Shanqueros: Yes, a pan-indigenous movement has been growing since at least the 1970s (you can read about it in various sources, I recommend Xavier Albó). In the 1970s, it was mostly a katarista movement (Aymara-dominated, but also increasingly Quechua as well). Since the mid/late 1980s, it a parallel lowland movement (spearheaded by CIDOB) also emerged. In the 1990s, these movements converged (though there is still a notable highland/lowland schism, just as there is still a milder Aymara/Quechua schism). But these were deliberate constructions by indingenous elites, as well as by middle class intellectuals (like Alvaro García Linera).
You've given me a good idea for a longer, more theoretical post to follow soon ...
