I thought it’d be interesting to look at the draft of the proposed Bolivian constitution approved a few months to see how it treats departmental autonomy.
The draft of the 2007 Bolivian Constitution addresses the issue in Articles 278-280 (departmental autonomy), Articles 281-283 (regional autonomy), Articles 284-285 (municipal autonomy), and Articles 286-289 (which deals w/ all of the above). Articles 290-297 deal w/ autonomous indigenous communities.
Article 298 is similar to the US “supremacy clause,” which grants the central government any powers not specifically given to autonomous units. Article 299 spells out the specific competencies of the central state; Article 300 spells out shared competencies. The competencies specific to autonomous units are spelled out in Article 301 (departments), Article 302 (regions), and Article 303 (municipalities). Articles 304-305 spell out that indigenous autonomous communities are treated like regions and/or municipalities. Finally, Article 306 deals w/ the issue of finances.
So what of department autonomy in the proposed constitution? Article 278 grants each department a legislature w/ “deliberative, budgetary, and legislative” powers. Article 279 states that the number of legislators will be determined by a framing law. Article 280 makes the prefect the “maximum executive authority” in the department.
The specific competencies set aside for departmental governments are 12: socioeconomic development, infrastructure, sports, highways & railways, tourism, energy & water, cultural patrimony, power to grant legal recognition to groups & organizations, social welfare, international relations on issues specific to the department, coordinating civil defense, and gender equity promotion. The department “shares” w/ the central government 14 additional competencies: inter-departmental highways & railways, ports, energy, scientific development, nature preserves, environmental protection, civil defense, culture & sports, tourism, housing, rural development, socioeconomic development, commerce promotion, industrial development & promotion.
And what of the Autonomic Statute approved recently by voters in Santa Cruz? Article 1 declares the department autonomous as “reinforcing the unity of the Republic of Bolivia.” According to Article 2 (which spells out the purpose of autonomy), the autonomic government is responsible (among other things) for promoting the culture of indigenous peoples, protecting biodiversity & the environment, and the improvement of quality of life. All of this is very similar to language found throughout the proposed constitution.
As far “competencies,” the statute specifies a whopping 43 of them. Most are similar to the 12 competencies in the constitution, but in much greater detail (e.g. it lists separately agriculture & livestock, land, animal & plant health, forest land, forest development, wildlife management, protected areas, and responsible use of environmental resources). Others are included among the shared competencies in the proposed constitution (e.g. scientific development, commerce promotion, environmental protection, culture & sports, and housing). It does, of course, grant itself some powers reserved for the central government under the proposed constitution, such as education & labor policies. Additionally, the statute “shares” some competencies w/ the central government that the proposed constitution would grant outright to the departments (e.g. gender equity promotion, civil defense, and health).
The remainder of the document spells out the internal workings of the autonomous department’s government (these are similar to the recently approved “Departmental Law Nº5” discussed in this previous post).
My conclusion is that there seems little distance, really, between the two positions. Evo’s government isn’t suis generis opposed to autonomy. Nor does the Santa Cruz statute seem a radical departure from what exists in the proposed constitution. The biggest difference is the absences of “regional” subunits mentioned in the Santa Cruz statute, though the statute does specify that provinces would elect their own sub-governors. Again, the debate seems mostly about specifics, not principles. (Or perhaps the debate isn’t about principles, but about who gets credit.)
The government recently suggested yet another referendum, this time asking voters to pick between the statute and the portions of the proposed constitution that deal w/ autonomy. It might not be a bad idea. At least then, both sides would have to make a case for their model, which could also (one hopes!) lead to some sort of civic education campaign on the issue (beyond the knee jerk polarization).
