Despite its fanfare, Bolivia’s new constitution (CPE) actually introduces only limited changes to the basic structure of Bolivia’s political system. Yes, the new CPE approved by voters a few weeks ago continues the tradition (since the 1994 CPE) of multiculturalism, participation, and decentralization. Here, however, I want to focus on the few minor changes to the legislature.
The legislature’s structure is laid out in Part Two, Title I (Articles 145-164). Most of this section deals w/ the specific powers of the legislature, which has been renamed the “Plurinational Legislative Assembly.” But the basic structure remains the same: a bicameral legislature comprised of a Chamber of Deputies and a Senate.
The number of deputies remains the same: 130 members, apportioned to the departments on the basis of their population. Roughly half of the deputies will be elected from “uninominal” (single-member) districts; the other half will be elected from party lists. In other words, Bolivia retains its MMP electoral system.
There has been much discussion about the introduction of new indigenous “special” seats in the legislature. Not quite. The indigenous seats must come from the 130 total, are limited to “rural” districts, and must be contained w/in a department. Since most indigenous candidates/parties come from rural districts in places like La Paz, this seems unlikely to change. It is possible, however, that places like Santa Cruz could see a number of rural districts carved up to represent small indigenous communities, at the expense of non-indigenous representation. This, however, seems unlikely.
The one significant change is in the Senate. Whereas previously each department had only three seats, each now has four. The exact formula for deciding how parties win seats in a 4-member district remain to be determined (thought it’s supposed to be a “proportional” formula). But what is clear is that Media Luna departments will become even more disproportionately overrepresented in the legislature.
What we have then, in the new “Plurinational Legislative Assembly” is basically just a name change. Rural SMDs were already de facto “indigenous” seats; now that is merely recognized officially. On the other hand, the size of the Senate increases, giving slightly more weight to eastern departments.
One of the original MAS proposals called for a unicameral, all-SMD legislature, w/ additional “special” seats for each of the country’s indigenous communities. If anything, the new legislature actually offers significant protections to established interests. Interesting.
Sorry, I don't understand how increasing the size of the Senate increases the Media Luna's overrepresentation. Doesn't it still have with 44% of the total Sentate seats?
I am curious as to how senators are elected now. U.S.-style winner take all? Argentine-style winner-gets-two/runnerup-gets-one? Mexican-style P.R.?
@Noel: You're right, strictly speaking the Media Luna retains its share of seats in the Senate. But in the overall legislature, it is now slightly more overrepresented. The Media Luna contains about a third of the country's population, but holds more than 40% of the country's legislative seats.
As for how senators are currently elected: They're elected w/ a semi-plurality system. Each department has three seats. The party w/ the most votes in each department wins TWO, the second place party gets ONE. Historically, this has benefited the parties that tend to do well in the Media Luna (related to my comment about overrepresentation). For example, despite winning a significant plurality in 2005, MAS holds FEWER seats in the Senate than PODEMOS.
Does it really matter what the constitution says, if it gets violated? He has already violated the law to achieve his goals. Why would he respect this constitution if it gets in his way?
Is it your understanding that these rural “indigenous” seats must be equivalent in size to the other seats in the department or can a 300 member ethnic group get a seat?
@dv: Actually, that is a great question. No, it's not settled at all whether indigenous seats need to be of the same "size" as others. Santa Cruz is an interesting example: One option would be to give every single indigenous "nation" a district seat, subtracting them from the department's total. Another option would be to lump some (or all) of these groups into a few (or one) special seat, leaving the rest relatively untouched. I suspect the latter will be done, rather than the former. But the specific seat apportionments and any necessary redistricting is yet to be done (it will require separate laws, which have not yet been passed) in time for the December 2009 general elections.
Miguel
Does the new law say exactly how many indigenous seats are to be set aside of the 130, and is that number be a good proxy for the number of indigenous MPs in the chamber over all?
AndyReynolds
@AR: The new electoral law isn't finalized, yet. So it's unclear how many will be set aside. But my guess is that it will coincide w/ the indigenous MPs elected in 2002/2005, though w/ some new seats for indigenous MPs from rural parts of places like Santa Cruz. But this is still somewhat speculative.