3 Decades of Bolivian History

From Military Dictatorships
to Evo Morales Populism

Three Decades of Intense Bolivian History
Raúl Peñaranda, editor and coordinator

From Military Dictatorships
to Evo Morales populism

Página Siete Ed.
www.paginasiete.bo
Raúl Peñaranda
La Paz, Bolivia
Legal Deposit
Copyright ©, 2014
All rights reserved
From Military Dictatorships to Evo Morales populism,

Raúl Peñaranda, editor, coordinator

Judy Norton, English editor, proofreader
Adrienne Ross, English translator
Aldo Sánchez, graphic designer
David Mercado, cover photo
Special thanks to Alan Shave
Published originally in Spanish as “30 años de democracia en Bolivia”, Página Siete, La Paz,
2012, 333 pages.
Editor of the Spanish version: Raúl Peñaranda; coordinators: Isabel Mercado, Boris Miranda
and Clara Berríos.
The Spanish version had the support of UNIR Bolivia, Foundation CDC, Friedrich Ebert
Foundation, Hanns Seidel Foundation, and International Institute for Democracy and Electoral
Assistance, IDEA. None of those institutions is responsible for any part of the book content.
Contents
Foreword 1
Chapter 1: From Military Governments to Evo Morales years 5

1977–1985: Transition between Dictatorships and Democracy, Lupe Cajías 7
1986–1999: Stability and Liberal Reforms, Guimer Zambrana Salas 14
2000–2005: Unrest and Protest for Change, Andrés Gómez Vela 22
2006–2012: The reform years, Ilya Fortún 30
Chapter 2: The pendulum of public versus private ownership and the

hesitant economic performance, Fernando Molina 37
Chapter 3: The perennial political stability-instability

cycle, Boris Miranda 65
Chapter 4: Paradoxical revolution, evaluating the Evo Morales

administration, César Rojas Ríos 87
Chapter 5: Bolivia: A Democracy in Dynamic Development, a

Chronicle About a Struggle of Ideologists, Rafael Archondo 103
Chapter 6: Perspectives on Three Historical Decades 127

Social Demands, Abdel Padilla 129
Conflict and Democracy, César Rojas Ríos 136
The 1952 National Revolution, Decentralization and Democracy,
Moira Zuazo 145
Plurinationality and Education, María Soledad Quiroga 152
Women and Congress, Eduardo Leaño Román 160
Andean Indigenous Peoples, Esteban Ticona Alejo 164
Amazonian Indigenous Peoples, Elba Flores Gonzales 171
The Highlands: Land and Territory, Gonzalo Colque 177
Participation and Political Parties, Renata Hoffmann 184
Citizenship, Marlene Choque Aldana 190
The Mass Media, Isabel Mercado 196
Culture and Arts, Martín Zelaya Sánchez 204
To my parents,
Rafael and María Elena.
I owe them so much
Foreword
I
n 2012 Bolivia achieved thirty years of democracy. In a country characterized
by political instability and a lack of political institutions, this achievement is
truly extraordinary. The greatest significance of this triumph is that Bolivians
were able to overcome long-standing traditions and a series of obstacles to agree
on basic social and political principles necessary to coexist.
That year Página Siete daily newspaper, with the support of institutions com-
mitted to the development of democracy1, decided to publish a book to recount
that thirty-year period. The accounts presented in the text were written by leading
journalists and essayists in the country, addressing topics from several perspectives.
The articles are balanced and in-depth, based on objective information. Collectively,
their view of the Bolivian situation was many-sided and complex.
In my capacity as editor of Página Siete, I edited the resulting book: 30 Años
de Democracia en Bolivia (30 Years of Bolivian Democracy).
It was an unusual success – in La Paz the first edition was sold out in just
few days. The digital edition has also been extensively downloaded from the web.
Encouraged by this success, Página Siete determined to publish the book in
English in order for it to reach a broader international audience. It has been improved
and updated since the Spanish version in several ways: the structure of the chapters
is changed for easier reading, a section was added so that the text could begin with
the transition period between military dictatorships and democracy and two more
chapters were included to update the content and to present a better analysis of the
Morales government. Also, some sections deemed less interesting for the international
reader were removed, while others were summarized and shortened.
1 Those institutions are: Foundation UNIR Bolivia, Foundation CDC, Friedrich Ebert Foundation,
Hanns Seidel Foundation, and International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, IDEA.
None of those institutions mentioned is responsible for any part of the book content.
The editors and coordinators of the Spanish book were Raúl Peñaranda, Isabel Mercado, Boris Mi-
randa and Clara Berríos.
[1]
- From Military Dictatorships to Evo Morales populism, Three Decades of Intense Bolivian History -
Prior to this era, which began in 1982, the longest democratic stretch on
record was more than a century ago. During that liberal time, five presidents were
successively elected by vote over twenty-one years. Today, nonetheless, Bolivians
have already achieved a third more years of democratic stability than in that era.
There are, however, some crucial differences between these two significant
democratic periods. For instance, during the first liberal era, (and in reality,
throughout Bolivian history, before the adoption of universal suffrage in 1956)
only literate males who owned property had the right to vote.
Although exercising the right to vote in a free and informed manner is the
principle requirement of a democracy, other conditions must be met in order for
a society to be considered democratic. This is achieved when all government and
individual actions are regulated by a legal system. This creates a society that respects
human activities. The power of the State, therefore, is subordinate to the rule of law.
Even though Bolivia demonstrates various aspects of democracy mentioned,
rule of law remains incomplete and partial.
There are many examples illustrating this over the past three decades in Bolivia.
Perhaps the most important instances are long-term abuse of the law by some
sectors of society. This includes entrenched corruption and the inability of the
State to fight it, collusion between those in power and the judicial system, and
violation of human rights.
Thus Bolivian democracy was vibrant, but also had many faults, before 2006
when President Evo Morales came into power. He brought with him a series of
significant political, social and cultural reforms.
Morales’s rise to power meant a significant change for Bolivia, in that it ended
almost two centuries of republican rule in which the participation of the indigenous
people was limited and inconsistent. For a start, there had never been a Head of
State who was (or would have declared him or herself ) an indigenous person. The
symbolic power of this has been enormous, and it has enriched Bolivia’s democracy.
There has also been a positive and encouraging change in the political elite that
has helped to promote social mobility and the inclusion of big sectors of Bolivian
society that had in the past generally been excluded from decision-making.
But also, under the presidency of Evo Morales, the Bolivian State continues
to be unable to enforce the rule of law with full separation of powers, protect the
[2]
- Foreword -
freedom of the press, and ensure a free and independent judiciary.

On the contrary, some of the undemocratic traits of the Bolivian State are
now stronger, showing frightening signs of authoritarian and abusive behavior.
Today (2014) the most important opposition leaders are on trial for politi-
cally motivated charges; hundreds of Bolivians live in Brazil and other countries
as refugees or as asylum seekers – a novel situation in the Bolivian democracy; the
independent press and journalists are under huge pressure from the government;
opposition leaders are detained without trial in public prisons for much longer
than permitted by law; and the electoral courts are progressively losing their inde-
pendence.
Also, Morales violated his own new Constitution and organized elections to
allow him to stand for a third term (2015–2020). Some congressmen from his
party are now asking Morales to enable indefinite reelection.
This book covers all these topics. Página Siete is sure this text will become a ref-
erence for scholars and specialists, and will also be of interest to the general public.
Raul Peñaranda, Editor

Raul Peñaranda is a journalist, and former editor-in-chief of Página Siete.
[3]
Chapter 1
From Military Governments
to Evo Morales years
Foto: Lucio Flores
A group of soldiers control a La Paz street after Colonel Alberto

Natusch Busch executed a bloody coup d’état in 1979.
1977–1985: Transition between Dictatorships
and Democracy
Lupe Cajías2
I
n 1977, during the Hugo Banzer dictatorship (1971–1978), four miner’s wives
started a hunger strike that unexpectedly attracted huge support, and after a few
months forced the regime to call for general elections, decree a wide-ranging
political amnesty that allowed many exiled political activists to return to Bolivia,
and halt criminal trials against opposition leaders. In 1978 all political parties par-
ticipated in the polls. The elections were annulled when massive fraud organized
by the military came to light. Between 1978 and 1980, three elections were held
(1978, 1979 and 1980), three military coups occurred (two in 1978 and one in
1979) and the country experienced mass popular protests as well as the defection
of some generals, colonels and majors. Between 1980 and 1982 two more military
coups took place. Finally power was handed over to civilian hands on October 10,
1982. At the time most of the region was led by military regimes, all supported
by the US government.
The Bolivian people were the first to fight for and win their democracy, set-
ting the tone for regional change. Furthermore, the Group of Four was formed
(Mexico, Venezuela, Panamá and Colombia, the four democratic governments
of the region), later known as the expanded Group of Eight and much later,
the influential Rio Group. They worked hard to bring international attention to
North-South tensions instead of it being dominated by the East-West conflict,
as presented by Reagan in the context of the Cold War. The organization’s first
tasks were to initiate presidential summits to find ways to bring peace to Central
America and the Caribbean, and to press for democratic elections in the Southern
Cone. Bolivia joined the group in 1982.
One of the strongest members of the group was the Conference of Political
Parties of Latin America (COPPLA), linked to the social democratic organization
2 Lupe Cajías is a journalist and historian
[7]
Socialist International, in which Bolivian Vice President Jaime Paz had influence.
The Group of Four and the international work of the Jaime Paz party (MIR,
Revolutionary Leftist Movement) were essential to the restoration of democracy
in Bolivia and to garnering immediate external support. Europe, particularly the
social democratic governments, supported Bolivia both politically and economically
through state aid, political foundations and large NGO networks.
Still, democratic Bolivia was surrounded by military governments, even
though they may have been weakened after Argentina lost the Falklands War, and
Brazil was slowly becoming more democratic.
The Condor Plan, a horrific regional program to eradicate communist and
leftist leaders and suppress active or potential opposition movements against dicta-
torships, was failing. Many political refugees from Argentina, Chile and Uruguay
sought safety in Bolivia while their countries slowly moved towards democracy.
It is important to remember that at this point two major events recalibrated
the global order post-World War II. First was the victory of Solidarity, the trade
union in Poland, homeland of Pope John Paul II, who was opposed to Liberation
Theology. Second was the fall of Iran’s Shah Pahlavi and the victory of radical
Islamists, which led to the 1979 American hostage crisis in Tehran, the Iran-Iraq
war (in which the US supported the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein), and the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan.
The world had changed, and the end of the Cold War was on the horizon.
Other political actors began to emerge and ethnic issues started to outweigh social
class struggles.
Democracy starts in 1982
The democratic era began in 1982 with hopes that individuals would be able to
exercise full civil liberties, despite the threat of an economic collapse, after 18 years
of military rule and five of economic crisis.
While some of the authors of this book might use examples like decreased
exports and the dismantling of the state capitalism model used since 1952 National
Revolution, it must be born in mind that the 1980s were a ‘lost decade’ for eco-
nomic, industrial and social development in most of the so-called third world
[8]
- From Military Governments to Evo Morales years -
Presencia daily, La Paz, October 7, 1982

Paz Estenssoro will not attend the birth of democracy
Former President Victor Paz Estens- yesterday via cable from Tarija city
soro (1952–1956 and 1960–1964) wrote, “Honored and grateful for
reported to Congress that due to the invitation from the first power of
health reasons, he will not attend the state. I regret that for health reasons,
presidential inauguration of Hernán I cannot immediately travel to La
Siles on October 10, 1982. Paz, thus am prevented from attend-
Paz welcomed the invitation extended ing this solemn act that perpetuates
to him by the National Congress, and democratic life.”
countries. The global debt crisis affected everyone, especially nations dependent
on foreign markets, like Bolivia. Without taking this into account, it’s impossible
to understand the overwhelming challenges the country faced as it began its tran-
sition to democracy on October 10, 1982.
It’s important also to remember the obstacles the United States and Europe
had set up, intended to negatively affect Luis Garcia Meza’s de facto government
(1980-81) and those of his military successors (1981-82). Many aid programs had
been cut, especially in healthcare and agriculture. Bolivia’s instability was further
aggravated by the misappropriation of public funds for the benefit of individuals,
groups, and the military, at the expense of development or social care.
The needs of small -or medium- scale farmers were almost completely ignored
and development programs like cotton farming projects in the lowlands, or sugar
cane farming north of La Paz, had already failed. At the time, agribusiness and large
scale production was in its infancy. No contracts had yet been made to supply Brazil
with natural gas (this was crucial two decades later). Trade relations with Argentina
faced political challenges: while the Argentine military junta had directly assisted
Bolivian fascists, the relationship did not extend to viable economic relations.
The currency exchange rate was an indicator of growing inflation. Moreover,
large-scale smuggling grew and income from coca-cocaine distorted statistical data
(a phenomenon that lasted three more decades.) During this period street market
[9]
areas like ‘Miamicito’ (Little Miami) flourished in La Paz, with people gathering
to buy tons of bootleg merchandise.
This then is a snapshot of the prevailing economic environment when the gov-
ernment of the UDP (Popular Democratic Unity) and its leftist leaders, Hernán
Siles and Jaime Paz, were sworn in as the first dual ticket elected by the polls
since 1964.
At a mass rally in front of the San Francisco Cathedral, Siles promised to end
the economic crisis within 100 days.
Although President Siles and Vice President Paz Zamora projected the image
of being a united front, it was well known that they were divided over the proper
way to deal with external partnerships, as well as how to confront the remaining
members of the former dictatorship. Siles, and his MNRI party (Nationalist Revo-
lutionary Leftist Movement), a faction of the MNR, began to distrust Paz Zamora
due to his prominence in international forums.
There were also complaints about Paz Zamora’s relationship with military
leaders, still in their posts, who had been involved in failed coup attempts against
Garcia Meza.
The representation of ministers in the UDP was divided between the Siles and
Paz Zamora factions (the strongest) plus other minor interests like the pro-Soviet
PCB (Communist Party of Bolivia) and the MPLN (National People’s Liberation
Movement).
In contrast, the unions and other workers’ associations that initially supported
the government were locked in fierce internal battles.
Another difference between the President’s and Vice President’s parties was
how to manage the governmental transition process. Siles wanted to disregard the
results from the poll held in 1980 and hold another election, with the intention
that a new vote would give his coalition more parliamentary support (and thus
avoid a hostile opposition majority in Congress). The Vice President believed that
Bolivia’s democracy was still too fragile and that many in the military wanted to
retain power, like their Argentine counterparts. Paz Zamora knew that in order
to succeed he should take advantage of any loopholes during negotiations with
the armed forces. Thus he pushed that the elected government be accepted, even
without a Congress majority.
[ 10 ]
- From Military Governments
to Evo Morales years -
Subsequent events proved that Siles (and not his Vice President) was right. The
parliamentary opposition made the administration ungovernable. The opposition
was made up of two major right-wing parties. These were the MNR, (Nationalist
Revolutionary Movement), in the fifties a leftist movement, and ADN (Nationalist
Democratic Action), founded in 1978 by former dictator Banzer to defend his
interests. Banzer and the historic head of MNR, Víctor Paz Estenssoro, were the
most important leaders heading to the elections after Siles’ term.
The left had lost an important leader, socialist Marcelo Quiroga, who was the
first person killed by the Garcia Meza regime on July 17, 1980. His parliamentary
presence, although small, was a powerful voice.
Other extreme leftist factions had tried since 1978, without success, to offer
alternatives in the elections. Instead, small leftist and anarchist parties had signifi-
cant representation in the COB (Bolivian Union Federation) led by Juan Lechín,
a miners’ leader and adversary of Siles for decades. Lechín had been the legendary
head of the great miners’ union since 1944, and had distanced himself from the
MNR and Siles since 1963. He was well supported by the small PRIN (Revo-
lutionary Party of the National Left), the anarcho-syndicalists and some radical
parties. Since the 1950s and through to the seventies, the COB, together with
its core membership, the Federation of Working Miners of Bolivia, constituted a
kind of ‘dual power’ challenging the State.
After democracy was regained in 1982, the COB presented a list of demands
that the government could not meet. Union workers had fought, some even clan-
destinely, and had been persecuted, for a democracy that would tackle bread-and-
butter issues. Now they saw that their old employers and businessmen linked to
the dictatorship took advantage of the economic crisis to grow richer. Moreover,
the demands accentuated inflation, which was the highest in the region’s history
and worse than that of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. This exacerbated the
mood of the already-discontented public opinion.
There are different interpretations of the confrontation between the unions
and the democratic government that was presented as left-leaning. Some historians
call attention to the critical situation of the workers and artisans, who were tired
of waiting for solutions. Others blame the COB for the rapid decline of the UDP
and the inevitable result: the recovery of the right.
[ 11 ]
In addition to the decline, the de-dollarization decreed by MIR Minister

Ernesto Araníbar further aggravated the economic crisis, due to the loss of the sav-
ings of the middle class and speculation in food staples. All this led to a dangerous
climate of hunger and civil strikes. Cabinet changes were not enough to change the
course of the Government. Siles looked tired, and oblivious to the dynamics of the
changing times. The situation had been very different in his first term – in 1956.
The President himself joined a hunger strike as a way of pressuring the unions
to curb the protests. But even more dramatic was his kidnapping by a group of
young military officers in one of the most absurd episodes of the new democracy.
Although the conspirators appeared to be an isolated group that then fled to
Argentina, they also revealed latent military threats against the civilian government.
Confusion and chaos were widespread. Neither the political actors, nor the
social leaders had a strategy for fulfilling their roles in a democracy.
‘Journeys of March’
The eruption of social conflicts, hunger strikes, worker walkouts and marches
outnumbered any in Bolivia’s history. Protesters, called ‘savages’, originated in the
banking sector, and spread later into the public service and among health workers.
The protests spread to several Bolivian cities, and to factories and mines. In March
1985, the workers of the State mining company, Comibol, decided to voice their
complaints at the center of the city of La Paz, Bolivian seat of government.
The workers attended daily demonstrations with their families. They were sup-
ported by other labor groups. The demonstrations even included setting dynamite
explosions and the actions almost shut down the government. The protests were
called the ‘Journeys of March’. The tension precipitated a meeting between top polit-
ical leaders who agreed to bring forward general elections for mid-1985. As right-
wing parties were strengthened, the UDP fell apart and the MIR became divided.
In 1985 the MNR won the elections under the leadership of Paz Estenssoro,
who started his forth presidency and reached a political agreement with ADN,
so winning governance and control of the Parliament. In August that year, Paz
Estenssoro signed the famous ‘Supreme Decree 21060’ that became a comprehen-
sive economic plan to modify the structure inherited from the 1950s. The country
[ 12 ]
adopted wide-ranging free market policies.

The fall in the market value of tin, (vital for the Bolivian economy), forced
the dismissal of thousands of miners, factory closures and the privatization of State
enterprises and utilities. This began a new phase in Bolivian history, the start of
which can be pinpointed as the failure of the ‘March for Life’ in August 1986
– the last effort by the mining proletariat to change the government’s economic
course. The State miners said goodbye to their former prominence and passed
their banners to a new leadership.
Adverse Legacies
Bolivian democracy began with two adverse legacies. The one with most impact
involved drug trafficking, the growth of illegal coca plantations, and the link
between cocaine trafficking and politics. As individuals and as groups, several
members of the military had been in the drug business since the days of Hugo
Banzer’s government (1971–1978), and more than one had been executed in the
course of internal vendettas.
The same day the democratic government took control, a shootout at the
Santa Cruz airport during the capture of narco-terrorists showed the extent of
the problem. Then, for example, the nation was shocked by the proposal of an
important livestock farmer from Beni, Roberto Suárez, to pay Bolivia’s external
debt (US$ 3,000 million at that time) in exchange for leeway and benefits to do
with the illegal cocaine business. Some politicians from several parties even agreed
to sign the deal, and were only held off by the dismay of the public.
The second adverse legacy was corruption, the Siamese twin of the dictator-
ships, which exceeded by far the levels experienced during the MNR era in the
1950s and 1960s.
Human Rights
Finally, it is important to remember the on-going struggle for human rights before,
during and after the dictatorship of 1980–1982. The trial of Dictator Garcia Meza
and 40 of his top aides, mostly military, was instrumental in bringing about social
[ 13 ]
catharsis. Juan Del Granado, a former MIR militant, committed himself for years
to bring about the extradition and imprisonment of the former dictator. That
example was salutary for the continent.
The social lessons were complex. There was not yet freedom of the press and
Bolivians had not yet fully grasped the notions of democratic freedom and civic
responsibility for the common good.
1986–1999: Stability and Liberal Reforms

Guimer Zambrana Salas3
‘21060’. No, this was not just any number. Yet, the 21060 Decree was not at first
recognized for what it was, and even Presencia, the La Paz newspaper, printed
‘21080’ on its front page of August 30, 1985, the day after it was enacted. Then
the (correct) number was printed and repeated in several different languages. It was
praised, hissed at, challenged and refuted. Unbidden, the decree reached into the
pockets of all Bolivians. It was not because of the number, of course, but because
of the controversial and difficult content it spelled out.
This decree comprised eight titles and 170 articles that changed the lives of
millions of Bolivians born after the National Revolution of 1952. It delivered a
mortal blow to an already weak state capitalist system.
President Hernán Siles was the first to issue a somber warning. “The Paz
Estenssoro regime is the antithesis of the National Revolution of 1952 (that Paz
Estenssoro led),” he said just 12 days after the adoption of the 21060 decree, but
by then it was irreversible. The new decree was ‘miraculously’ already stabilizing
the Bolivian exchange rate, reducing hyperinflation while new stock began to
appear on store shelves.
Paradoxes in History
3 Guimer Zambrana Salas is a journalist
[ 14 ]
It was the left that helped to lay the groundwork for the return of the right-
wing parties to Palacio Quemado (the Bolivian palace of government). Certainly,
the conservative parties, Victor Paz Estenssoro’s MNR and Hugo Banzer’s ADN,
blocked the UDP from dominating the parliament. But it was the actions of the
left that ultimately dealt the final blow to the UDP proposal.
The ‘wolf ’ was coming, but the revolutionaries were unaware. Without the
thundering daily marches by thousands of state miners who had relocated to La
Paz, the bitter worker walkouts in all sectors, the hunger strikes and the billions
of Bolivian pesos one needed to buy a loaf of bread, a blow like the 21060 decree
would have been impossible. It was the left and the social movements that supplied
the rationale for the new neoliberal administration. “Or we go back to the UDP!”
was the warning.
In the 1985 elections, the vote was divided into four factions. They each
won a small slice of the cake, most of which went to the ADN (28,57%) and the
MNR (26,42%). During the electoral campaign, both parties (ADN and MNR)
offered to take the reins of the runaway inflation horse and restore authority to
the Executive. Bolivian legislation at that time allowed the three candidates with
most votes to go to a second round in Parliament. Former Vice President Jaime
Paz was third, but so far behind Banzer and Paz Estenssoro, that he didn’t have a
chance. ADN demanded Parliament elect Banzer as President, considering that
he had won at the polls. But history gave MNR a slight advantage, and they were
bent on exploiting it. Yes, Paz Estenssoro had supported the Banzer coup in 1971,
but General Banzer was the one with blood on his hands. Jaime Paz and other
small leftist parties would not vote for the former dictator so they supported Paz
Estenssoro.
On the night of August 29, 1985, Paz Estenssoro, MNR’s legendary leader,
sent a message to his supporters that sounded dramatic: “Bolivia is dying”. Then he
signed Decree 21060, which contains in its preamble phrases such as these: “Grave
crisis,” “real collapse,” “loss of confidence,” “hyperinflation,” “recession,” “shortage,”
“unemployment,” “distortion of market prices…” The alarmingly descriptive words
and phrases went on and on.
The first item this measure took care of was the disparity in the exchange rate
between the official peso boliviano and the black market. In its first week of opera-
[ 15 ]
tion, the Central Bank’s ‘Bolsín’ (a mechanism designed to regulate the exchange
rate) almost immediately controlled the dollar’s parallel market. It thus curbed
hyperinflation, which had reach 24,000% in the previous 12 months. Banzer and
his ADN party helped former rival Paz Estenssoro to a Parliamentary majority,
beginning what became known as ‘settled democracy’ (democracia pactada).
The measures started to replenish the urban food market again, taking money
from the farmers’ already empty pockets through allowing free imports. The supply
centers, where only hunger had been available under the previous government,
now were overflowing with imported products. ‘Father State’ no longer had to
work to set prices, and ‘Mister Market’ was now responsible for pricing based on
free trade: supply and demand.
The move reversed the situation: if before Bolivians’ pockets were stuffed with
billions and nothing to buy, now the market had everything to sell, but Bolivians’
pockets were empty.
Wages were lower than winter temperatures in La Paz. The Decree did not
include any increase in salary, merely offered the same bonds created earlier. It
also redefined the word ‘relocation’ which was used instead of ‘dismissal’. Twenty
thousand state miners were ‘relocated’: sent to unemployment.
The Final Blow
The same night as the adoption of the 21060 Decree, the COB and the Miners’
Federation declared a 48-hour strike, while the organization’s leaders convened
a national meeting. This strike was just the beginning. On September 9, 1985, a
general strike was declared and a hunger strike began just days later. The morning
of September 20, Paz Estenssoro resorted to a State of Emergency to control the
situation. One hundred and forty-four union leaders were confined to an isolated
Amazonian village. With the labor representatives out of the picture, and a decree
that was starting to show results, the first chapter had almost ended.
But the final blow was still to come. It would strike at the heart of Bolivian
labor unions: the miners. The price of tin fell dramatically and the new model did
not allow subsidies. The government showed Comibol the door. The workers last
stand was the ‘March for Life’, a mobilization of thousands of workers who left
[ 16 ]
Presencia daily, July 12, 1986

Paz and Banzer hold a “very cordial meeting”
President Paz Estenssoro and Gen- he said, “It was just an exchange of
eral Hugo Banzer held a “very cor- ideas that did not produce any con-
dial meeting” yesterday, where they clusions. They discussed the country’s
addressed issues of national interest situation.”
and areas of agreement. On the possibility of a MNR-ADN
The information was provided by the coalition, he said it is a much dis-
official spokesman of the government, cussed issue, but was not included
Herman Antelo. When asked if a gov- on the agenda, so it was not a part of
ernment agreement had been reached the “current discussions”.
Oruro to go on foot to La Paz over several days. On August 28, 1986, the marchers
were detained by military troops in the town of Calamarca, on the Bolivian high
plateau. They feared the worst, but the leaders agreed to return to their workplaces.
Lured by the promise of extra payments to those who accepted ‘relocation’, the
protest camps were emptied.
Reading Coca Leaves
In 1962, during his second term, Paz Estenssoro had joined the Vienna Conven-
tion on Narcotic Drugs. According to the Convention, Bolivia needed to eradicate
all coca crops within 25 years. By the deadline, Paz Estenssoro was back at the
Palacio Quemado in his fourth presidency and coca plantations were still alive and
thriving. The fight against drug trafficking had become standard foreign policy for
the United States government and Bolivia had to be involved.
Disputes with the leaf producers began the same day the President started
talking about possibly adopting specific standards to regulate cultivation of the
bush. The 1008 Law was enacted in 1988, despite strong opposition from the
growers. The law recognized the subtropical Yungas region of La Paz province as
a ‘traditional’ (thus legal) area for growing the leaf. It also dictated that the leaf
[ 17 ]
be eradicated from the tropical areas of Cochabamba province, in the center of

the country, and made illegal everywhere else in the country. Producers retaliated
against the plantation removal policy with blockades, marches and strikes. Dozens
of deaths and hundreds of injuries were recorded among the coca campesinos. But
a commanding leader of the poor farmers’ resistance had appeared on the scene:
Evo Morales.
Deceit and the MIR
The 1989 election was a ‘three-way tie’. This outcome was invented by MIR to
justify their leader, Jaime Paz’s, presidential aspirations. Yes, he was positioned
third in the poll results and the Constitution provided him room to negotiate.
If politics is the art of the possible, MIR showed it could make it the art of the
impossible.
Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (Goni), raised and educated in the US, was the
MNR candidate and he won the contest. He believed that the then leftist – Jaime
Paz and MIR – would not jump the “rivers of blood” that separated him from the
ex-dictator Hugo Banzer, who sat in second place. Indeed Jaime Paz did not jump;
instead, he used synchronized swimming to cross over the old hatred. Banzer, who
broke with the MNR in 1989 because it didn’t support him as President in the
second round in Congress, ended up making Jaime Paz President.
During the 1989 campaign, MIR had promised the “relocation of the 21060”.
Not changing any articles of this Decree was part of the condition of the alliance
with Banzer. The unprecedented venture between the ADN and MIR was called
the ‘Patriotic Accord’. In the streets, this joke began circulating: “Do you know
why Hugo Banzer chased Jaime Paz in the seventies? Because he wanted to make
him president….”
The Jaime Paz administration took office in 1989. Not only were no modi-
fications made to the free market policies, but they were reinforced. He directly
privatized a total of 60 public entities. Among the most important was the cement
factory in Sucre, Fancesa, which was sold to the hands of Samuel Doria, a member
of his party.
A solution to the century-long confinement of land-locked Bolivia was
[ 18 ]
found in an agreement with Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. The Lima

administration saw an opportunity to boost economic activity in the impov-
erished region of Ilo, in the southern part of its territory, on the border with
Bolivia. Peru ceded a five kilometer strip, without political sovereignty, to the
sea coast so that Bolivia could build a port and a Tourist resort in the site.
Nothing remains of that project.
MIR’s leader surprised the international community by sporting a pin in his
lapel in the form of a coca leaf, announcing the advent of so-called ‘coca diplo-
macy’. This strategy sought to convince the world of the healing attributes of the
Andean bush. “What we want is for Bolivians to overcome the sort of house arrest
that coca suffers within the borders of our country,” the President said. But while
praising the coca leaf outside of the country, at home he countered his talk by
applying tough measures on the growers.
Those Bolivians with Feathers…
On August 16, 1990, the country learned that a group of 300 indigenous people
had departed from Trinidad, in the lowlands, for La Paz. It took several weeks for
them to climb the Andean heights to demand government intervention to protect
their territory from the loggers’ predatory chainsaws, and from coca producers.
The citizens of La Paz, who had never seen their compatriots from the forests of
Beni, could not prevent themselves asking the stereotypical question: “Do they
have feathers?”
The ‘March for Territory and Dignity’ gained so much solidarity and press
attention that President Jaime Paz had no choice but to go and meet the protestors
in the road outside La Paz. He accepted all of their demands. He gave legal recog-
nition to TIPNIS (Isiboro-Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park), to the
territories of the Chimán and Siriono ethnic groups, and to other smaller areas.
It was at this time that the demand for a Constituent Assembly emerged for
the first time. Thousands of urban Bolivians lined the streets of La Paz when those
indigenous people reached the capital after walking 34 days and climbing 4,000
meters. Amazonian indigenous leaders Ernesto Noé, Marcial Fabricano and Tomas
Ticuasu would no longer be unknown to Bolivians.
[ 19 ]
500,000 Wishes
The mediocrity of the Paz Zamora administration and the aggressive campaign
of the MNR opened the door to the Palacio Quemado in the 1993 elections. The
candidacy of Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, one of the authors of the 21060 Decree,
won a landslide victory, achieving 33.5% of the vote. Banzer, supported by the
MIR and ADN, took just 21.07%.
In addition to Goni’s victory, these elections were marked by the emergence
of two new populist leaders: Carlos Palenque (14.3%), of Condepa party, and
Max Fernandez (13.8%), leader of UCS (Solidarity Civic Union). The first found
strength in La Paz, but also his weakness. He could never gain support in the
rest of the country. The second, Fernandez, tired of contributing money to other
candidates from the money-spinning brewery he owned, decided to fund his own
party. (Perhaps this explains why he could not separate his tax interests from his
political actions.) In any event, Palenque and Fernandez were the rising stars of
the Bolivian poor. Dramatically, they both died unexpectedly a few years later:
Fernandez in 1995 in a plane crash, Palenque in 1997 due to a heart attack. Their
deaths left their millions of voters feeling bereft and helpless.
In 1993 Sánchez de Lozada gained control of the Senate and 40% of the
Lower House. But he needed more support to complete the task of making Bolivia
a totally open market. He signed a pact with the erratic Max Fernandez and the
center-left movement MBL (Free Bolivia Movement) a splinter group of the MIR,
and began his work.
Goni was aware that jobs were the main victims of the 21060 Decree, which
he had helped to write. Therefore, in his 1993 ‘Plan for All’ (Plan de Todos) he
promised to create 500,000 new jobs. In order to do this, he claimed, it was essential
to implement ‘capitalization’ (privatization) of State enterprises which included:
the Bolivian Oilfields (YPFB), Power Company (ENDE), Railways Company
(ENFE), Telecommunications Company (ENTEL) and Airlines (LAB).
However, it was not just a matter of privatization. The ‘capitalizing’ companies
were obliged to invest amounts equal to the book value of the companies they
were receiving. They were to be 51% partners with the Bolivian people and would
administer the companies. The government would pay an annual bonus of 1,800
[ 20 ]
Bolivianos (US$ 422 at that time) to all Bolivian over 65 years old. This program
was called ‘Bonosol’.
Capitalization of the State oil company was the most controversial. Future
gas sales to Brazil promised to be a windfall. Why was the government trying to
give away such an attractive source of revenues? Undoubtedly, investments due
to capitalization of the oil company increased the ability to prospect proven and
probable reserves of natural gas, but it was also true that the national treasury was
left with just a small amount of money, gained through taxes, from the millions
generated.
But Goni’s reform package was still not complete. The INRA law (National
Institute of Agrarian Reform) sought mild agrarian reform by attempting to clarify
the complex issue of land ownership. However, the reform continues to create
conflict among Bolivians to this day.
His Education Reform examined the weak Bolivian education system and
created conditions for innovation in, and regionalization of, the educational cur-
riculum. But it did not succeed in mobilizing citizens in support of a higher
quality education, and due to the ongoing strength of the teachers’ unions, it was
impossible to even change the color of the chalk used!
One reform that succeeded in changing Bolivia’s political landscape was the
program of municipal decentralization called ‘Popular Participation’. Twenty per-
cent of the country’s tax now had to be distributed to all municipalities according
to population. For the first time in history, the most remote parts of the country
were receiving federal money. Suddenly, the much-hated city halls were becoming
an attractive source of power, and a breeding ground for new leadership.
Cashing Votes?
Some months into his term, a reporter asked Goni about his promise to create
500,000 jobs in Bolivia. He replied, “Even to make a baby you have to wait nine
months”. But, after four years in office, the pregnancy test was still negative. It
took its toll. In 1997, the MNR, with Juan Carlos Duran, won only 18.2% of the
vote. Hugo Banzer won with a pyrrhic victory of 22.26%, but it was enough to
fulfill his lifelong dream, patiently awaited, to become the only Latin American
[ 21 ]
dictator to become a democratic President.

Banzer needed a coalition. The votes from those elections were so fragmented
that entering an alliance with the MIR, its former ally, was insufficient. The mar-
riage was doomed to adultery and he was forced into bed with populist parties
led by Fernandez and Palenque.
The media called the alliance, ironically, “The mega-coalition.” But it was
not an easy coexistence when the size of the dish stayed the same, but still more
diners needed to be fed from it. Furthermore, the generational disputes within the
ADN became evident. The shadow of the dictator, the rumors about his health
and even doubts as to whether it was he who was running the country, never left
the Presidency.
Banzer’s administration had its greatest success in eradicating the coca crops
in the region around Cochabamba. It was his administration that came closest to
achieving the ‘zero coca’ objective. However, the actions of law enforcement did
not go unanswered by producers. In 2000, Bolivia witnessed one of the longest
and most violent blockades of the Cochabamba-Santa Cruz highway, vital for the
country because it links the lowlands and the highlands. When the police and army
combined forces arrived at Villa Tunari town and came face-to-face with the coca
growers’ leader, Evo Morales, he questioned why the soldiers were “repressing their
own people”. One police Colonel responded, “Evo, understand, when you become
President, we will obey your orders.” The leader replied only with a skeptical smile.
2000–2005: Unrest and Protest for Change

Andrés Gómez Vela4
When the indigenous people from the lowlands marched in 1990 from Trinidad
to La Paz to demand respect, land and territory, at the historic San Francisco Plaza
in downtown La Paz their leader Ernesto Noe said: “We too are Bolivians. The
State must include us, and in order to include us, it must start something like a
4 Andrés Gómez Vela is a journalist and lawyer.
[ 22 ]
process of change.”
When Aymara indigenous indian leader Felipe Quispe ‘El Mallku’ was arrested
in 1992, prosecutors brought him to a news conference and introduced him as
the head of the Tupac Katari Guerrilla Army (EGTK). The well-known journalist
Amalia Pando asked, “Why blow up electricity pylons? Why take up arms?” He
answered without hesitating, “So that my daughter will never become your maid.”
He was, in fact, denouncing the social exclusion of millions of indigenous people
‘predestined’ to colonial servitude.
In 1993, the first Bolivian (and South American) indigenous person was
sworn in as a Vice President. Victor Hugo Cardenas spoke in Congress in three
native languages (Aymara, Quechua and Guaraní) where only Spanish had been
traditionally heard. His act was the precursor to a bigger change.
In 2000, when Quispe challenged President Banzer to “weigh their brains”
he was actually saying they were equals as human beings. And when he said he
wanted to talk with him “boss to boss”, the Minister of the Presidency, Walter
Guiteras, requested respect for the President. Quispe replied, “I am the President
of Kollasuyo (an old native name of present-day Bolivia), so I want to speak to
the President of the Republic of Bolivia.”
And in September 2000, before the entire ADN cabinet, this Aymara fighter
cried out, with tears in his eyes and a breaking voice: “Here are two kinds of
Bolivians. You (referring to the Ministers) who have water, electricity, food and
everything you need for your wives and children, and us (referring to the indige-
nous people) who have nothing.” He was in fact proposing the need to re-invent
Bolivia.
These were not simple facts, or mere words. They served as the foundation for
the process towards equality that exists in the country today. From those beginnings
the self-esteem of the indigenous people increased and was recovered inch by inch,
through every march, every fight, and every battle against repression.
The Banzer government misread the message. They tried to stop the march
of history with laws, but when the facts were based on the color of skin, ethnic-
ity, language and clothing, the story demanded “… something like a process of
change”.
[ 23 ]
The ‘Water Wars’
The gathering historical energy against the ruling class exploded with the ‘Water
Wars’ in February and April 2000, in Cochabamba, the center of Bolivia. Poor
farmers, indigenous people, the middle and working class united against Presi-
dent Banzer’s administration when he decided to privatize water. The clashes left
hundreds injured and one teenager, Victor Hugo Daza, dead.
The problems started when the Banzer administration, in partnership with
Cochabamba’s local leaders and Mayor Manfred Reyes Villa, decided to turn water
management over to the US company, Bechtel. Bechtel decided to install water
meters in order to collect fees, including in places where they had not laid a piped
water system (it existed before a municipal system). In other areas of the city of
Cochabamba, the company raised the price by 400%. Bolivians did not understand
why they had to pay a company, one that had not made any investment at all. Or
why they had to pay for rain water.
Given this excess, an organization named Coordination for the Defense of
Water and Life was created, which brought together the people’s demands, includ-
ing some not related to the specific water problem. The leader of this organization,
Oscar Olivera, predicted in early February that the Banzer administration would
be defeated by the people of Cochabamba. This marked the beginning of the end
of the economic model established in 1985 with Supreme Decree 21060, the legal
and ideological framework created around the Washington Consensus, and run by
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). Of course,
this was done with the acquiescence of the multi-party alliance comprising the
MNR, MIR, ADN, and UCS.
This ‘water movement’ was the beginning of the punishment of the neoliberal
State, which had broken away from many of its social responsibilities towards the
most impoverished people and, instead, chose to protect transnational capital.
The visible struggle was for a symbolic element of life: water. But it was a
visionary political mobilization. For the first time in the democratic era, there was
a powerful alliance of classes, not seen since the National Revolution of 1952.
This sociological phenomenon showed that most people now opted for change.
Other protests followed the ‘Water War’. They were led by the COB and the
[ 24 ]
CSUTCB (United Confederation of Peasant Workers of Bolivia), which, in Sep-

tember 2000, organized massive roadblocks to challenge Banzer administration.
A decade had passed since the first march of the lowland indigenous people
arrived at La Paz, demanding a process of change so that they be included as
Bolivians. Now there were glimpses of the fruition of that dream.
The ‘Water War’ created such a crisis that, according to a close source, Banzer
turned in his resignation to cabinet, but it was not accepted. His collaborators
were dedicated to reversing the situation. They failed. Change was inevitable.
Death took Banzer before the end of his term (2001) and he was succeeded by
Vice President Jorge Quiroga who could do nothing to bring the immense con-
stitutional crisis to an end.
Indigenous Candidates on the Rise
The 2002 elections were disappointing for old guard politicians who had turned
Los Tiempos daily, July 14, 2004

Editorial: Goni in Spain
The presence of the fugitive former fugitive former President, following

President in Spain, for the Forum the “intifada of El Alto”, is blinded
2004 in Barcelona, gave people a by his own arrogance, and is there-
lot to talk about. His presence has fore convinced that he has been the
been described as “shameful” due victim of a “coup” financed by Cuba
to the simple fact that Gonzalo and Venezuela. There was, in fact, one
Sánchez de Lozada is on the list victim: an entire country that was
of presidents rejected by a popu- defenseless against the most sinister
lation tired of corrupt politicians plot in Bolivian history, conceived
and charged with a series of crimes and executed to auction off its best
against humanity. natural resources in favor of multi-
Everything seems to suggest that the nationals.
[ 25 ]
government into a game of lottery. The traditional parties’ candidates included

former President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (MNR) and former Cochabamba
Mayor Manfred Reyes Villa (NFR) while indigenous leaders Felipe Quispe and
Evo Morales were the rising politicians.
Despite the huge social resistance that he faced, Sánchez de Lozada won the
election with 22.5%, with the support of the upper and middle classes. Morales
obtained a surprising second place, with 20.94%, most of it from the peasant and
poor population. Reyes Villa came in third, with 20.9%.
Quispe asked Morales to try to build alliances in Congress and fight for the
presidency at the Parliamentary second round. But Morales chose to postpone his
presidential aspirations for the next elections. Instead, the MIR, former President
Jaime Paz’ political party, supported Sánchez de Lozada at the second round in
Congress and he was elected head of state. But the narrow triumph of the MNR
seemed like a defeat. It had a slim Parliamentary majority and the indigenous people
and workers were gaining most of the social and political initiative. The electoral
results also showed the indigenous people’s confidence, and through voting, they
were expressing their faith in someone who looked like them.
When Sánchez de Lozada took office in August 2002, his exit date was already
marked. Many Bolivians opposed his regime.
The agony of the MIR-MNR party alliance deepened. Most people could not
forgive the sale of national assets through privatization during the first Sánchez de
Lozada term, nor were they going to forgive politics which had become a family
business with the corrupt practice of accumulating wealth, and power resting in the
hands of a few. These conflicts overshadowed positive measures taken in previous
years, such as the Popular Participation law and the decentralization process, which
opened the door to the majority to govern at local government level.
At this point, there was social consensus that privatization of Bolivian oil
was a scheme of power hungry multinational oil companies in which, for every
US$ 100 exported, they took more than US$ 80. It was also discovered that these
companies had access to privileged information. Some high-up officials from the
YPFB (Bolivian State Oilfields) had given classified information in exchange for
benefits such as millions of dollars in commission, and certain desirable jobs.
The Bolivian oligarchy’s capitulation to the oil companies, the international
[ 26 ]
financial organizations and the US Embassy, generated social outrage. This over-
whelming response was keenly noted by leftist intellectuals, journalists, activists and
political social groups as they glimpsed the debut of a new historical force: native
Bolivians and poor farmers. Sánchez de Lozada’s government could not last long.
The War over Gas
It was under these historical circumstances that the ‘Gas War’ started in mid-
2003. It began when the La Paz Federation of Farmers declared a hunger
strike at the San Gabriel radio station, demanding the release of one of its
leaders, Edwin Huampo. He had been imprisoned for taking part in a com-
munity justice action in the Bolivian Andes region, in which two supposed
cattle thieves died.
The Federation extended their demands and called for, among other things,
the abolishment of the Civilian Security Law, and compensation for the families
of poor farmers killed and injured in various social conflicts. The situation was
aggravated in September when peasants blocked the road from Sorata to La Paz and
hundreds of foreign tourists were stuck for days. The different embassies pressured
the Bolivian government to help the tourists escape the blockade.
The rescue operation, led personally by Defense Minister Carlos Sánchez
Berzain, ended up with six dead, including a child and a soldier, in the Wari-
sata area. The violence only added to the momentum of the farmers’ movement,
and it gained support from the Federation of Neighborhoods (Fejuve) in El Alto
(adjacent to La Paz). They declared an indefinite strike and blocked the streets on
October 10; coincidently the same day the nation marked 21 years of democracy.
And then tens of thousands of other workers, peasants plus many native Bolivians’
associations aligned themselves against the dying regime. The energy of the new
social movement that demanded inclusivity, better living conditions, and justice
and that had built up over several decades, was about to be unleashed.
At that point in time all the social and political forces seeking change were
united in their demands: nationalize the gas fields, reject gas sales to Chile, and
form a Constituent Assembly to change the Constitution.
The President, who had been one of the masterminds behind the privatization
[ 27 ]
of the State oilfields, ten years later was now required to regain the natural resources
for the benefit of all Bolivians. The President who had helped to facilitate the entry
of an indigenous person to the seat of the Vice Presidency, now refused to open
the doors of power to allow other players to enter.
Between October 10 and 17, the government coalition of MNR, MIR, NFR
and UCS ordered the biggest massacre of the democratic era, resulting in 67 deaths,
plus about 300 wounded, among the protesters. Most of the victims had marched
to block the streets in front of the mobilized artillery and infantry units, which
then opened fire. It’s likely the workers did not know that what they were doing
would change the course of the country’s destiny.
On Tuesday, October 14, realizing the gravity of the situation, Vice President
Carlos Mesa, a renowned journalist and political analyst, made a strategic move.
He declared publically that he was resigning from the government, but not the
vice presidency. In other words, he broke relations with the administration, but not
with the people. The move proved lethal to Goni’s presidency because it showed
the extent of the internal government breakdown.
US Embassy expressed
its support
The next day the US Embassy expressed its support for “Sánchez de Lozada’s
Constitutional Government”. It was too late: the protests spread to the whole
country, La Paz was totally paralyzed and anger over the military repression was
sending more and more demonstrators onto the streets. Sánchez de Lozada resigned
on Friday October 17, 2003, and fled the country by plane, arriving in Miami
the next morning. Some of his Ministers did the same. Vice President Mesa was
sworn in to the office of the Presidency, upon his shoulders the hopes of building
a new State and society.
Mesa assumed office with the so called ‘October agenda’: nationalization of
gas, conversion to a Constituent Assembly and thereby creation of a new State.
But his inability to act on behalf of the poor, and his desire to compromise cost
him the position. He was caught between two extremes: the extreme right that had
been removed from power, and the extreme left that demanded establishment of a
[ 28 ]
El Potosí daily, October 18, 2003

Goni and his ministers escape to Miami
After hearing the National Con- p.m. and waited for four hours in
gress approve his resignation, and the VIP lounge for the plane that
witnessing the swearing-in of the would take him to Miami around
new President of the Republic, 10:45 p.m. He traveled with his
former President Gonzalo Sánchez family and three of his former Min-
de Lozada left last night for the isters.
United States on a Lloyd Aereo Due to the heavy police guard at the
Boliviano commercial flight. The airport, no media had access to the
former President, in the midst of pre-boarding area and only a few
great uncertainty, arrived at Santa people inside the airport terminal
Cruz International Airport at 7:10 realized what was happening.
new State as soon as possible. To make matters worse, Mesa had the government
palace, but not the power. He assumed the Presidency but had to deal with a
Congress dominated by political parties that had been denounced by the masses.
They opposed Mesa’s administration.
Despite the adverse situation, the Constitution was reformed during Mesa’s
administration, with the possibility of convoking a Constituent Assembly included.
Mesa also called a successful referendum to establish a national gas policy but
further events showed that it was not enough; he was unable to fulfill his mandate
and had to give it up in July 2005. His administration travelled at 10 kilometers
an hour while history was racing ahead at 100 kilometers an hour. He was replaced
by the head of the Supreme Court, Eduardo Rodriquez, whose only mission was
to organize national elections in December 2005.
When Evo Morales and the MAS (Movement Towards Socialism) won the
election, it was the dawn of a new era. The clock had been ticking since 1990
when the first indigenous people’s march occurred and demanded “something like
a process of change”.
[ 29 ]
La Razón daily, December 19, 2005

MAS wins a sweeping majority
Preliminary results on the national leader of MAS achieved a victory that

elections from the major TV net- no other candidate has ever seen in
works, predict so far a landslide vic- Bolivian democracy. Morales Ayma
tory for Evo Morales of the Move- said that he would “govern by obey-
ment for Socialism (MAS) making ing the people”.
him the apparent Bolivian president, Jorge Quiroga-Ramirez, the leader of
but the official results will be available the Social Democratic Power (Pode-
tomorrow. mos) political party, conceded his
The election day was identified as an defeat and congratulated MAS can-
historic event for the country. The didate Morales on his victory.
2006–2012: The reform years

Ilya Fortún5
Present times are particularly complex in regards to the issues that drive this book.
Modern democracy, pursuant to its conception during the last half century in the
Western world, seems to be facing certain limits. While not a highly visible media
issue, it is cause for reflection and discussion, if not political dispute. The economic
crisis that affects the first world has revealed, especially in European countries, seri-
ous problems related to the representation and legitimacy of a democratic model.
Because of this, the problems which were originally thought to be only financial
in nature are now believed to be a systemic crisis.
With the exception of some Nordic countries, where political development
reflects more mature democracies and sustainable economic models dedicated to
reducing inequalities, in much of the world, the cause of political and social crisis
points to corporate superpowers. They have proven to massively out-power the
5 Ilya Fortún is a social communicator.
[ 30 ]
Los Tiempos daily, January 22, 2006

Evo announces “a new era” at Tiwanaku
12:30 pm. Some 70,000 people have Evo! Hooray the new era!), yells the
been waiting all morning at 4,000 crowd of indigenous people dressed in
meters above sea level, near the colorful native costumes reminiscent
pre-Columbian ruins of Tiwanaku, of the Andean god ‘who turns the
in cold, driving rain and a hailstorm. earth’ and the great Incas who carry
Suddenly, the sun appears in the sky that name.
and, almost as if it had been previ- Dressed in a red unku (a type of
ously arranged, from inside Akapana poncho), red and yellow jinetas (as
(pyramid) a group of white silhou- pre-Columbian priests would have
ettes appeared, among them, Juan worn more than 500 years ago), Evo
Evo Morales Ayma. greets the Tata Inti (Father Sun) from
They hear a pututu (indigenous wind the top of the Akapana and asks for
instrument), and music from Andean strength, and permission to lead the
instruments, fireworks, applause and country, since winning the December
shouts from the crowd. “Jallalla Evo! 18 elections with 53.74% of the vote.
Jallalla the new Pachakuti!” (Hooray
voting citizens and the system of political representation.

Throughout this crisis, European citizens, in particular, have found that the
traditional political system has failed to respond adequately to people’s needs,
creating a sharp disconnect between the State and its citizens. In many cases, the
traditional political system already shows signs of a systemic breakdown. As a
result, the citizens began to construct a list of ‘radical’ demands, such as building
a real democracy and battling against the erosion of traditional party and union
representation against the power of multi-lateral and international organizations.
In social and political terms the West is undergoing a process of institutional
exhaustion, similar to that which the South of the world experienced in recent
decades, in the sense that the causes are similar.
Europe surely perceives with some interest what is taking place regionally
[ 31 ]
in South America, which some classify pejoratively as ‘populism’. For example,

Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, and Ecuador are engaged in various projects that
attempt to improve the quality of their democracies, arising from the insufficiencies
of the liberal model.
As had often been the case throughout its history, Bolivia’s experience has been
particularly intense. The profound process clearly corresponds to 30 plus years in
which hopes and collective struggles pushed forward the passion for democracy.
Finally, in 2005, these efforts culminated in favorable conditions which allowed
Bolivia to make a quantum leap towards truly historical expectations.
From Blinding Lights to Dark Shadows
It is precisely the size of the expectations generated by what the ruling party, MAS,
called a ‘process of change’ which led to equally large frustrations. Realpolitik and
the abuse of power demonstrated that to big social dreams always correlate big
nightmares.
The new social subjects, characterized by novelty, quality of the demands
and the outcomes of the proposals, contributed to the perception that a strong
political platform had been created. It was believed it could meet the required
conditions for a structural transformation of the country, not only politically, but
economically and socially.
For instance, the long gestation of the most central issues listed on the so-
called ‘October agenda’ had been created with the participation not only of those
who eventually took power. The Constitutional process must be attributed to all
Bolivians who, for three decades, fought hard for a democratic future. It cemented
the basis for the ‘process of change’.
This explains why the frustrations, added to over the past seven years of Evo
Morales’ government, are not associated only with the disappointment in a single
administration, party or leader, but with the disappointment of a wasted oppor-
tunity built with everyone’s sacrifice, which can hardly be replicated.
And yet, no matter how bleak the current times and the future prospects
may be, one cannot fail to recognize a certain brilliance that the fierce dynamics
of the democratic process have somewhat overshadowed. The voter turnout and
[ 32 ]
the on-going support for the government in successive electoral contests are strong
examples. We tend to overlook the importance of these facts, relevant in terms of
democratic value, but probably shrouded by doubts the political opposition have
introduced in relation to the fairness of the recent elections.
I always argued that the legitimacy of the massive ratings obtained by Presi-
dent Morales and his party were not in doubt, and I think that was a healthy and
positive phenomenon for a democratic system. The strength of the 54% majority
won in the first election in December 2005 was ratified on several occasions. His
popularity peaked in the general election in December 2009 when he was going
for a second term, at 64% of the vote. The numbers reflect the enormity of the
public support and the confidence of a large majority of people identifying with
the MAS political project. The high voter turnout on one hand, and the significant
support both in the rural and urban areas on the other, deserve special mention,
given the backdrop of a highly dispersed and volatile electorate. Even after seven
years in office, the administration continues to enjoy popularity and voter approval,
envied by any other traditional party.
Beyond prebendalism, intense propaganda and populist administration, the
sustained support that the government has achieved must be valued in its proper
context. After all, millions of Bolivians have identified themselves with the Presi-
dent, the official discourse, and the government’s policy in general.
Another point that has been overshadowed for now, but surely will shine again,
is the new Constitution. The document, with difficulty agreed upon, agreed upon
by several political forces in its final draft form, is the foundation of many ideas
within the present political process.
Despite the intention from a radical faction within the administration to
impose a constitutional text which would have eventually suffered from dangerous
illegitimacy, eventually huge political effort and long negotiations resulted in an
historic outcome, in early 2009. Although this did not meet everyone’s expecta-
tions, it will shape our future for a long time.
While the new Constitution, for the moment, is still a draft paper, its content
expresses our complexity as a country and the challenges which we have had to
consider in the design of a new national model. The legal framework upon which
this process was built is now a sea of unintelligible laws and regulation. Even
[ 33 ]
assuming that the priority of the administration is not to consolidate the new
constitution, it continues to be an essential reference that will endure over time,
despite the political situation.
The advent of new political, economic, social and cultural elites could also be
considered a tangible, positive result of the ‘process of change’. It’s true that since
the collapse of the old regime, and out of the new and powerful apparatus of power
we have seen new elites emerge, who give the country a new rhythm. These elites
are more diverse and representative, and offer much more than the aristocratic
and exclusive profile of their predecessors. It remains to be seen, however, if this
empowerment process will avoid the accumulation of corporate privileges severely
criticized in the past. Unfortunately, troubling signs are already emerging that raise
doubts about this. A change in elites is good, but does not automatically guarantee
that the new will be better than the old.
Shadows of Betrayal
The idea that revolutionary intentions are initially embodied by the people and then
betrayed by the political leadership in power, is common throughout the world,
and in Bolivia. The case of the MAS party’s ‘process of change’ is no exception,
according to political analysts and a large contingent of important dissidents who
once formed the intellectual and ideological backbone of the administration.
From this critical perspective, the government has suffered a political loss since
2010, at which point it dramatically turned away from initial ideas and historical
rationale. During the first period internal contradictions were not clearly expressed
due to the fierce confrontations with remnants of the right-wing opposition and
regional powers. These struggles dominated the political scene and stopped the
internal battles. The existence of a clearly identified enemy, the intense struggle
for their final defeat and the dismantling of the institutions existing until then
had given sufficient internal cohesion to the alliance of ‘party-government-so-
cial movements’ which had displayed great consistency and efficiency within the
political system. The first administration, marked by confrontations, minimized
attention to management.
The 2009 presidential elections and the 2010 municipal elections marked a
[ 34 ]
noticeable shift in the government’s mood and actions. This began with a series of
blunders and a hardening of positions that accumulated with extremely troubling
results. They even allowed observers room to doubt the health of the democracy.
It would be difficult to list the number of mistakes that have marred gov-
ernment performance. However, the TIPNIS conflict (a proposal to build a road
through a protected indigenous territory) starkly illustrates the real life interrup-
tions, contradictions and set-backs for a supposed ‘government of change’.
Los Tiempos daily, May 2, 2006

Third nationalization of oil industry in 70 years
The President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, secured the oilfields to avoid possi-
approved by decree the third nation- ble “sabotage”. The Decree N° 28701
alization of hydrocarbons in the past affects a dozen foreign oil companies
70 years. The armed forces have operating in the country.
Discouraging Results
The ‘process of change’ led by president Morales raised expectations and the possi-
bility of a better, more inclusive democracy; respectful of various forms of organiza-
tion, representation and participation; based in an institutional framework marked
by the rule of law; and conducted by an administration that meets citizens’ needs.
On paper we have a richer and fuller democracy; representative, party-oriented,
but also ‘direct’. It recognizes legislative initiatives, referendums, de-monopolization
of political parties as well as democracy for indigenous groups, yet recognizing
community customs. But in practice, the political project has manipulated all
democratic forms (old and new) to accumulate and retain power; to distort and
devalue them in a way that confirms that the State crises that led to the reforms
are still in place.
Theoretically, we also have more democratic rights through provincial, munic-
ipal, regional and indigenous autonomy, and this expansion of power to regional
[ 35 ]
levels should have served to improve governance. However, the reality is that the
autonomy has not advanced at all, first, due to the Morales’ centralist style, and
second, to the inability of the provincial governments to put changes in place. Far
from seeking to implement a truly autonomous administration, the government
has chosen to co-opt regional powers, in some cases peacefully and others with
violence, but ultimately with results that seem to have satisfied everyone’s interests.
While discussion about the nature and legitimacy of the rule of law can be
complex, even Manichean, the progressive deterioration of freedoms and rights has
become an issue of deep concern. It was assumed that the new constitutional and
legislative framework would ensure, in particular, these rights. Unfortunately, the
Presidency’s appetite for power shows signs of taking an authoritarian direction.
Political freedoms have been covertly limited through political use of justice, and
freedom of expression is also under threat from different sides.
The alternative forms of political representation have not yielded expected
results either. Social organizations are being used to control their affiliates and
have largely succumbed to the official political structure, through perks and power.
The political parties and regional forces have also failed to meet the challenge of
reinventing themselves for the future, reinforcing the consolidation of the MAS.
Reforms also sought to promote participation of indigenous people in the
new State design, in an effort to undo traditional practices of segregation and
exclusion. The importance of these initiatives is crucial in a country with a deeply
rooted history of racial discrimination, and in practice they have worked relatively
well. But the indigenous equality project faces the threat of banalization due to
the abundant political use of it by authorities.
Still, the dignity that Bolivia’s majority has attained due to ethnic identification
with President Morales and the new faces in power has meant a significant change
and that will be something that we’ll talk about for decades.
[ 36 ]
Chapter 2
The pendulum of public versus
private ownership and the hesitant
economic performance
Fernando Molina6
6 Fernando Molina is a journalist and economic analyst.

Foto: Lucio Flores
Serious shortages and subsequent hyperinflation occurred

during the mid ‘80s economic crisis.
Hyperinflationary Times
I
n 1982, democracy was a brand new concept to the Bolivian people and seemed
capable of achieving anything. Those who helped usher it in through their
opposition to the military governments hoped the new system of governance
could deliver better quality of life, through setting up state owned enterprises, a
fundamental national ideal. People wanted these government-run companies to
multiply and strengthen, and to support a substantial increase in wages. Simulta-
neously, it was expected that democracy would solve the economic threats posed
by the ‘military heritage’ which had become an increasingly serious concern in
those years. Unfortunately, these expectations contradicted one another.
The Military Legacy
In general, the 1970s were years of high growth. Due to the increasing value of
mining and gas exports, especially between 1974 and 1976, the country had easy
access to funding, funneled into the international market from countries benefiting
from the boom in oil prices (or ‘petrodollars’).
Table 1 combines this data. Note the jump in Bolivia’s external debt from
US$ 591 million in 1971 to US$ 2,311 in 1980, raising its annual payment to
US$ 289 million.
In poor countries like Bolivia, extraordinary resources are commonly used for
State expenditures. This practice usually causes inflation, especially if monetary
authorities do not act responsibly. (Note that since the 1952 National Revolution
the Central Bank of Bolivia had depended on the Ministry of Finance in one way
or another.) And, in fact, inflation was high during this decade. As a direct result,
the public bought so many dollars to protect themselves that they exhausted the
country’s foreign reserves. Table 2 illustrates this phenomenon.
This process was also driven by three simultaneous events. First was the fall
of national income due to the declining price of minerals, caused by the develop-
ment of new materials and the emergence of new mining technologies. Second
was political instability, which increased irresponsible spending and drained the
foreign-exchange reserves and third, the global crisis that began in 1980 with
[ 39 ]
the fall of oil prices and became a ‘debt crisis’ two years later when Mexico could
no longer pay its creditors, halting the free flow of money which had previously
been sent to underdeveloped countries.
In July 1981 the disappearance of the Central Bank reserves forced the mili-
tary government to suspend the public sale of dollars obtained from State export
companies (Comibol and YPFB). Instead, the regime established a ‘currency con-
trol’ plan that the first democratic government would continue and strengthen in
1982. The measure created a black market that traded the dollar at higher rates
than what had been officially determined.
In 1982, during General Celso Torrelio’s administration, there was a brief
attempt to implement a free or floating exchange rate. But because there was a
lack of sufficient foreign exchange or control of public expenditure, the effort did
not stop the drain on foreign currency, and in turn, accelerated the devaluation
of the Bolivian peso.
In mid 1982, the official exchange rate traded a dollar for 145.5 Bolivian
pesos, while on the parallel market it cost 250 pesos, or 71% more. In 1985, the
‘black dollar’ was worth 1,700% more than the official rate.
The increasing differential, of course, destroyed foreign trade. Importers pre-
ferred to sell the currencies they got from the State rather than use them to pur-
chase foreign products. Private exporters, forced to use their dollars at the official
market rate, stopped exporting. Comibol and YPFB become more independent
of the government in order to convert the foreign currency they earned. Thus,
between 1981 and 1984 exports fell from US$ 912 to US$ 719 million per year,
and imports fell from US$ 975 to US$ 492 million.
Of course this aggravated the lack of foreign exchange and fiscal revenue,
while government spending steadily increased. Ultimately, there was an escalation
in the fiscal deficit: it jumped from 7% of GDP in 1970 to 14% in 1982, almost
18% in 1983 and 21% in 1984.
De-dollarization, Depreciation and a Moratorium
Some people hoped that the first democratically elected president, Hernán Siles,
who had stabilized the economy in a previous term (1956–1960), would do the
[ 40 ]
- The pendulum of public versus private ownership and the hesitant economic performance -
Table 1: The 1970s – a decade of growth
Exports External debt

Year GDP Growth (%)
(US$ Millions) (US$ Millions)
1971 4.9 198.0 591.2
1972 5.9 225.0 680.7
1973 6.9 286.9 707.8
1974 6.1 593.4 786.2
1975 5.1 485.7 896.6
1976 6.8 623.4 1,123.8
1977 3.4 695.0 1,476.9
1978 3.1 703.4 1,799.7
1979 2.0 854.6 2,034.3
1980 0.8 1,043.2 2,311.2
Source: Data cited by Oscar Zegada (2005)
Table 2: More inflation, less reserves
Rate of Inflation (%) Level of International Reserves

Year
(base 1980) (US$ Millions)
1970 3.8 36.2
1971 3.6 32.5
1972 6.5 48.6
1973 31.4 41.4
1974 62.8 166.1
1975 7.9 115.4
1976 4.4 171.5
1977 8.1 241.8
1978 10.3 169.1
1979 19.7 3.1
1980 47.2 -90.6
Source: Data cited by Oscar Zegada (2005)
[ 41 ]
same in his second term. But the political conditions of the two periods were very
different. This time, Siles could not make a dramatic adjustment as he had done
during the late 1950s.
So, in November 1982, he launched a package of measures to bring about
gradual stabilization. There were five major measures. First, the package forced
private exporters to deliver 100% of the foreign exchange capital that they obtained
from the Central Bank. Second, it increased the internal price of fuel sold by
YPFB to raise the State’s domestic revenues (a goal which remains to this day and
was crucial between 1982 and 1985, when because of inflation and growth of
the informal sector, there were virtually no taxes collected). Third, it reinforced
price controls. Fourth, it raised wages to compensate for the increase in the cost
of living, and finally it traded Bolivian peso deposits in banks to dollars at the
official exchange rate of 145.5 pesos per dollar (the so called ‘de-dollarization’).
The measures were intended to appropriate the public’s foreign currency and
save reserves, but it failed to achieve its objectives and, instead, deeply harmed
the economy. In response, depositors withdrew their money from the banks (the
peso deposits fell from 10,460 million in 1982 to 5,873 in 1983, and to 2,020
million in 1984) and used it to buy dollars, which continued to drain the foreign
currency reserves. In addition, ‘de-dollarization’ ended the government’s economic
credibility.
The other measures approved by Siles had similar outcomes. Government
devalued the peso in order to close the gap between the dollar’s official and black
market rates and to discourage the possession of dollars, but achieved the oppo-
site results. The administration also tried to lower the fiscal deficit but failed to
succeed because of the need to ever increase wages. It also unsuccessfully tried to
tighten price controls. These were measures that intended to restrict the demand
for dollars but, instead, promoted it. They were trying to extinguish a fire with
gasoline. As a result expectations did not change: the people kept betting that the
government would spend more, the prices would continue to rise and the peso
would continue to devaluate.
In the end, ‘gradualism’ failed, but this failure created political conditions for
bolder measures later.
Another important action Siles took was to suspend foreign debt payments in
[ 42 ]
1984. This only served to deepen the debt default that had started 1980. In 1985
the international reserves were US$ 160 million. How would Bolivia pay more
than US$ 200 million a year to international creditors? While the moratorium was
inevitable, it introduced a new problem: the inability to secure foreign financing.
State Bankruptcy, Droughts, and Hyperinflation
Of all the reasons leading up to the hyperinflation of 1983-1985, the most impor-
tant was the enormous growth of State enterprises at a time when incomes gen-
erated by them were declining.
In the 1970s, government enterprises expanded so much that the State
employed 30% of the non-farming labor force in the country. Its main company,
Comibol, employed 26,500 people, 65% of whom worked outside of the mines.
Fifty percent of its operating losses were due to its subsidized stores.
After the ‘debt crisis’, the State had to finance its huge expenditures through
the Central Bank. In 1981, this entity’s credit to the government represented 3.6%
of the GDP. In 1982, it was 13.5% of the GDP and two years later, up to over
18%. The amount of local currency not backed by dollars continued to grow and
was becoming harder to come by because, as we said, of the decline in exports and
the foreign financing crisis.
We have also said that the price of the Bolivian peso devalued, and that in
1982, this trend was strongly reinforced by the attempt to ‘de-dollarize’ transac-
tions, which created a greater demand for foreign currency.
Despite all of this, the authorities refused to recognize the big gap between
the official and the parallel rate and they kept exhausting the reserves of exporting
government entities and private companies, which were forced to hand over their
foreign currency at that illusionary price. The government used this cheap currency
to replenish the foreign reserves and also to distribute it among their supporters,
who then sold it for huge, unethical profits.
The result? The Bolivian peso, which cost 390 after ‘de-dollarization’, rose to
1,200 at the end of 1983; 23,381 in December of 1984, and 1,149,354 in August
1985. In response to a free-falling peso, manufacturers, retailers and farmers raised
their prices. So inflation, already high in 1979 (nearly 20%), increased to 47%
[ 43 ]
Statement from the Ministry of Mines, January 11, 1985

30 day strike loses Comibol US$ 28 million
The Minister of Mining, Sinforoso the lack of mineral production have

Cabrera, said yesterday that in 30 not yet been quantified.
days of strike action (which will be Workers are concerned about the
completed tomorrow) Comibol will strike. It is said that “in the history of
lose US$ 28 million. He added that Bolivian strikes, this is the first time
in the private sector the losses due to that one has reached 30 days.”
in 1980, and became hyperinflation in the subsequent years (275%; 1,281%,

11,749%). The inflation problem was aggravated due to food shortages caused
by droughts and floods in 1983. These disasters had a particularly appalling effect
on Bolivia’s economy, especially at a time when the importation of agricultural
products was not allowed.
In 1985, Siles decided to resign and left for Uruguay. Bolivia had seen the
sharpest price increases (24,000% in the 12 months prior to August 1985) in any
country in peaceful times. Its economy was close to collapse.
From Adjustment to Privatization

By 1985, options that did not involve a direct break with ‘state capitalism’ (or
‘gradualism’) had been exhausted. So, during the elections that year the country
turned to the right, towards candidates Hugo Banzer (ADN) and Victor Paz
Estenssoro (MNR), who had both promised to restore the people’s confidence in
Bolivia’s economic institutions.
Both leaders felt much the same way about what needed to be done, and even
employed the same external advisor, US economist Jeffrey Sachs. This ‘community
of ideas’ was not only apparent at national level, but became a sort of international
consensus, formed in the heat of the collapse of planned economies. In the United
States, it was called the ‘Washington Consensus’.
[ 44 ]
ANF news agency, June 25, 1984

20,000 million pesos arrive in Cochabamba
Eight hundred boxes containing The new shipment of bills arrived at

20,000 million Bolivian pesos in wads the Jorge Wilstermann airport, amid
of 1,000 pesos have arrived in Cocha- tight security provided by the Boliv-
bamba city from London by chartered ian Air Force’s Military Police. As is
plane. The intention is to put them well known, on a previous occasion
into circulation in various districts of a shipment of 15,000 million Boliv-
the country, according to the regional ian pesos also arrived by the same
manager of Central Bank. means.
A group of economists and politicians (who would become ‘neoliberals’,

although at the time they themselves were not so clear about that affiliation)
wrote the 21060 Decree in about a month, led by Senator Gonzalo Sánchez de
Lozada from the MNR. In August 1985, President Paz Estenssoro (supported by
Banzer) approved it, allowing the measure to stabilize the economy and, in doing
so, lay the foundation for subsequent transformation.
The 21060 Decree vigorously attacked the fiscal deficit, increased government
revenues from the sale of gasoline, and banned additional hiring within State
enterprises. The decree also allowed control to be regained over those government
companies which had been taken over by union leadership. Their management was
reorganized and control of the companies’ finances was regained. The companies
were now prohibited from borrowing from the Central Bank and allowed to dis-
miss superfluous personnel. This option would become a painful reality less than
a year later, when mineral prices collapsed and nearly 20,000 Comibol miners and
employees would lose their jobs.
In addition to shutting down the source of the inflation in these ways, the
decree was also designed to restore financial confidence using two main measures.
First, all transactions were now permitted to be carried out in dollars, which
decreased the effect the weakening peso had on inflation and returned to circulation
the currency which had been previously in private hands.
[ 45 ]
Second, a ‘floating’ exchange rate was approved, eliminating the speculative

business which had been responsible for the official and the ‘alternative’ dollar
exchange rates. The government could then establish the exchange rate without
political interference and according to the demand for the dollar, which Central
Bank technicians recorded on a currency board, or the ‘bolsin’. At the same time, a
large number of dollars were injected into the economy, which halted devaluation
of the peso. From that moment on, exporters could sell dollars at a fair market
price, which encouraged them to continue exporting and increased the stock of
the country’s foreign exchange reserves, creating a virtuous circle.
Propaganda was launched along with the measures, intended to persuade
people that a ‘big shock’ was being applied to the heart of a faltering economy.
Gradually the idea that the dollar would maintain a stable price was growing, and
this eliminated the need to increase prices, as illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3: Devaluation and Inflation
Year Pesos per dollar Inflation, annual average
1984 23,381 1,281

1985 1,724,193 11,749
1986 1,952,903 276
1987 2,2* 14,5
Table source: Juan Cariaga (1997). Note: the 1987 monetary reform changed the Bolivian currency.
1,000,000 old pesos became one bolivian.
At the same time, the decree allowed for the free importation of goods, in
order to lower the prices of food and other items which had been price-protected.
It was the beginning of the end (for the next 20 years) of a statist economic policy
which dated back to the 1940s.
The 21060 Decree also marked the start of two waves of structural reforms
designed to replace the broken ‘Revolutionary Nationalist State’ (funded almost
exclusively on the nationalized natural resource rents, not on taxes) which was
the Bolivian version of a welfare state. The 1985 structural reform was designed
[ 46 ]
to create a small, well run government that would collect taxes and would not
interact directly with the economy. In a matter of months, even weeks, after the
21060 Decree, hyperinflation was under control, product shortages had disap-
peared, worker unions were politically defeated (so no more strikes happened)
and government recovered its authority.
First Generation Reforms
Decades of dictatorship, hyperinflation, and the social chaos of the early 1980s,
had caused the virtual disappearance of the State’s economic organizations: the
Central Bank, the tax service, and a system for working out the annual budget
were non-existent. The so-called ‘first generation structural reforms’ carried
out in mid to late 1980s were aimed at restoring these essential governmental
services.
Thanks to the painful lessons of hyperinflation, an independent Central
Bank was created, with the ability to safeguard stability. It could not grant
loans to the public sector, and it was to strengthen its management system to
protect the bank from power disputes. Since then, Bolivia has had inflation
figures below two digits, one of the lowest in South America, and international
reserves have remained at excellent levels. (The structure of the Central Bank,
however, was recently changed, but so far without visible consequences, due
to the country’s economic boom.)
Another catastrophic effect of inflation was the virtual cessation of tax
collection. (In 1982, tax revenue comprised only 1% of the GDP.) Thus, the
1986 tax reform (Law 843) was crucial: it reduced the hundreds of existing
taxes (including, for example, a gasoline tax to finance the construction of the
oil union headquarters) to seven universal taxes, simpler to calculate and collect.
The results of the reform were outstanding. The tax revenue rose steadily to
become 22% of the GDP in 2011.
However, Law 843 contained a serious flaw. Collected tax was distributed
in the ratio of 75% for the National Treasury and 25% for the regions, but
was not done at a national level. It was rather based on the proceeds from each
region (which harmed the poorer of them). The law also stated that government
[ 47 ]
companies had to pay taxes in their legal domiciles. Because of that, corpora-
tions and municipalities in the most prosperous regions, particularly La Paz,
obtained a much higher income than other regions.
This is why another fundamental reform, introduced in a wave of ‘second
generation reforms’, was to change the form of tax revenue distribution. The Pop-
ular Participation law was adopted in 1994 and established that the distribution to
the National Treasury and to the regions had to be done out of the national total
(regardless of where the tax was paid) and according to the number of inhabitants
in each region. Also, the share received by municipalities increased from 10 to
20%. The regions and municipalities thus received a substantial increase in income.
Subsequently, other laws would extend the decentralization of tax distribution.
Another key measure of this era was the renegotiation of foreign debt. Private
creditors agreed to resell it to the State at 11% of its original value. This was a
good deal for the Treasury, but took the country out of the financial markets. Since
then, only bilateral and international organizations lend money to the Bolivian
government.
In conclusion, the crowning achievement of this period (1985–1989) was
the consolidation of economic stability, which would be declared in later years by
President Morales as a ‘national heritage’ that has to be retained.
Second Generation Reforms
Presencia daily, August 27, 1986

Studying the exploitation of lithium at Uyuni Salt Flats
National and international scientists of the largest lithium reserves in the

will meet today at the Bolivian Geo- world. Also, reserves of potassium
logical Congress to examine recent chloride, sodium carbonate, borate,
geological studies from the Uyuni as well as other compounds have been
Salt Flats. According to preliminary found, all of which are useful in a
studies, the Uyuni Salt Flats have one variety of industrial processes.
[ 48 ]
The 1980s are considered a ‘lost decade’ in Latin America because of the low prices
of raw materials, which are the continent’s major export products. At the end of
the 1980s, and during the following decade, financial constraints became very
serious and put Bolivia at the mercy of initiatives of, and even the whim of, the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and bi-lateral donors.
These agencies and countries, following the privatizing trend of the times,
suspended financial support of State production and, instead, concentrated all their
efforts on social programs. This forced the politicians of the time into the position
of either selling, or closing down, the State enterprises they had been building
over time. Additionally, the Bolivian people themselves, since suffering the severe
consequences of excess public spending, were generally more than ready to get rid
of the companies responsible for this expense.
Nevertheless, privatization in Bolivia was not easy, given the strong statist
tradition of the country, which considered public companies to be an achievement
of popular struggles.
After the 21060 Decree, during President Jaime Paz’s administration (1989–
1993), the next step was to pass an investment law and a privatization decree that
authorized the government to sell its smaller businesses (it was not applicable to
larger state companies).
For the larger state companies, additional legislation would be required, and
would be provided by the first government of Sánchez de Lozada (1993–1997).
He had found an ingenious way to persuade Bolivians of the need to privatize. This
idea was ‘capitalization’ (instead of calling it ‘privatization’) which was presented as
a decentralizing move in which the State provided property that it had previously
monopolized, to the people. After that, the Bolivian people were partnered with
large investors that were asked to put money into each company equal to its value.
Thus the value of those companies was multiplied by two. Half of the shares (sup-
posedly equal to the original value), remained in the hands of the Bolivians and the
other half and the administration of the companies was handed over to investors.
Thus, without losing any of its properties, the country could reap all the
benefits attributed to privatization: access to technology prohibitively expensive
for the State, increased employment, reduced corruption, entry to global markets,
and so on. At the same time, they avoided the problems of ‘pure privatization’ such
[ 49 ]
as waste of the resources and illicit enrichment.

On March 21, 1994, the government enacted a law that authorized it to
transfer, free of charge, the State’s shares of ENTEL (telecommunications), YPFB
(oil), ENFE (railways), ENDE (electricity) and LAB (airline) to all adult Bolivians,
until December 31, 1995. But it was not a direct transfer, as it was first advertised.
The government had to use, “suitable, transparent and appropriate measures,” so
citizens could benefit from the “transfer of such shares to pension funds”. The
authorities decided that those funds would be managed by specialized companies,
the AFPs (Pension Funds Administrators), also responsible for pension reform. The
Pensions Law (1996) stated that dividends from the capitalized companies and
their sale of shares (deposited in pension funds) would finance a US$ 200 ‘yearly
cash grant’ to people over 65. This benefit would be called ‘Bonosol’ and would
show the ‘results of capitalization’ before the next general elections (1997), thus
ensuring political benefits from the process. As we can see, ‘capitalization’ was really
just a deferred ‘privatization’ process. The plan was that the shares in the hands of
the Bolivian people, administered by the AFPs, were going to be periodically sold
to finance the Bonosol. (Local and foreign entrepreneurs, besides the capitalizing
partners, would buy these shares.)
The procedure was designed to facilitate the privatization process since it
created the illusion that the properties would remain in the hands of the public.
Its complexity, and the scarce (or misleading) information surrounding it, created
enormous confusion which was never completely clarified. This allowed the State
to implement the reform, but also proved to be its Achilles heel.
Half of the shares, (which were progressively privatized), were to become
a bone of contention over the following 10 years. Pro-statism groups opposed
selling the Bolivian shares to finance the Bonosol. Hugo Banzer’s administration
(1997–2001) reduced the amount of the cash grant from the initial US$ 200 to
US$ 60, and changed its name to ‘Bolivida’. With these actions, Banzer was able
to reduce the share’s selling pace.
Moreover, the AFPs did not trade shares on the stock exchange, as they were
supposed to do, but instead kept them. This gave them the (profitable) right to
appoint heads of the major companies that had been privatized.
Thus, the ‘deferred privatization’ slowed, and the stocks fell into a sort of
[ 50 ]
limbo where they weren’t entirely State owned, or totally private. The temptation
to return them to the State, so that they would be used one way or the other (with
consequent benefits for some groups) remained for the duration of the decade.
Finally, during the 2000s the idea of employing more than half of the shares to
‘re-finance YPFB’ (or nationalization), won, as we’ll see in the next section.
Steady (but Limited) Growth
The 1990s were a time of stability and steady growth, although it was limited. The
inflation rate and currency devaluation of the period were low, which increased
international reserves (in 1997, they exceeded one billion dollars). GDP grew by
about 4% annually; a rate that only improved by two points in 1996, the same
year in which the country received US$ 1,600 billion from the capitalization of
State enterprises.
During this period, for the first time since the 19th century, the country did
not depend entirely on raw materials (because their prices were low in the inter-
national markets) and non-traditional exports became important, plus domestic
consumption.
Experts at the time attributed the slow growth to liquidity constraints, given
the Central Bank’s embargo on lending money to the government and the lack of
private international financing. This was as a result of the debt moratorium of the
past decade plus the rescue of several banks in the first half of the decade, which
left the State responsible for millions of dollars.
The main objective of the economic policy during this time was to avoid a
price increase and the sudden devaluation of the boliviano, in order to maintain
public confidence and create attractive conditions for private investors, which
was considered key to solving these financial constraints. This policy succeeded
in increasing investments in the most competitive economic sectors, but made
a significant difference only in the oil sector, because several reputable interna-
tional companies discovered many gas fields towards the end of the decade. The
impetus of the new oil extraction sector upset the balance between production of
raw commodities and non-traditional activities once again in the following years.
The banks raised their interest rates higher than the international rates and
[ 51 ]
managed to bring back home a significant amount of money which they loaned to
their customers at prices higher than they really could afford in the poor economic
conditions. Thus, a banking ‘bubble’ (loans paid with more loans) would explode
with the crisis that ended the decade. The crisis was caused by the 1998 stock
market crash in Asia, which hit the raw material prices of new Bolivian exports (for
example, soybeans, jewelry, wood) hard. Investors fled from the emerging markets,
and Brazil was forced to compensate for the lack of capital with devaluation. But
this, in turn, flooded the Bolivian market with Brazilian products, ultimately
decimating domestic manufacture.
While the agricultural sector saw its export revenues fall, there was also a string
of climatic disasters that ended up bursting the banking bubble. Overdue loans
increased threefold in two years, from 4.5% in 1998 to 12.1% in 2000.
Hugo Banzer presided over the administration at the time, and, wary due to
what had happened in the early 1990s, he forced the banks to absorb these losses.
This significantly reduced the credit-worthiness and liquidity of the country. The
flow of money from the banks to the private sector turned negative (the financial
institutions charged more than what they had loaned).
The Central Bank tried to restore credit by increasing the liquidity of the
banks, but did not achieve its purpose because these funds did not reach the public.
Bankers invested them in first world markets, where interest had increased because
of a run of investors from emerging countries. Since the current economic policy
prevented the State from acting otherwise, the problem continued unresolved.
This case demonstrates how ‘blind respect’ for neoliberal concepts in reality
reduced the economic experts’ possibilities for solving the crisis.
In 2000 the situation worsened with the collapse of the ‘dot com.’ companies
on the stock market. This ended a decade of almost uninterrupted economic growth
and brought the world to the brink of recession.
With the crisis, the increase in Bolivian production was less than the increase
in population. For this reason, the GDP per capita fell from US$ 900 in 1998,
to US$ 858 in 2003. To add to the woes, in this year unemployment came in at
10–12%.
[ 52 ]
The Deficit Crisis
In the first two thirds of the decade, government revenues were consistently lower
than expenditure, due to limited economic growth. In 1994–1995, the smallest
fiscal deficits occurred (less than 2%), due to limits imposed on public companies’
budgets in the pre-capitalization years. But there was no surplus. Since 1997, the
State had been overwhelmed by the obligation to pay the pensions it had self-im-
posed as a result of pension reform (the youngest group of pensioners was asked
to use an individual savings system).
The debt continued to grow until it reached 5% of the GDP in 2003. For this
reason, State spending, which was equivalent to 40% of domestic product before
capitalization, continued at the same rate; the reforms couldn’t lower it (which
contributed significantly to its failure).
Additionally, revenue also fell. Prior to the Banzer administration, the ‘sim-
plified system’ of taxation had already been created (subsidizing thousands of
small business), and liquefied gas (LPG) had already been subsidized, mostly for
household users. But the Banzer administration froze the price of gasoline and
diesel (in 2000) which cost the State US$ 100 million per year until 2003, when
the economic upturn further increased the price of the subsidy (in 2011 it was
about US$ 500 million). The crisis decreased tax revenues, of course, at all levels.
La Razón daily, October 16, 2003

October 2003, markets open, but prices rise 100%
Egg prices rise from 0.50 bolivianos non-essential groceries. The price for
per unit to 1 boliviano. Meat is scarce these products also rose.
in the Rodriguez market, but in the The markets have been closed since
Miraflores and Yungas markets many Monday (due to massive protests).
people could buy it at between 22 and On Sunday, people had bought what
30 bolivianos per kilo. Canned food they could. The vendors are not guar-
and cookies were the most requested anteeing anything for tomorrow.
[ 53 ]
At its worst, the deficit reached 9% in 2002 and 8% in 2003 of the GDP.
Pension payments and the fuel subsidy were the cause of 75% of the deficit.
The resources to finance these shortcomings fell to the external debt: US$
4,700 million (55% of the GDP) in 2003. Moreover, the domestic debt (what
the State owed its citizens, represented by AFPs) grew from US$ 1,055 million
in 1997 to US$ 2,170 million in 2002. This increase was due in particular to the
obligatory purchase of Treasury bonds by the AFPs, an act that was used to col-
lect the necessary funds to pay the pensions. Thus, active workers kept financing
retirees, not directly as in the past, but through increasing domestic debt.
External debt was comprised of loans at favorable rates granted by interna-
tional organizations and friendly countries. But they expected something in return
in order to control the fiscal deficit, so the Banzer administration’s official policy
was austerity: improve the public’s investment by taking money from current
expenditure in an effort to stop the deficit from growing.
During these critical years, debate over the deficit divided economists into
two groups. The ‘party of spending’ suggested Keynesian measures to revive the
economy, regardless of whether the State had to go into more debt or take money
from Bolivian international reserves (these economists were in the opposition and
represented the MNR vision). The party of ‘cutting back’ wanted to keep debt
under control, as was required by international organizations. In general, these
economists were linked to the ADN-MIR administration.
The cast of characters, however, changed with the 2002 elections. Candidate
Gonzalo de Lozada (MNR) proposed to, “renegotiate the fiscal deficit with the
IMF, spend more and increase the demand in the economy.” But once in the
Presidency, he took the IMF’s position, in order to reduce the deficit in 2003 to
6% of the GDP (he achieved less than that).
The international reserves fell from US$ 1,066 million in 1997 to US$ 854
million in 2002. This was due to the Central Bank’s provision of credit to the public
sector. These credits had been prohibited during 1995–1999, but with the crisis
they had to be allowed. For example, in 2002 credit to public enterprises amounted
US$ 150 million. That same year, the Central Bank printed the equivalent of US$
48 million, fuelling inflation fears. But a bigger crisis never occurred. Instead,
the year ended as it had begun, thanks to a change in international conditions,
[ 54 ]
especially the rise in international prices for raw materials.
The End of the Crisis
The increasing demand for raw materials arose from renewed global prosperity,
which had steadily improved the terms of trade since 2003. That year the increase
grew by 5%, and continued for years after.
In 2004, growth began to exceed Bolivia’s demographic increase, despite a
drop in direct foreign, and private and public domestic investments, driven by
political events during the previous year, when President Sánchez de Lozada was
forced to resign.
That same year global growth was more than 3%, thanks mainly to the prog-
ress of the US economy. Latin America resumed its upward march. In Bolivia, an
extraordinary soybean, cotton, and sunflower harvest, coupled with the best prices
for these products, and others like zinc and gold, as well as the doubling of textile
exports to the US, totaled a national extra income of US$ 1,500 million dollars.
Tax revenues experienced an upward turn and the fiscal gap decreased, drop-
ping to 2.3% of the GDP.
La Razón daily, May 7, 2003

One out of 10 Bolivians already has a cell phone
Every year there are more and more Three companies are in open com-
cell phone customers. A recent report petition with one another (Telecel,
from the National Statistics Institute ENTEL, and Viva). Their variety of
and the Superintendent of Telecom- offers, especially for prepaid deals,
munications said that as of December encourage the use of this communi-
2002 one out of 10 Bolivians has a cation tool. The cell phone service is
cell phone. so widespread, it’s about to overtake
The significant growth is partly the landline service, of which three
explained by market competitiveness. out of 10 Bolivians are users.
[ 55 ]
The Gas Boom
The years of Bolivia’s crisis were also, paradoxically, preparation for the gas boom.
The capitalization of YPFB and a concession given to investors (contained in
the Hydrocarbons Law enacted in 1996), delivered a ‘shock’ of investments, as
intended. In just four years, these investments increased six fold, reaching almost
US$ 2,000 millions in year 2000. The investment shock stimulated a huge increase
in production. The conditions established for the distribution of income were
favorable for investors, but restricted for the State, which did not take advantage
of the success and ultimately prevented the growth from alleviating the coun-
try’s fiscal problem. On the contrary, the conditions bred ‘anti-systemic’ political
movements that promoted a change in income distribution and, finally, led to
gas nationalization.
The Return of Statism

From 1996 to 2005, there was in effect a regime that allowed international con-
cessions to companies that controlled hydrocarbon production, and that could
run it in exchange for royalties and taxes, as established by the 1996 Hydrocarbon
Law 1689. In the final days of Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada’s first administration
(1993-1997), Decree 24806 was adopted to regulate contracts between the State
and the oil companies.
This measure changed previous legislation, which stated that oil license holders
had to surrender all production to the State in exchange for fees and taxes. This
procedure was possible because YPFB, at the time, had a monopoly over oil refining
and gas exportation because it owned all the pipelines.
With the capitalization of YPFB and the privatization of the refineries in
the 1990s, conditions changed. The oil companies paid royalties in cash, and
once they fulfilled this requirement, they disposed of the oil as they wanted. The
companies’ freedom was not, of course, absolute. But in practice, the State had a
lot of difficulty limiting their autonomy, precisely because it had stopped directly
handling the oil.
[ 56 ]
Nationalization Begins
After Sánchez de Lozada’s resignation, Vice President Carlos Mesa (2003–2005)

took office.
In the first chapter of oil nationalization, President Mesa revoked Decree
24806 on January 31, 2004. Later, Evo Morales and the MAS demanded the can-
cellation of all contracts. The government replied that this was impossible, that the
contracts were “laws between parties”. Out of this controversy arose the question
for the oil referendum that Mesa carried out on July 18, 2004. The question, as
negotiated with MAS was: “Do you agree that the Bolivian State should recover
ownership over all hydrocarbons at the wellhead?”
Although Carlos Mesa’s administration insisted that this question was only
relevant to new companies entering the Bolivian hydrocarbon business after the
referendum, and did not affect those who already had signed contracts with the
State, during the campaign he had to change his position due to social pressures
and the logic of the question. He began to talk about “renegotiating” the existing
contracts and the need for the oil companies to “migrate” their existing contracts
from one administration to the next, whether they wanted to or not. This refer-
endum question, to which about 80% of the population answered ‘yes’, awakened
the ghost of nationalization.
After the referendum, the government promulgated a bill for a new hydrocar-
bon law that would force the oil companies to change their contracts by mandate
within 180 days. That completed the nationalization of the hydrocarbons already
extracted, or at the wellhead. Companies should then accept “shared production”
contracts – in other words, operating as they had done before the passing of Law
1689 of 1996.
The New Hydrocarbons Law (3058)
In April 2005, Congress approved the new hydrocarbons law which put forth
exactly that: hydrocarbon production would cease to belong to the companies and
now would belong to the State, as before. The State, however, would compensate
for the technical work and recognize the company’s investments. Before the law
[ 57 ]
was approved the debate centered on how much money should be given to each
side. Carlos Mesa’s administration argued for an 18% royalty (the percentage
already in effect since 1996), in addition to a “direct tax on hydrocarbons” (DTH)
variable for the type of hydrocarbon, type of field, price and volume, which would
be deductible from income tax, and could (in larger fields, and within 15 years)
achieve 50% of the government take approved in the referendum. In contrast, the
MAS supported a 50% direct tax (18% royalty and 32% direct tax). This was the
position which ultimately prevailed.
May 1, 2006: Nationalization
Carlos Mesa was forced to resign and Supreme Court President, Eduardo Rodri-
guez, was sworn in to call general elections. In December 2005 Evo Morales
achieved a landslide victory and began his first term in January 2006. Based on the
2003 law, the elected President secured the nationalization of oil and natural gas
with a decree called ‘Heroes of the Chaco War’. The army had seized the oil fields,
the refining and transportation facilities and even the gas stations. A propaganda
campaign was set up to maximize political benefit for the Morales government.
In previous years, Evo Morales had been opposed to oil nationalization and opted
instead for a tax increase. Then he came out in favor of nationalization, but “without
expropriations”. Finally, encouraged by the election results of 2005, he opted for
the more radical nationalization measure, that included expropriations.
The decree gave YPFB, “full control over and total ownership of all hydro-
carbons produced in the country,” control over their sale and the authority to
define “the conditions, volumes and prices (to be established) for the domestic
market, exports and industrialization.” This decree transformed the oil companies
– even those to be associated with YPFB in the future – into ‘operators’ paid by
commissions.
This, together with the way the new oil order was imposed (with military
actions and public shouting), produced a significant drop in foreign investments
in exploration, which persists until today.
In any case, the government’s strength forced the companies (that had, in
previous years, threatened to put up a fight in the event that their rights were
[ 58 ]
diminished) to silently and almost sheepishly surrender. They all accepted nation-
alization. None left the country and they all re-signed their contracts under the
newly imposed conditions.
The oil business’ modus operandi is now as follows. The State retains 50% in
royalties and taxes. Of the remaining half, a portion is returned to private compa-
nies to compensate for their investments, operating expenses and sales taxes. The
third part (which consists of earnings) is divided between YPFB and the company,
according to a formula that tends to reward the company if it produces higher
volumes.
The new contracts improved the government’s take to roughly 65% of produc-
tion, but with a downward trend as distribution increases with more investments.
The tax revenues for hydrocarbons, which in 2002–2003 had been a little more
than US$ 300 million per year, grew to US$ 500 million, and then to US$ 1,200
million yearly. However, it is important to note that, due to increased natural
gas prices, the export values differed greatly over time. In the past five years, due
to the boom in prices, the exports of natural gas, minerals and other products
have reached US$ 7,000 million dollars annually, greatly changing the size of the
national economy, which went from a GDP of US$ 8,000 million in 2005, to
US$ 25,000 million in 2012.
This solvency caused international reserves to grow immensely and reach
the equivalent of half the GDP. Private banking credit increased from US$ 2,300
million in 2005, to almost US$ 9,000 million in 2012, helping the construction
sector to grow 30% annually. For the people, the result of these changes has been an
increase in domestic consumption, which has become the main component of GDP
growth and has decreased extreme poverty from 40% in 2002 to 32% in 2010.
The Causes of ‘Gasolinazo’
‘Gasolinazo’ means ‘big increase in gasoline prices’. The weakest point of the oil
business framework, introduced with Law 1689 of 1996, was the price of fuel in
the domestic market. This price was to be determined by international oil values
in an effort to stop private companies from exporting their oil, rather than selling
it inside the country. But Bolivians were already dealing with a rapidly rising cost
[ 59 ]
of living and could not afford to pay such prices at the start of the 21st century.
The solution came in 2000 and continues today in different forms: state
subsidy. From 2000–2014 the price of a barrel of oil in the domestic market was
set at US$ 27. In 2012 it rose to US$ 36 a barrel, with the intention of encour-
aging the oil companies to explore new fields, without changing the retail price.
These price ceilings did not cause direct loss to the companies, because the cost
of producing a barrel was about US$ 15. However it didn’t encourage them to
maintain production levels and, instead, they fell from about 10,000 barrels per
day to half that. The investment in exploration practically halted, falling from
drilling 25 wells a year to just one or two.
At the same time, the economic boom increased the number of cars in Bolivia
to one million.
The result: every year the country has to import about US$ 500 million worth
of gasoline, at a 75% loss, because the government has to buy at international
prices and resell it at subsidized prices. In addition, between 10% and 15% of the
domestic demand is from smugglers who take advantage of the price difference
to sell gasoline and LPG to neighboring countries.
The ‘gasolinazo’ that the government approved at the end of 2010 (and
removed shortly after because of the populace’s outrage) was a radical attempt
to solve these problems. The provision sought to raise the internal fuel prices to
international market levels, which meant 50% to 80% increases in the prices
of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and LPG. This would have ended the subsidies and
enabled the liberalization of the domestic price of gas, creating incentives for
transnational oil companies to seek more oil, and so aid the State’s deficient
exploration endeavors.
Today, since the failure of ‘gasolinazo’, the government wants to encour-
age exploration by promising oil companies that their investment would be
returned for every oil field they found, but the overall industrial conditions
in Bolivia favor the government too much, so the incentives did not have the
expected effect.
So the ongoing situation seems to be that the current gasoline shortages will
continue and will be remedied with expensive imports, while natural gas exports
continue.
[ 60 ]
Retrieving Capitalized Companies
As we have seen, the decree nationalizing oil sparked the retrieval of capitalized
companies, plus the nationalization of others considered strategic, for the rein-
troduction of the statist economic system in which the country had put its hopes.
The decree provided for what would be later applied to all formerly capitalized
companies. First, “It transfers to YPFB, free of charge, the property shares owned
by the Bolivian citizens who were part of the Collective Capitalization Fund
(administered by the AFPs).” Then, it nationalized the, “necessary shares to allow
YPFB control of at least 50% plus one” of the companies’ shares involved in oil.
It did the same to control 50% plus one of the shares of the formerly privatized
Petrobras refineries and hydrocarbon logistics company.
The Collective Capitalization Fund was a trust to guarantee the payment of
Bonosol for people older than 65 years (as previously discussed in this chapter.) In
appropriating them, the government obtained between 47.2% and 49.9% of the oil
companies’ assets, as well as telecommunications, power generation and railways.
But the government couldn’t take over the administration of any of these. With
the exception of railways, in order to obtain it, private owners were forced to give
the required amount so the majority of shares could be in government hands. The
only transnational company that accepted this deal was Spanish Repsol, today a
minority partner in the State’s oil company, Chaco. All the others preferred to sell
or deliver (looking to the courts for compensation) the entire package of shares they
controlled. This set the transfer at a higher price than the government originally
expected. Table 1 shows the value of the transactions and ongoing negotiations
by the companies affected by nationalization.
After the nationalization process, the State went from producing 7% of the
GDP, as it did in 2005, to producing 20% in 2011.
The profits of the nationalized companies continue to fund part of the cash
grant for the elderly, equivalent of about US$ 250 million annually. The old Bono-
sol, now called Renta Dignidad (Dignity Rent) is payable to people older than 60
and (keeps the previous amount, Bs 1,800, now US$ 257), but rose to Bs 2,400
(US$ 342) for those not receiving any pensions. In addition to this, other cash
grants have been enabled by the hydrocarbon income of the country (for example
[ 61 ]
to primary and secondary students and to pregnant mothers).
Table 4: Companies nationalized and probable costs
Probable Cost
Nationalized Company Current Status
US$ Millions
Chaco, Andina, Transredes 317 Negotiated
Refineries 112 Negotiated
Chaco (50%) 170 Negotiated
CLHB 20 In negotiation
Corani, Valle Hermoso, Guaracachi 270 In negotiation
ENTEL 100 Negotiated
Fancesa 80 In negotiation
Air BP 10 In negotiation
Electricity Transport 70 In negotiation
Total 1,147
Chart sources: Ferrufino (2011) and Zaratti (2010)
Sources
Cariaga, Juan (1997): “Estabilización y desarrollo”, Los Amigos del Libro/
FCE, La Paz, Bolivia, and México DF, México.
Ferrufino, Rubén (2011): “Nacionalización y creación de nuevas empresas
estatales en Bolivia”, in “Capitalismos en Bolivia”, Fundación Pazos Kanki, La
Paz, Bolivia.
Molina, Fernando (2004): “Pros y contras de la capitalización”, Pulso weekly,
La Paz, Bolivia.
Molina, Fernando (2006): “Un laberinto circular. Privatización y nacional-
ización del gas boliviano”, unpublished.
Morales, Juan Antonio (2005): “Las principales políticas del BCB en el marco
de la Ley 1670”, in “BCB, historia monetaria contemporánea de Bolivia”.
Página Siete daily (2011): “La industria petrolera después del gasolinazo”,
editorial piece, 6 of January.
[ 62 ]
Salinas, Luis Fernando; Lema, Xavier y Espinoza, Lourdes (2002): “La capi-
talización, cinco años después”, Fundación Milenio, La Paz, Bolivia.
Francesco Zaratti (2010): “La descapitalización: cómo se hizo, cuánto costó”,
in “El costo de la capitalización”, www.columnistas.net, La Paz, Bolivia.
Oscar Zegada (2005): “El BCB y el período de la estabilidad de precios”,
in “BCB, historia monetaria contemporánea de Bolivia”, BCB, La Paz, Bolivia.
[ 63 ]
Chapter 3
The perennial political stability-
instability cycle
Boris Miranda7
7 Boris Miranda is a journalist.

Photo: Fredd Ramos
Not even the use of military equipment could halt the strong
protests of September and October 2003 in El Alto.
The Cost of Democracy
“
Bolivia returns to democracy.” On the front page, the headline news in the daily
newspaper Presencia proclaimed the new period in Bolivian history. During
the afternoon, Sunday October 10, 1982, as the military left the government
palace amid whistles and insults, Hernán Siles assumed the Presidency.
Crowds witnessed the historic oath, not only at the Plaza Murillo, the center
of political power in La Paz, but also at the workers’ union and mining federations.
Presidents from Colombia, Ecuador and Perú were also on hand and numerous
delegations from countries across Europe, Asia, and Africa. Bolivia had been the
last country in the region to gain independence, during the 19th century, but its
example during the 1980s helped the other Southern Cone countries to achieve
democracy.
Democracy in Bolivia was ushered in by crowds of people a festive atmo-
sphere, which reflected an overwhelming expression of the will of the people. It
took its first steps with that jeered and whistled ‘goodbye’ to the armed forces that
departed from power after a string of coups that began in November 1964. In
his speech, Siles asked for 100 days to resolve the economic crisis and promised
to “rebuild the country”. His new Vice President, Jaime Paz, focused his speech
on the international community. Both knew the country needed all the help it
could get to recover from the economic and institutional collapse left behind by
the dictatorship.
UDP Forces
The UDP (Popular Democratic Unity) was composed mainly of the Nationalist
Revolutionary Leftist Movement’ (MNRI), the Siles’ party, and the Revolutionary
Left Movement (MIR), Jaime Paz Zamora’ party. One was the most progressive of
the groups identified with the 1952 National Revolution; the other represented
the first generation of MIR leaders, determined to resist the Banzer dictatorship
(1971–1978). The MIR believed it was necessary to create an “historical junction”
with the ideals of the 1952 National Revolution.
Other leftists were also part of the partnership, including communists, former
[ 67 ]
Associated Press, October 9, 1982

Dozens of Bolivians return from exile
In recent days dozens of exiled Boliv- as a result of the bloody 1980 mili-
ians returned to their home country tary coup. According to sources, the
from several Latin American capitals, number of Bolivian exiles was about
encouraged by the return to democ- 2,000.
racy, according to human rights advo- Venezuela, whose government osten-
cacy sources. sibly repudiated the 1980 coup, sent
Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador and Mexico a high-level mission to attend the
are the countries where the highest inauguration of President Hernán
concentrations of Bolivians relocated Siles.
guerrillas and some union leaders. However, the socialists who followed Marcelo
Quiroga (killed by the military in 1980) preferred to keep their distance from the
first democratic government, and even from the COB, controlled by Juan Lechín.
The UDP had a worker’s program that included several measures in favor of miners,
but was unable to persuade the COB to participate in the administration. Instead,
their relationship became increasingly strained.
Shortly after the UDP were sworn in, the political and inflationary crisis
caused the majority of citizens to turn away from Hernán Siles and Jaime Paz and
ask for their resignation.
Another peril for the fledgling administration was the sudden and deep divi-
sion between its two most important allies. President Siles had enemies working
right next door and it was only a matter of time before the MIR definitively
abandoned the UDP project.
On August 6, 1983, after only 10 months in office, the Hoy daily described
the situation:
“‘Differences over how to manage the state were one of the causes of the split
in a political alliance which had seemed to be gaining strength. This precipitated the
rift with the MIR, which eventually seemed irreparable. President Siles requested
that his comrade in arms return to the government, but the distance between
[ 68 ]
- The perennial political stability-instability cycle -
them continued to grow. The situation worsened to the point that the MIR min-
isters resigned their positions after a fight between the MIR Executive Committee
Secretary, Oscar Eid, and the Interior Minister, Mario Roncal. Jaime Paz’s party
leaders withdrew and his parliamentarians sabotaged the necessary authorization
for Siles to travel to France after an important invitation from French President
François Mitterrand.”
In less than a year, that was the situation inside the UDP.
The Beginning of the End
EFE news agency, October 16, 1982

Narco-terrorist planned the assassination of Siles
Rome While the Italian Interior Min- ian authorities deny responsibility for
ister denied the Italian police’s involve- the operation and say “unidentified
ment in capturing extreme right foreign police” carried out the oper-
winger Pier Luigi Pagliai in Bolivia, ation.
reports from that country suggest Ultimately, according to reports from
other versions of the story. The Min- Corriere della Sera, the detainee, Pag-
ister has twice denied the involvement liai, planned to assassinate President
of two Italian Secret Police Agents who Siles. Last October 2nd Pagliai, a lead-
snatched Pagliai from Bolivia in a sting ing trafficker in Santa Cruz, depos-
operation in the city of Santa Cruz. ited US$ 15 million in profits from
The newspaper Corriere della Sera cocaine trafficking in a Buenos Aires
reported from Santa Cruz that Boliv- bank.
Of course, not only did the UDP have internal enemies. The MNR parliamentary
caucus, lead by Víctor Paz Estenssoro, and that of the ADN of Hugo Banzer,
rejected without hesitation proposals that the Siles administration put forward
for approval from Parliament. The UDP, a minority even with all their members
present, was unable to pass laws and their calls for support from other leftist parties,
such as the Socialist Party, were unsuccessful.
[ 69 ]
Presencia daily, July 1, 1984

And then the president was rescued…
In a commando operation by army He was able to identify him through a

officers yesterday, at approximately windows through which the President
15:00 hours, the President of the gestured.
Republic, Hernán Siles was rescued Later, after speaking with the kid-
from kidnappers holding him in a nappers, Cordero entered the room
house in Miraflores. and found the President, who was
Presencia reporter Román Cordero, wearing a blue coat over his paja-
who was the first to enter the house mas. Siles was calm, and reassured
after the commando operation, spot- his captors that they were going to
ted the President in an upstairs room. be treated fairly.
The real opponent, however, was not Congress, but the COB. This, the largest
platform of unionized workers, was considered an example of unity among the
working class in Latin America because of its ability to mobilize members. The
President and Juan Lechín had been political foes for decades and throughout the
UDP’s term there were no way the two historic leaders of the National Revolution
could met. The long meetings and the invitations to form a co-government with
the workers were useless. Soon, Siles was almost begging the COB leadership to
join the administration’s Executive. On August 2, 1983, an official invitation was
sent from the government headquarters to Lechín, inviting the country’s workers
to be incorporated into the government.
The talks introduced the real possibility that the proletarian class, mainly
miners, would have a majority seat in both the cabinet and at the boardroom
table of several strategic State enterprises. Some government officials had seriously
proposed the possibility of building socialism via co-government with the COB,
an option that had failed almost 30 years earlier, during Siles’ first term (1956-
1960). An extraordinary meeting of the COB on August 23, 1983, chose to break
off negotiations with the Presidency and start a wave of protests demanding the
implementation of a “mobile salary scale” that meant ever-rising salaries to stop
[ 70 ]
the erosion of purchasing power that inflation generated. Lechín was behind the
decision that buried the boldest attempt to move towards a socialist model in the
20th century.
Without the participation of the workers, and with an increasing number of
mining unions against the regime, the UDP was alone and without the social base
from which to fight the domestic economic crisis and the international financial
system. In 1983, by the end of the year, 252 work stoppages and strikes had been
declared by the mining, oil, manufacturing and construction sectors, among others.
An Administration with No Options
Without the political infrastructure to impose its agenda on the Legislature or in

the streets, and with the country destroyed by the economic legacies of the dicta-
torships, the UDP was running out of options. The disloyalty and the inability to
act of many of its allies also weighed in on the collapse of the Siles administration.
Eighty ministers were appointed in three years. Some crossed to the opposition
immediately after leaving the Executive.
Jaime Paz´s efforts to create an international financial cushion for the Bolivian
democracy couldn’t do much against the severity of the market laws. In March
1985, La Paz was virtually overtaken by workers from public mines, and other
private companies. The unstoppable force with which the miners occupied La
Paz marked the defeat of the UDP. However, many analysts and activists warned
that the workers’ offensive carried the seeds of their own destruction. The popular
movement too was about to be defeated during those historic days in March 1982.
For the leftists and the unions, night would soon fall.
Given the climate of lawlessness, Siles agreed to shorten his mandate. Until
the very last moment, he kept the military out of the conflict, despite the Military
Command’s constant demands to put tanks in the streets to control the protests.
Siles resigned one year short of the period stipulated in the Constitution – the
price that democracy had to pay to recover stability.
“Now, with my departure from government, and to summarize the experience
of the past 34 months since October 10 when our country returned to democracy,
I say with pride as a Bolivian, and an honest citizen, no one under my adminis-
[ 71 ]
tration suffered imprisonment, exile or persecution. No mother or son mourns

the loss of a loved one … It is imperative that our country remain a land of free
men,” said the President, just minutes before transferring power to Victor Paz
Estenssoro on August 6, 1985.
Liberal Political Reformism

“We will rule with authority, without allowing anarchy. We’ll apply a set of coherent
and pragmatic measures to stop the economic crisis, among which is setting the
dollar exchange rate,” said Paz Estenssoro in his inaugural speech.
“If a package of pragmatic, realistic, and consistent measures is not applied
immediately to stop the impact of the crisis, we take the risk of imminent bank-
ruptcy,” he added.
Paz Estenssoro was the historic leader of the 1952 National Revolution and his
return to government indicated a number of significant changes. These could be
summarized as the end of the revolutionary cycle in Bolivia, which Paz Estenssoro
had begun, and the beginning of a period of liberal reforms, the strengthening of
political democracy and, finally, the capitulation of the labor movement, which
had lead the most important social struggles of the 20th century.
The miners’ inability to cross a military blockade the government had now put
in place in the municipality of Calamarca, stopping a march to La Paz, sealed their
destiny. “The decision to march to the seat of government came after a meeting at
the Siglo XX mining district, where workers put forward the need to initiate concrete
action in defense of their lives and their families. The initiative gained momentum
with the passing of time and with worsened living conditions for the mining group,”
reported Presencias, a La Paz’s newspaper, about the ‘March for Life’.
Planes and tanks blocked the route of the demonstrators in Calamarca. Simón
Reyes and Filemón Escobar, the two historic mining leaders who led the march,
reported to their comrades that the mobilization had ended. It was August 29,
1986.
Up until that day the workers on Bolivian mines had gained recognition
throughout Latin America. The unwavering unity of the miners, their capacity to
[ 72 ]
mobilize and the political training of their representatives (Trotskyites, socialists,

communists and nationalists) were the reasons behind the admiration.
It was not an accident that the mining centers were recurrent targets during
the military coups and massacres, like those at Uncía (1923), Catavi (1942), Siglo
XX (1967), or Amayapampa and Capasirca (1996), to name a few iconic examples.
Each workers meeting seemed like a class in revolutionary political theory.
The miners confronted Trotskyist ideas with Lenin’s book, What is to be done?
The Communist Manifesto was circulated in photocopied versions and most of the
workers had read Fidel Castro’s speech, “History Will Absolve Me”.
It was the workers in the mines who had first raised the possibility of taking
power, through the 1946 Pulacayo Thesis. The top leadership of the COB had
always been drawn from the miners, and almost always it was Juan Lechín who
had led the mass mobilizations that preceded the 1952 National Revolution.
In 1985, the ongoing struggles the workers had waged over the course of a
century were about to come to an unhappy end, thanks to a new employer, and
an economic theory that was coming to Bolivia. The neoliberal period affected the
workers’ ability to mobilize because most of their unions were destined to disappear
with the closing of the factories and mines. The miners would be scattered across
the country. Meanwhile, the international backdrop, prior to the end of the Cold
War, was a drive against leftist forces.
Little could be done to resist the waves of liberal reforms that were imple-
mented after the ‘March for Life’. As in the rest of Latin America, the transforma-
tion of work relations in a capitalist context was underway, and would contribute
to the defeat of the labor movement that would last for decades.
The miners were within 60 kilometers of La Paz, where they could have
altered history. The first march under the neoliberal era would start four years
after Calamarca’s defeat: lowland indigenous people would propose ‘strange’ new
ideas in support of self-determination, collective rights and a constituent assembly.
Efforts to Modernize Bolivia
Jaime Paz’s rise to the Presidency (1989–1993) from third place in the majority
vote, allegations of electoral manipulation, and corruption scandals that affected
[ 73 ]
Paz Estenssoro’s Presidency, demonstrated that the Bolivian democratic institutions

were still very precarious.
It was in this context that the so called “political class” began a series of reforms
to ensure that Bolivian democracy would be trustworthy, stable, inclusive and
transparent, and thus a truly representative democracy.
The new National Electoral Court was one of the outstanding results of the
State’s reengineering. For years, this agency, charged with overseeing the demo-
cratic process, was widely trusted and its authorities were often publicly praised as
remarkable. The National Electoral Court would also begin the first steps towards
establishing a more intercultural, plural and modern democracy through referen-
dums (2004, 2006, 2008), as well as the appointment of indigenous people’s local
Presencia daily, May 1, 1989

Banzer, Sánchez de Lozada, and Paz debate
The fight to win the May 7 elections Lozada that his political campaign
revealed ‘no compromise’ positions had been helped by the Social Demo-
from the three candidates who spoke cratic Party and the Venezuelan Presi-
at the last meeting of the Elections- dent Carlos Andres Perez. The second
Forum Debate of 1989, organized by time, he appeared angry when jour-
the Journalists Association of La Paz. nalist José Nogales asked him about
ADN’s General Hugo Banzer, the drug trafficking videos scandal,
MNR’s Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, with which he denied his party was
and Jaime Paz from the MIR, each involved.
insisted they would win the majority In response to a question asked by
of votes in Sunday’s elections. Each journalist Oscar Peña Franco, candi-
tried to discredit his opponent in date Sánchez de Lozada denied that
front of a national radio and televi- the MNR had participated in coups,
sion audience. and said his party only supported the
Jaime Paz Zamora lost his temper August 1971 coup by General Banzer
twice. The first time, he was annoyed to avoid a national catastrophe.
by the implication of Sánchez de
[ 74 ]
authorities (2009) and the creation of a biometric voter’s register (2009).

During Sánchez de Lozada’s first term (1993–1997), a series of new laws would
extend the boundaries of Bolivia’s democracy. From 1994, the country grew from
having 24 municipalities to more than 300 at the end of the century, due to the
Popular Participation law. Of course, as is often the case with the start of a new
process, inexperience, corruption and inefficiency emerged.
In the courts, the Supreme Court’s function was institutionalized. Judicial
appointments were no longer a Presidential function and passed, instead, to the
Legislature. Parties in Congress would now elect the highest court authorities.
Once again, modernization encountered problems and political influence in the
judicial system was not entirely removed.
Consolidating Political Power
The MNR, ADN and MIR were the three main parties that came together to
create a political elite which would run the country (with other minor allies) from
1985–2003.
Thanks to the so-called ‘Pact for Democracy’ the historical leader of the
MNR, Paz Estenssoro, managed to secure a fourth term (1985–1989). That was
the first milestone of the era of so-called ‘settled democracy’ (democracia pactada)
that would, in later years, create alliances between all colors and walks of life, such
as the Patriotic Accord (ADN, MIR, UCS, Condepa and NFR), or the Pact for
Bolivia (MNR, UCS, MBL and NFR).
During the years of ‘settled democracy’, Bolivia was governed with no major
surprises. The populist proposals of Carlos Palenque’s Condepa, and Max Fer-
nandez’s UCS were co-opted by the multi-party system. Palenque’s organization
achieved a first: a chola (indigenous woman) in Congress, when, in 1989, Remedios
Loza won a seat.
Another force, IU (United Left), served as the first political coalition for
the cocalero (coca leaf producers) movement. In 1995, coca producers from the
Cochabamba region won municipal council seats. In 1997, the leader of these
coca growers, Evo Morales, would win a congressional seat. Fifteen years after
the adoption of the 21060 Decree, the first signs of dissent could be detected,
[ 75 ]
in underground movements among rural unions and indigenous communities.
2000–2005: The Years of Uprisings

In the late 1990s, a change in the balance of political forces became increasingly
evident. The parties representing liberal economic positions and conservative polit-
ical views began to be overshadowed by social movements and parties from the
left seeking radical changes in the State’s management.
April 9, 2000, marked the return of the uprisings. History dictated that the
country would be reunited in rebellion exactly 48 years after the National Revo-
lution of 1952. That Saturday, La Paz woke to the surprise news of a revolt at the
center of government, Plaza Murillo, which the police had left unguarded. While
police remained embattled at the buildings, civil groups joined the challenge to
the establishment by marching to the government palace with wiphalas (indige-
nous flags) and flags displaying portraits of Che Guevara. They demanded a wage
increase. Some took the opportunity to deflate the tires of the Ministers’ parked
cars. Others sang the national anthem with their left fists pumping into the air.
Graffiti was used on the asphalt to protest the Hugo Banzer administration. Coca
leaves were shared between young activists and police rebels in the middle of the
square. Fires were lit at night so the dark, or tear gas, couldn’t surprise them. Acts
signaling rebellion, dormant for years, had returned to the streets.
However, the police challenging the administration was the least of Bolivia’s
problems. In Cochabamba, during those same hours, the first battles against the
existing order took place. The ‘Water War’ was only the start of a series of uprisings.
This is how the millennium was born.
During the ‘Water War’, the platform that united manufacturers, poor farmers,
the regional COB and other sectors, was conceived as a self-managed, horizontal
organization. So when Oscar Olivera and the frontline spokespeople (not leaders)
were arrested by police, they were immediately replaced with another group of
activists.
The media had captured images of a soldier behaving as a sniper, and killing a
teenager. Victor Hugo Daza’s death, at just 17 years old, accelerated the successful
[ 76 ]
demonstrations.
Aguas del Tunari, the name the multinational company Bechtel acquired to do
business in Bolivia, was expelled from the country and the Water Law was amended.
The Banzer administration, which declared an unsuccessful State of Emergency
during those days, could not contain the social discontent. (Even under the State
of Emergency, the French musician Manu Chao arrived in Bolivia and held his
concert in open defiance against the government’s measures!)
The Red September Seige
After the ‘Water Wars’ it was the indigenous people’s turn. Felipe Quispe, nick-
named ‘El Mallku’ (condor in Aymara) was Executive Secretary of the United
Confederation of Peasant Workers of Bolivia. He had perfected the strategy of
La Prensa daily, August 25, 2002

Sánchez and Eid distribute government jobs
The doling out of jobs lies in the when La Prensa asked if it was true
hands of Carlos Sánchez Berzain that his signature carried a great deal
(MNR) and Oscar Eid (MIR). The of weight regarding the distribution
leaders are part of a nationally coor- of ministerial positions. However, the
dination team made up of represen- Minister did admit that Eid and he
tatives from both parties, who gave were part of an intra-party coordina-
final approval to a list of Deputy tion committee that gave approval
Ministers and General Directors. In to all appointments. He clarified
the Ministries, it is an open secret. that nominations come from each
The ‘job seekers’ say that in order Ministry and that the Coordination
to secure a senior level position it Commission carries out the corre-
is essential to have the signatures of sponding analysis and selection. We
both leaders. were unable to reach Oscar Eid, who
“Who told you that?” asked Sánchez turned off his cell phone and did not
Berzain, Minister of the Presidency, respond to any messages.
[ 77 ]
strewing the roads with rocks thus blocking them, in the months leading up to
September 2000. It was time to re-live Túpac Katari’s indigenous people’s La Paz
siege of 1781.
With the main Bolivian route (that links the Andean and lowlands regions)
closed off by coca leaf growers, and all La Paz’ exits blocked by El Mallku’s forces,
the government headquarters were only accessible by plane. Soon the shortage of
food in the city could no longer be ignored. The siege of La Paz was underway.
“In Achacachi region, we have destroyed all the powers of the State. There
are no longer judges, no police, no Vice Prefect. Nothing is left. Everything is
controlled by the indigenous people. And our leaders administer everything. The
uprising in Achacachi is the complete takeover of power. The police bring thugs.
The army brings war and the Vice Prefect, corruption,” said Quispe during those
days. Then, in front of Hugo Banzer’s Ministers, he did not hesitate to renounce
Bolivia and announce the return to the days of the Kollasuyo (the old Inca name
of present-day Bolivia).
The ‘whites versus indigenous people’ rhetoric that El Mallku used surprised
government authorities. Some were enraged when he asked to speak to Banzer
as “President to President”. Quispe had fought in the Indigenous Tupac Katari
Guerrilla Army (EGTK) in the previous decade and employed indigenous people’s
discourse long before Evo Morales.
Achacachi and an extensive part of the Omasuyos Province in the Bolivian high
plateau would become the center of the indigenous movement in the highlands.
After blocking off the roads, they took over development programs and snatched
other benefits from the State, such as tractors allocated for farmers’ unions.
The sieges of Red September (2000), and June (2001) were rehearsals that
would eventually lead to the exit of Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada some years later.
Social Movements to the Polls
The Pachakuti indigenous movement with El Mallku as its main candidate, and the
MAS, headed by Evo Morales, presented the biggest surprises in the 2002 elections.
Quispe’s party was invincible in the high plateau and nationally took 6% of the
vote. Evo Morales’ takings exceeded 20% of the vote and he qualified for the first
[ 78 ]
time to go to Congress’ second round, on that occasion against Sánchez de Lozada.

In the end most Congress representatives choose Sánchez de Lozada as Pres-
ident. But for the first time there were a significant number of representatives
(41 out of 157) who came from indigenous people’s, union or farming organiza-
tions. Wearing native costumes and mining helmets, and speaking in their native
languages (not Spanish), the new Congress members spoke one by one. They
challenged the Legislature by saying it would no longer be a space reserved only
for urban politicians.
El Mallku presented coca leaves to the MNR representatives before threatening
them: “If we are ignored, I will draw a stone from under my poncho and I will
fight on the streets with my people.”
The MNR and the MIR allies were witnesses to the advent of a new form of
politics in the country. What was not achieved in Parliament would be won outside
of it. “We come to this place to work. We want what the people are demanding,
without a fight. Though, if you prefer, we will fight too. If you do not respect us,
we will block Congress,” threatened the Qaqachaca ethnic group representative,
Roberto Copa. The new congressman spoke in Aymara, Quechua and Spanish.
In August 2002, after a session nearing 28 hours, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada
was elected President of the Republic. “Goni will have to ask permission to even
go to the bathroom,” predicted the MAS parliamentarian Felix Santos.
October 2003
The soup pots did not hold enough to distribute lunch among all the mobilized
neighbors in the city of El Alto, near o La Paz. There also wasn’t any vinegar or
baking soda left to combat the effect of tear gas. However, the decision to radicalize
the protests to achieve the President’s resignation had been ratified.
But in the evening of Monday October 13, 2002, 20 people were killed by
the government’s military personnel, deployed to ensure a supply of fuel reach La
Paz. The army fuel carriers and tanks from Sankata broke through a human chain.
The action became known as the ‘convoy of death’.
A day later, the demonstrators’ answer was to blow up the Rio Seco gaso-
line plant and to intensify the protests. Miners marched from Oruro and Potosi
[ 79 ]
towards the seat of government in La Paz, and the Aymaras arranged to multiply
the road-blocks in the Andes region. The demand was no longer just to cancel the
government project to export natural gas through a Chilean port, or to call for a
Constituent Assembly. The demand was the removal of Sánchez de Lozada from
government. More than 40 people had already died by then. In total 67 would
perish during the October uprisings, which ended when the President fled the
country.
The evening of October 17, 2003 saw the historic San Francisco Plaza in
downtown La Paz as the scene of a popular celebration. La Paz sent the miners home
as heroes. The next day, the people of El Alto announced the start of the ‘October
agenda’: the demand for oil nationalization and a new constitution. If the mandate
was not met, they would return to the streets. And that is what happened…
Polarization
Bolivian society became polarized at the end of the period of neoliberal ‘consensus’.
On one side were groups linked to social movements, that demanded national-
ization of companies, policy changes on hydrocarbons and criticized the parties
called ‘systemic’, i.e. ‘part of the old system’.
On the other were economic groups and right-wing parties that wanted the
State to be kept out of productive enterprises, supported the party system, and
encouraged foreign investments.
As we have seen, that clash played out in the streets and roads (with death
and repression being the unfortunate results) and ended with the 2005 elections
when the country witnessed one of the biggest political changes in modern Bolivian
history, the win of Evo Morales. The new political arrangement was also reflected
in a change in the balance of regional power. This phenomenon was noticeably
clear after the 2002 elections: in the provinces of what would become known as
the ‘Media Luna’ (Crescent Moon, named because of its geographic shape), the
traditional parties (MNR and MIR) won easily. Those provinces are Pando, Beni,
Santa Cruz and Tarija. In the Andean regions the MAS was the big winner. So
the regional axis, which in Bolivia overlaps the ethnic axis, clearly had split the
country into two: the Andean region concerned with political change, embodied
[ 80 ]
by Evo Morales, and the lowland region more focused on conservative positions,
embodied primarily by Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada.
These ‘regional walls’ remained in place for some years, but the situation was
not fixed. The MAS expanded its power in the Andean provinces and infiltrated
the lowlands. Meanwhile, the conservatives lost ground in the rest of the country,
with the exception of some of the cities.
With the collapse of the party system after the 2005 elections, the opposition
no longer focused on Congress (except when trying to block legislative initiatives
in the Senate, which it controlled) but on the regions, especially Santa Cruz. The
Santa Cruz Civic Committee led the opposition and resisted the most important
of President Morales’ actions, especially the idea of organizing the Constituent
Assembly. That strategy remained in effect until September 11, 2008, when the
so-called ‘Slaughter of Porvenir’ occurred. Eleven peasants were killed that day,
allegedly by forces loyal to the former opposition Governor of Pando, Leopoldo
Fernandez. Once the government arrested Fernandez, the regional resistance was
eliminated and the Morales administration had fewer obstacles. This new phase
began with the adoption of a new Constitution in 2009.8
But neutralizing the opposition was not simple. On the contrary, it was
extremely complex. Morales’s large electoral victory in December 2005, when he
managed to obtain an unprecedented 54% of the vote, did not achieve stability
in the first phase of his administration. Not at all.
The Assembly: a Battlefield

The Constituent Assembly was, as we say, a battlefield. It spent the first seven
months of work discussing debating rules. Since the opening session, the govern-
ment had tried to get the sections of the new Constitution approved with 51%
of the votes, despite the Assembly Law the ruling party had passed a year before,
saying a two-thirds majority was needed to approve articles.
The Assembly’s impasse persisted the first 12 months, after the original term
8 Raúl Peñaranda (2008), “Los canales en cuestión”, FES-Ildis, La Paz, Bolivia.
[ 81 ]
ended. A hard won congressional agreement made in early July 2007 extended
the session until December 15 that year. Now there could be no more extensions.
The demand by the Santa Cruz-led opposition for the city of Sucre to be
named seat of the entire government (not just the Supreme Court), achieved one
objective: to paralyze the Assembly. Its supporters knew that the people of La Paz
and the MAS would never allow such an idea to be approved. The failure of the
Assembly to approve the new Constitution would have been the administration’s
biggest defeat, and the opposition’s greatest victory. In their next move, dozens of
opposition demonstrators surrounded the Assembly building to prevent delegates
from holding meetings. The Assembly was about to sink.
This was the point at which the MAS decided to move the sessions to an
army barracks, called La Glorieta, to allow the Assembly members to meet. The
opposition denounced the change of venue as illegal because the decision had not
been made public through the press, as established by the debating regulations.
The imminent approval of the new Constitution in the first round of discussions
in the barracks generated a wave of indignation in Sucre. Thousands of protestors
took to the streets, looting and causing damage. In clashes with the police and
Gente daily, April 2, 2006

Eight out of 10 Bolivians approve Evo’s administration
Following his first month in office, According to a survey conducted by

Evo Morales has won 79% of the the pollster Apoyo, conducted in
population’s support, five points more February, 79% of the La Paz, Coch-
than when he took office on January abamba and Santa Cruz population
22. His popularity is so great that approve of the President’s adminis-
most people do not doubt that he will tration.
be able to implement the Constitu- The Vice President, Alvaro Garcia
ent Assembly and the referendum on Linera, achieved 71% approval,
Bolivian’s regions autonomy. Some according to the same survey of
even think the President will win the 1,011 people between the ages of
Nobel Peace Prize. 18 and 70.
[ 82 ]
military, three people were killed in chaotic circumstances in an area called La

Calancha. TV channels showed Interior Minister Alfredo Rada commanding the
armed operations. But the government denied the deaths were caused by police
or military gunfire.
Following the first stage approval of the new Constitution at La Glorieta
headquarters, the administration’s plan was brought to fruition by calling a session
to approve the details of Constitution. The Assembly agreed to debate the articles
in Oruro, a city where the President’s support was very high. Just three days before
the legal requirement to end the current session of the Assembly, the members
met in that locality. It was a long session and they approved the Constitution via
all the steps required by law. And they did so with the minimum two-third vote
established in the debating regulations.
It had been a hard-won battle for government, and the controversy over the
adoption of the Constitution meant a pyrrhic victory.
The Autonomy Votes
Immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, the opposition unleashed

another strategy: regional rebellion. The electoral courts of several regions decided
to organize referendums to ask the people whether they wanted provincial auton-
omy, despite the contrary opinion of the National Electoral Court. Such a situation
was unprecedented.
The National Electoral Court set three conditions for the consultation process
to meet the legal requirements: to have a law passed by Congress, to have enough
budgets to organize the referendums and to establish reasonable deadlines.
Ignoring the National Electoral Court, on January 31 the Prefect of Santa
Cruz, Ruben Costas, called for a provincial de facto referendum on May 4. He did
this with the backing of 103,000 signatures, validated by a special committee of the
Santa Cruz Electoral Court. The ‘yes’ to autonomy vote garnered 86%. On June 1,
the provinces of Pando and Beni also went to the polls. In both contests, the ‘yes’
option won comfortably. Finally on June 22, Tarija voted for autonomy as well. It
was one of the weakest moments of the Executive – it was really against the ropes.
In May 2008, the right-wing Podemos party (successor to Banzer’s ADN)
[ 83 ]
unexpectedly saved that uncomfortable situation by approving a recall referendum

in the Senate, thinking they could remove Morales from power through votes.
They were wrong. The law set the recall election for August 10. That referendum
substantially changed the relationship between the political forces in the country.
The landslide ‘yes’ victory strengthened President Evo Morales’ administration,
and at the same time, weakened the opposition leaders of the ‘Media Luna’. The
President won 67.4% of the vote.
But as the referendum date approached, violence against the national author-
ities intensified. In the first major incident, on May 24, demonstrators prevented
the President from getting to a soccer stadium in Sucre, where a rally in support
of the government was to happen. That same day Minister Juan Ramon Quintana
was prevented from landing in both Riberalta and San Borja, two lowland cities.
On May 29, Riberalta’s motorcycle-taxi drivers prevented the President’s arrival
by invading the airport tarmac. On June 12, in Santa Cruz, Morales could not
formally begin a speech. On June 14, he could not land in Villamontes, in the
south of the country, and had to move his event to a military base in Sanandita.
Demonstrators also blocked his arrival in Cobija on August 5. The protestors also
managed to prevent the arrival of the Presidents of Venezuela and Argentina to a
summit in Tarija.
Nevertheless, after the referendum, the opposition groups felt threatened.
First, they called a strike in the five opposition provinces on August 20, to demand
for the reestablishment of the ‘direct tax on hydrocarbons’; then the civic and oppo-
sition leaders called for roadblocks and for oil refineries to be taken over, starting
in Villamontes. The roll-out of roadblocks was executed in stages, to eventually
encompass the entire southern Bolivian region.
But the violence finally spiraled out of control on September 9 in Santa Cruz,
when, in front of TV cameras, members of the Santa Cruz Youth Union, and the
Santa Cruz University Federation looted several public institutions, including
the National Taxes Service, INRA, ENTEL, Channel 7 (the government owned
station) and other entities. Both groups of young people clashed for several hours
with police and military personnel guarding those institutions. In the end, they
managed to defeat the soldiers, several of whom were beaten and humiliated.
The next day, the violence continued in Santa Cruz against, among others,
[ 84 ]
the Forestry and Customs offices, the bus terminal and a part of the Ministry of
Labor. The modus operandi was the same. Members of the Santa Cruz Youth Union
and Local University Federation, all wearing similar masks, burned and destroyed
the institutions. Moreover, the same groups tried twice to storm the Plan Tres Mil,
a poor neighborhood that generally supported the MAS, but their actions were
repulsed by residents.
In Tarija and other cities, youths in favor of autonomy also organized violent
acts. In the San Antonio area, near Villamontes, a pipeline was blow up. The inci-
dent temporarily affected the export of natural gas to Brazil and caused a major
fire. The government accused the opposition, but it responded that it had been
staged by the government.
The uncontrolled violence was interpreted by the administration as the start
of a regional coup intended to overthrow its leadership.
But the worst was yet to come. As mentioned earlier, on September 11, 2008,
thousands of peasants marched to Cobija, in the province of Pando, to pressure
the opposition governor, Leopoldo Fernandez. A bridge seven kilometers from
Porvenir, a municipality within the province, became the site of death for 11 poor
farmers and two provincial officials.
According to the government, the farmers were ambushed by the opposition
Governor’s staff, which had dug a trench three feet deep on one side of the road
to block them, while armed men came from behind and opened fire. The oppo-
sition blamed the government for the death of the peasants. On December 3,
2008, experts from UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) investigated
and confirmed the government’s version, saying that there had been a massacre.
Fernandez, the old political leader, was detained by police on September 16,
2006, and imprisoned in La Paz along with a number of civic leaders. His arrest
clearly demonstrated the enormous weakness of civic-regional opposition. A month
earlier, it would have been unthinkable to arrest a governor of the ‘Media Luna’
region. The opposition described the arrest of Fernandez as illegal, claiming that
he was entitled to a court case, and that his prosecution required a two-thirds
approval in Congress. The government disregarded these arguments.
Once the government had arrested Fernandez, it eliminated regional resistance
and the Morales administration was strengthened.
[ 85 ]
‘Gasolinazo’ and TIPNIS
We now move to December 2010, when Evo Morales approved the ‘gasolinazo’
Decree. This was a reflection of the enormous confidence that the Executive enjoyed
at the time. Its victory over right-wing parties and regional leaders had held for
more than two years, and the administration felt invincible. And so – it raised fuel
prices by 83%! This was a huge display of arrogance, and showed just how out of
touch with reality the government was.
Following a wave of protests, the President backed down. But the moment
marked a break with some social movements that now no longer supported his
administration. The lowland indigenous people also emerged as another defiant
grouping, united around the CIDOB (Confederation of Lowland Indigenous
People). In June 2011, only six months after the failed ‘gasolinazo’, they organized
a march against the construction of a road through Isiboro-Sécure National Park
and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS). The march began in August in the lowlands.
On September 25, 2011 almost exactly three years after the events at Porvenir,
a police contingent brutally attacked marchers at the village of Chaparina and
forced them to return to their homes on buses. It was the second example of the
administration’s arrogance in a short period of time.
The event did not stop the marchers. In October, they arrived in La Paz,
where the citizens gave them a tremendous welcome. The government Executive
was at its least popular since October 2008. But a year later, at the time of writing
in 2012, the administration had regained the political initiative, achieved higher
approval ratings and appeared on target to end its second term in the best possible
way (with intentions for a third term.)
Note: This chapter was written by Boris Miranda with the exception of the
section ‘The Assembly: a Battlefield’, which is a summary of the book “Crónica
del Proceso Constituyente”, by Raúl Peñaranda, FES and FBDM, La Paz, 2009.
[ 86 ]
Chapter 4
Paradoxical revolution, evaluating
the Evo Morales administration
César Rojas Ríos9
9 César Rojas Ríos is a sociologist and social communicator.

Photo: Agencia ABI
President Evo Morales greeted by a group of supporters, 2014.

B
etween October 2003 and September 2008, Bolivia spent a long time in hell.
During that period, the worst nightmares seemed to have taken root
in Bolivia. In October 2003, an armed insurrection was being hatched
among the indigenous communities of the Altiplano of La Paz, which could well
have derived into a racial war, yet it did not happen.
The opposing forces acted later: the Cochabamba conflict occurred in 2007;
the so-called “capitalidad plena” conflict, a movement to return all three branches
of government to Sucre, happened also in 2007; and the 2008 “regional coup
d’état”, when Evo Morales’s government was challenged by the provinces known
as the ‘Media Luna’ (Crescent Moon, named because of its geographic shape).
The increasing confrontation could have sparked a coup d’état, a civil war, or
even the splitting of the country. Once again, nothing of the sort occurred. Vio-
lence, pure and simple, was finally stopped. Then it seemed the MAS would lead the
country towards socialism. But, instead, it reinstated state capitalism and returned
to both a pro-development approach and the country’s perennial national aspira-
tion for modernization. Radical dreams gave way to realistic dreams, which have
today become the new realities of the streets of this bewitched country in this the
XXI century.
Ghosts from the past
In one paragraph of the 688 pages that make up the book Sociología de los Mov-
imientos Sociales coordinated by Vice President Álvaro García Linera, about the
United Confederation of Peasant Workers of Bolivia (CSUTCB), he describes
the experience of the “marching of hundreds of people from several indigenous
“quarters” during the uprising (October, 2003) who arrived in the suburbs of El
Alto city armed with some old Mauser rifles.”
These few but significant paragraphs point out that the Bolivian Altiplano
was in a state of armed insurrection and, more critically, determined to use these
weapons. It was the “ayllu militarizado” or armed village authority. Katari’s
shadow spread over the neighborhoods and villages both of El Alto and La Paz.
García Linera states that “those zones bordering Lake Titicaca, characterized by
their organizational abilities, created new ‘indigenous headquarters’ (at least four),
[ 89 ]
where thousands of indigenous people in a state of communal militarization would

establish the guidelines for the removal of the state authority.” They had been con-
voked to war, and the Indian rebels were prepared for a possible final confrontation.
However, he clarifies that “the experience was cut short when President Sánchez
de Lozada stepped down leaving behind the blood of 67 dead, 400 wounded, and
thousands of bitter tears”.
The fire stoked in Altiplano ayllus (traditional form of a community in the
Andes region) finally dissipated in smoke. The few remaining flames, if any, would
be extinguished when Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, took
office. Felipe Quispe, the Mallku, and his flaming proclamation announcing
“the arrival of the Awqa-Pacha (time of war) between whites and indians” which
he hoped would multiply like mushrooms after the rain, was also displaced. In
Quispe’s own words in his book Tupak Katari Vive y Vuelve… Carajo, “the fire of the
truth of the oppressed and the exploited will make cry and howl this new Sodom
and Gomorrah capitalistic society which passes from crisis to crisis and agonizes
since 500 years ago. We will reconstruct a new communal society of ayllus on the
ruins of all this.”
In September 2008, after Evo Morales won the recall referendum
by large majority, the regional opposition felt threatened and chose to
burn its bridges.
In Santa Cruz, violence erupted and overflowed: both the Unión Juve-
nil Cruceñista (Santa Cruz Youth Union) and the Federacion Universitaria
Local (Regional University Federation) looted several public institutions (the
National Tax Service, National Institute of Land Reform, National Telecom-
munications Company, Migration Office, and the Government Television
Company) and for several hours fought violently with policemen and mil-
itary personnel who guarded those institutions. Finally, they managed to
defeat the uniformed officers. The next day, violent confrontation continued
in Santa Cruz against other institutions (the Customs House, the Forest
Superintendence, the Bus and Train Terminal, education offices, one office
of the Ministry of Labor, and a telecommunications facility). They set fire
and destroyed instalations. They also intended to assault the Plan Tres Mil
neighborhood, but the neighbors managed to repel the attacks. Santa Cruz
[ 90 ]
- Paradoxical revolution, evaluating the Evo Morales administration -
city was the focus for the inflamed uprising10.

Tarija and other cities experienced violent action by young people in favour
of autonomy. However, the worst was still to come. On September 11, 2008, hell
broke out at a bridge in Porvenir being crossed by thousands of peasants who
were marching to Cobija, in the north of the country. It was the scenario for
the death of eleven peasants and trainee teachers and two regional government
employees. The Governor of Pando, Leopoldo Fernández, a political leader of
the region, was arrested and taken to prison in La Paz on September 16, together
with twenty other community and regional government leaders.
The confrontation between those who favored autonomy and those
who defended the MAS government did not escalate into civil war, and Leo-
poldo Fernández’ call for the military to become involved in the conflict did not
result in a coup d’état. However, the country remained in a stormy situation for
several days. Then, as time went by, autonomist leaders ended up burying the
hatchet and, six years later, chose to put aside their disagreements and hitch the
Santa Cruz entrepreneurial agenda with the year 2025 government Bicentennial
Agenda (Argirakis, 2014).
Those events from the past could have derived in critical situations. However,
it was precisely the MAS government which managed to dilute all these explosive
charges in the highlands and the lowlands (Amazonian) regions. The Aymara radical
intent on establishing an Indian Nation, and the radical regional attempt to detach
the “Crescent Moon” from the rest of Bolivia was deactivated by the MAS party.
Dreams
A scare is not like fear. On one hand, scare produces intense terror, but it fades
away in time because there is a perception that risks are more apparent than real.
On the other hand, fear produces a sustained (even increasing) concern because one
notices that damages exceed the initial expectations of the fear. Scare approaches
10 These events are punctiliously and vividly described in the book written by journalist Boris Miranda,
“La Mañana Después de la Guerra”, and rigorously decodified in Eduardo Leaño Roman’s book “Ti-
erra de Fuego. El Conflicto Autonómico en Bolivia (2003-2010)”
[ 91 ]
fear in the first instant, whereas fear is an ongoing terror experience. In other words,
Mandela in South Africa is as to scare as Stalin in the Soviet Union is to fear.
The MAS scared the conservative elites of the country, and greatly, which is
typical whenever a left-wing party comes to power (as occurred when the UDP took
office in Bolivia in 1982), especially if such a party has an indigenous approach.
As a result, the fear of social egalitarianism and racial revanchism emerged among
such elites. Thus, Evo Morales’ government represented in their imagination a
movement of fundamentalist darkness, forged in the Communist Manifesto and,
to make matters worse, eager to put in practice theIndian Revolution.
The scare escalated, and with special intensity in the eastern lowlands because
the agro-industrial elite felt that their lands were being watched by the new govern-
ment (adding to the oil multinational companies looking after their own interests).
And for this reason they were on a state of preparedness to defend themselves. More
than anyone else they felt that the Pachakuti (New Era) could change their situation
and make them subordinated individuals.
For this reason the elites worked the strings of autonomy and provoked the
storms. Carlos Mesa wrote in his book Presidencia Sitiada (Besieged Presidency) a
sentence which illustrated the position of former President Sánchez de Lozada in
October 2003: “I am the immovable object to an almost irresistible force”. The
sentence was originally coined by English historian Eric Hobsbawm when depicting
the French peasants struggling against the king.
Towards Sánchez de Lozada, the force of the social movement was stronger.
But in the case of Evo Morales, he was the immovable object which successfully
resisted the regional movement.
And, as for XXI century socialism, it did not even try to implant definitive
structural measures like the socialization of production and putting an end to
every form of private property holding. The reason is simple as Marx well knew.
Socialism rides on the back of a social class deprived of the means of produc-
tion and divorced from the logic of profit: the workers (today alienated from the
government). However, this is not the case of the corporative movements that
support the MAS: coca growers, informal miners, peasants, smugglers, traders, or
the so-called “plebeian bourgeoisie”, who rather revitalized capitalism from the
bottom up, re-legitimated it by giving it a popular façade and constitutionalized
[ 92 ]
it under the name of “economic pluralism”.

The most important measure taken by the MAS government has been
the revival of state capitalism thanks to hydrocarbons nationalization. “It can be
said that this is the most important measure taken by the present government, and
as a result, the economy (expressed, for example, in the state-owned reserves, but
not only in that) has reached levels never previously seen in Bolivian history. It
is true that rising gas prices have played an important part but it would not have
been possible without that measure, and, of course, without the ‘guerra del gas’
or gas war, whose fruits we enjoy right now”. (Puente, 2013)
The MAS took actions without continuity, such as the initial govern-
ment attack to the Catholic church, which then ended up in a pluralism of reli-
gions under Catholic dominance; or the government theophany where they tried
to elevate the figure of president Morales from that of a common man to some
High Priest by taking office at Tiwanaku ruins or when Morales celebrated as an
anointed pastor during a collective marriage in La Paz.
The MAS put into practice the concept that, in order to attain medium-sized
successes, it is necessary to be focused and prepare to attain maximum objectives.
As Atilio Borón expressed it: “In Latin America, in order to make reforms, one
needs revolutions” (cited by Moyo and Yeros, 2008). In this manner the MAS
“revolution” is within the framework of the present time, meaning with this that
they have smoothed the extremes that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the end of the Cold War. No more, no less.
Shaping realities
The MAS revolution is not as radical as those of Castro nor Lenin nor Mao Tse-
Tung’s. But that has not made it any less intense.
Revolutions have on the one hand a popular and clear face: the excluded and
impoverished masses raising the transformation flag, that is, their transformation,
hoping to reach the sunny days of abundance. On the other hand, revolutions
have a less clear and glamorous face: an ascendant class, or at least, a social group
eager to become the new power elite. In the Bolivian case, it is the informal “cholo”
(indigenous people living in the cities) bourgeoisie and the unions leadership thirsty
[ 93 ]
for social elevation and for higher rank in the spheres of political power. These two
joined forces are unstoppable: the ones want to leave their social pothole and the
others want to reach the power summit. What joins and brings them together in
Bolivia? Their indigenous blood and the thin thread that links hope with ambition.
The narrative which follows could be told more or less in the following
manner: both groups, those of “minor-rank” (the “cholo bourgeoisie” and the
impoverished indigenous people) had in front of them an enemy who prevented
them from climbing socially. The enemy was the “upper class” led by Sánchez de
Lozada and his peers. This blockade increased indigenous rage as it decreased at
the same time the social legitimacy of the upper class.
The former Sánchez de Lozada government wanted to persist in power. He
was still supported by the army, but social power was already supporting the MAS.
First, we saw a “dual power” experience, then a power vacuum, and finally the
national-popular-indigenous tide, which flooded everything. In 2006 the presi-
dential palace became copper-colored and wore poor’s dress.
In this sense, the MAS “cultural and democratic revolution” turns out to be an
ethnic and economic facilitator, which is no small thing. It was not about a rotation
of elites in power but something more serious and deep. It is the shifting of classes in
power. In addition, to top it off, it is an ethnic-cultural displacement of the “ruling
class” by a reverted “social Darwinism”, using Zavaleta’s terms. Those who were
to resist, instead of dying or cutting themselves off, ended up defeating, imposing
and spreading themselves into the entire social body. In fact, this is lived, felt, and
perceived everywhere within the corridors of the now plebeian state. However,
this is a contradictory victory: they did not decolonize themselves; instead, they
modernized themselves according to the XXI century, with a touch of abundant
globalization. They would not go back to the community withdrawal or to the
cultural homogenization. They are not looking back. They move confidently and
easily in a flat earth, as Thomas L. Friedman put it. Their ideologists, as is typical
in such cases, instead of orienting the empowered masses, ended up disoriented
by their pedestrian aspirations, so far now from the ideological torches. They
want what everybody wants: some or a lot of the products shown in the window
displays of capitalism, and respect for an identity that they know very well is as
porous as a sponge.
[ 94 ]
They have a clear target: power and money. And possessing one or other of
them, they want to be the big cheese in a society that has not become radically
egalitarian and which remains prey to obsession with status (although it is becom-
ing less and less dependent, poor and excluding), although it rebuilt its social
and economic structure by opening it to social mobility. The first result was that
the effervescence of social climbing broke the indigenous coalition to give way
to sectorial corporatisms, where everyone lives, fights and complains from their
own social position.
The MAS government is like Jean-Paul Sartre said: existence and new circum-
stances reshaped by state power ended up (or will end up) succeeding a supposed
indigenous essence. In other words, those indigenous sectors that support the
Evo Morales’ government ‘revolutioned’ society and ‘revolutioned’ themselves in
a unique and astonishing manner. In their case, and as is usual in all situations,
the sociological aspect prevailed on the anthropologic side. The new economic
conditions and the vigorous social climbing have had a profound impact on the
indigenous people (especially on those connected with power and the market).
Although they used to live feeling that they were not part of society, they think
today that they are a substantive portion, not because the government says it,
but because they are quantitatively increasing the middle class and are qualita-
tively present among the diverse elites11. The enduring aspect happened to be the
persistence of a hierarchy-prone social structure, and the novel aspect was their
diversity among the classes. The overlap between poor class and ethnic group was
broken, as the trend goes toward the weakening of the ethnic approach and the
strengthening of the class. However, as the middle class increases, there will be a
buffer zone between those from the higher ups and those down below, and there
will be moderation between the left wing and the right wing.
Evo’s “democratic and cultural revolution” innovates and preserves. Thus, we
could describe it as a paradoxical revolution (that is why its ideological narrative is
11 The MAS economic success provides after the 1952 revolution a radical novelty to the Bolivian history.
Although Bolivia had 5 million poor and 2,5 million middle class individuals in 2002, today, the
number of poor people decreased in one million (PNUD, 2010) and proportionately augmented the
middle class. The classic social pyramid is turning into a pentagon because both poors and the middle
class have almost the same dimension.
[ 95 ]
smooth and leads into the propaganda slogans). Social structures exist, but their
compartments stopped being monochromatic. No stratum has only one color.
From top to bottom, a novel ethnic diversity flows along the class line.
This is the historic event produced by the MAS government. It is its feature,
its stamp, its fruits and its passion.
Progress…
Sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf points out in his book El Recomienzo de la Historia that

“revolutions create as many problems as they resolve.” This sentence seems to match
perfectly the MAS revolution.
What problems did they solve? First, the transnationalization of the eco-
nomic resources. By nationalizing hydrocarbons, the MAS government recapi-
talized itself and made its government viable by rebalancing social demands with
public resources. GDP increased to US$ 30,000 million; GDP per capita increased
almost to US$ 3,500; we see a 6% economic growth; and international reserves
rose to US$ 15,000 million.
Second, poverty and inequality reduction. Before President Morales, Bolivia
had 62.4% poor and 35% indigent people, and the GINI index was 0.61 (World
Bank, 2004/2005). Now, poverty decreased to 45% and extreme poverty decreased
to 21%, while the GINI index recorded 0,47. In 2005, the difference of income of
the richest 10% was 128 times over the poorest 10%, while in 2012, this difference
decreased to 46 times (Arkonada, 2014).
Third, the inclusion of indigenous people. For the first time in its history,
the country stopped observing from the Spanish caravel prows and vigorously
resumed its indigenous identity. The huge national dilemma on whether Bolivia
could be made with the indigenous people or whether it might be dissolved with-
out including them was overcome. Thus, the majority of the population stopped
being ‘alienated’ and balanced the accounts with reality just as it is.
Fourth, recovering national dignity. Withered and trampled by the Embassy
of the United States , Bolivia got back on their feet and made the country and its
authorities be treated with respect and on an equal basis. The people raised their
heads while the State also recovered sovereignty over their decisions. Then, in a
[ 96 ]
unique feeling of dignity, people stopped dragging their feet and seeing the future
downcast. Today, they feel they are the owners of their history and not powerless,
insignificant and despised figures who moved in the shadow of the Empire.
All this translates into the legitimacy of the MAS government’s performance.
President Evo Morales, in these nine years of government activity, has maintained
about the best electoral result achieved by the UDP (which did not manage to
sustain it even for a year and which no subsequent party could equal) in the demo-
cratic cycle before MAS: 38.4% which it managed to reach in 1982.
…and setbacks
Now let us turn the page and see the new problems appearing on the national
scenario.
The new problems making up the present agenda are four and have great
similarities at their core: the quality drop in democracy, the imbalance in the
quality of governance, deterioration in institutional quality, and the mediocrity
of the quality of society.
About the deterioration of democratic quality, social democratization advanced
at the same pace as institutional democracy went backwards everywhere: distrust in
the Plurinational Electoral Tribunal; judicialisation of politics; erosion of fair play;
and, as a result, the imbalance in the playing field and the establishment of unfair
competitiveness between political parties. Most worryingly, as there is a great
imbalance between the majority and minorities, democracy has lost its capacity
to defend itself. In other words, it is a democracy at the mercy of the government
both to be able to persist and to improve itself (a great many MAS partisans retain
from the old revolutionary left infinite contempt for democracy). The future and
quality of democracy in Bolivia depend on the balance of power between govern-
ment and opposition (hit by the traumatic fall of traditional parties and by the
failure of their counter-revolutionary recomposition). Curiously, a weak opposition
produces an anemic democracy. This poses a strange problem: social democrati-
zation may build up at the expense of political democracy, so that we can pass
from democracies with no future due to poverty and exclusion, to futures with no
democracy, but with less poverty and exclusion. Will Bolivia experience democratic
[ 97 ]
decadency due to its incapacity to generate its own defences?

The imbalance of the quality of governance touches those who support and
obey, and agree with closed eyes and mouth, the government is pleasant and
a source of generosity. But for those who criticize, question and disagree, the
government represents duress and a source of fear. It is like the old sociological
pedagogy based on reward and punishment: the carrot and stick approach. That
is authoritarianism: not the use, but the abuse of power.
And to this burning passion are added others:
1) The cult of personality of President Morales, neither naïve nor banal by
his supporters since they know that He is the manna from where the water of
legitimacy springs. With and in him the enjoyment and exercise of power; without
him and away from him, banishment and a desert dryness.
2) Prorogation, the teleological problem of the left wing, which means that
the supposed altruistic purposes may end up justifying the perpetuation of the
regime. The economic water that refreshes the social throat after a long period of
neo-liberal drought may end up normalizing an unending government and closing
the vital principle of democratic alternation.
3) An assisted corporatism where the government, in order to stay in power,
allows social movements which support them to become (dangerously) “predatory
majorities”, as is the case with the movement of the coca leaf-growers, which is
active in the symbiosis between the most noble principles and the most cynical
interests.
4) The excesses of power and the conceit of achievements, or the political
sorojchi, which means an altitude sickness that ends with blindness obstructing
the way to excellence. Can we blend Machiavelli’s clever and calculator, paternal-
ist and redistributive Prince with Erasmus’ equable and benign, trustworthy and
sober Prince?
As for the deterioration of institutional quality, institutions were democratized
at the expense of meritocracy, eroding their efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy.
We see men and women that do not deserve their positions. Rather, they devalue
such positions, or they use them or exert them with a fruitless ritualism. The gov-
ernment grew out of proportion at the expense of the institutions’ shrinkage, which
lost strength and autonomy. What does this mean? If the institutions are powerful
[ 98 ]
elements to shape and crystallize great values, it means that such values are not
firmly implanted and rather are being disfigured by contextual political objectives.
Now, institutions do not fulfill functions; instead, they are dysfunctional. Justice
does not impart justice, but injustice. Forces of order do not provide trust, but
insecurity; education does not teach, but indoctrinates. This way, the state is being
turned upside down. And, worse, the news media stopped being a watchdog which
barked whenever the political power was mistaken to become subservient to the
new authorities. Today we are witnessing the shameful irrelevance of the mass
media, which, in great part controlled by the government, commits in generous
measure every day two sins: deceives our trust and betrays the principle of honesty.
Power wins, but society loses. In our endless desire for justice, will the Bolivians
straighten out that which is crooked?
Finally, as for the mediocre quality of society, it has errors and virtues. The
sad part is that these virtues are not duly underpinned and the errors follow the
pleasant inertia of any other vice. What for example? Firstly there is the produc-
tion of citizens lacking civic responsibility, who profit from the sharing of growth
and the award of various rights and systematically look for privileges without
considering the general interest and the affirmation of shared values. They reject
the common good, obligations and responsibilities.
A second example would be the forming of people who can appreciate only
power and money, which generates constant obsequiousness and opportunism.
This is the ethic bulimia which thins out the spirit of integrity.
A third example would be the construction of a deficient sociability, because
it is unable to consider others or to show solidarity or attachment. Then, dispers-
ing feelings emerge, more prone to devouring each other as fish in the sea than to
living together in peace.
Finally, indolence towards order and urbanity, which ends up displeasing us
all. These are the corrosive acids of our social fabric in the national garden where
weeds seem to prevail.
In other words, we have more Bolivia, but not a better Bolivia. It is stronger,
with more resources, more infrastructure, more bonuses, more public servants,
but it lacks better institutions and better citizens. Thus, we have to find a least
common denominator of lucidity and change the challenge of multiplication for
[ 99 ]
the challenge of qualification.
Colophon
During the neo-liberalism crisis and the democracia pactada or “agreed democracy”,

we thought that the pitch-black stormy night would bring a new, clear and brilliant
day. The social hope looked towards the MAS. It was a dream come true, not a
reality converted into a dream. Certainly, the MAS government brought a new
day. We see progress, but it is true that this new day brought also a new night, yet
clearer and less stormy. Then, in our human forge and in a rising vision of history,
we have to take the sufficient steps towards the next stage that was lacking, knowing
and being aware that such a new day will also bring a night, and that the progress
to which humans aspire will mean clearer nights and days less obscure.
Sources
Argirakis, Helena (2014), “Estrategia de los cambios en las directivas cama-
rales”, in: Animal Político, La Razón daily, 26/1/2014, La Paz, Bolivia.
Arkonada, Katu (2014), “La otra batalla de octubre”, in: Le Monde Diplo-
matique # 71, July, 2014, La Paz, Bolivia.
Dahrendorf, Ralf (2006), “El recomienzo de la historia. De la caída del muro
de Berlín a la guerra de Irak”, Katz Editores, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Friedman, Thomas, (2006), “La tierra es plana. Breve historia del mundo
globalizado del siglo XXI”, Grupo Editorial Planeta, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
García Linera, Álvaro; Chávez León, Marxa and Costas Monje, Patricia (2004)
“Sociología de los movimientos sociales en Bolivia. Estructuras de movilización,
repertorios culturales y acción política”, Diakonía/Oxfam, La Paz, Bolivia.
García Linera, Álvaro; Tapia, Luis and Prada, Raúl (2004) “Memorias de
octubre”, Muela del Diablo/Comuna, La Paz, Bolivia.
Hobsbawm, Eric (2006) “Historia del siglo XX”, Crítica, Barcelona, España.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2012), “Anuario estadístico”, La Paz, Bolivia.
Leaño Román, Eduardo (2014) “Tierra de fuego. El conflicto autonómico
en Bolivia (2003-2010)”, Fundación REI, La Paz, Bolivia.
Mesa Gisbert, Carlos (2008), “Presidencia sitiada. Memorias de mi gobierno”,
[ 100 ]
Plural, La Paz, Bolivia.

Mesa Gisbert, Carlos (2014), “Breve historia de las políticas públicas en
Bolivia”, Gisbert Editorial, La Paz, Bolivia.
Miranda, Boris (2012) “La mañana después de la guerra”, El Cuervo/Nueva
Crónica, La Paz, Bolivia.
Moyo, Sam and Yeros, Paris (2008), “Recuperando la tierra. El resurgimiento
de los movimientos rurales en África, Asia y América Latina”, CLACSO, Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Nogales, Ricardo and Foronda, Carlos Alberto (2011), “En busca de opor-
tunidades: clases medias y movilidad social”, Cuadernos de futuro 28/UNDP, La
Paz, Bolivia.
Puente, Rafael (2011), “Recuperando la memoria. Una historia crítica de
Bolivia (Tomo II)”, Plural, La Paz, Bolivia.
Quispe, Felipe (1999), “Tupak Katari vive y vuelve… carajo”. Pachakuti, La
Paz, Bolivia.
UNDP (2010), “Informe Nacional sobre Desarrollo Humano en Bolivia.
Los cambios detrás del cambio: desigualdades y movilidad social en Bolivia”, La
Paz, Bolivia.
World Bank (2004/2005), “Bolivia: estrategia de asistencia al país”, La Paz,
Bolivia.
[ 101 ]
Chapter 5
Bolivia: A Democracy in Dynamic
Development, a Chronicle About a
Struggle of Ideologists
Rafael Archondo12
12 Rafael Archondo is a journalist and social scientist

Photo: Amancaya Finkel
In Chaparina, an Amazonian village, the government of Evo Morales

ordered the repression of indigenous marchers.
I
n Bolivia, democracy has been declared at risk several times. One frequently
hears that the arrival of the Movimiento al Socialismo, MAS (Movement
Towards Socialism) in office in 2006 seriously compromised the future of
the rule of law. It is said that, since the President promoted an hegemonic plan,
the democratic attainments accrued up to 2005 would fade away gradually. It is
common to hear about totalitarism, desires to perpetuate the President’s administra-
tion in power, or corporatism. The basis for such alarms is either the appointment
of acting authorities in positions that are normally designated by two-thirds of
Congress, or the attacks of the government on certain news media, or on the cen-
tralized control of the three branches of government from the presidential palace.
Together with these concerns, the country has experienced the most intense
period of election surveys in its recent history. The referendum has now been added
to conventional elections and has been converted into an electoral mechanism for
practically all relevant appointments within the power of the state. Bolivian citi-
zens elect not only the president, vice president, senators and deputies, governors,
mayors and municipal counsellors, but also judges and members of departmental
assemblies. In recent years, voters have determined gas, land tenure and decentral-
ization policies, and even the National Political Constitution. In addition, there is
for the first time a new level of sub-national governments, where Bolivian identities
can be not only represented, but also “self-governed”.
In light of these two antagonistic backgrounds, one has to ask: Is democracy
mortally wounded in Bolivia? Or is it instead in optimal health? Is the removal of
authorities or institutions part of a democratizing offensive or is it rather the end
of the separation of powers and the advisable internal balance of the powers within
the system? When a stable majority imposes the rules of the game, are the minorities
condemned without salvation? Or is the nodal principle of every democracy oper-
ating by which majorities are those who rule?
This article tracks the debate on democracy in the country and seeks to find
a common denominator which will allow us to make a diagnosis of the current
situation. In precise terms, it tries firstly to make a representation of the contem-
poranean Bolivian debate on democracy by incorporating academic papers which
have been presented between 1982, when civil freedoms were finally recovered,
until the present time. After showing the arguments for such debate, we will try
[ 105 ]
to interpret it, trying to make the theories in dispute converge. Hence, with a more
articulated picture, we will resolve some aspects of the discussion.
The Bolivian Debate: Democracy and its Requirements
It is well known that democracy is a relatively young system of government. Its

worldwide dissemination dates back to the end of the XX century or beginning of
the XXI century. It is just one century ago, since almost all of the political actors
perceived it as a questionable mechanism to attain equality and defective for
doing justice. After two world wars with fatal results for a great part of mankind,
democracy could barely manage to make headway in Western Europe, and was
put to the test several times due to increasing social tensions13. Only in 1989, with
the collapse of true socialism, was democracy able to cover whole continents and
become a desirable means to make decisions at a worldwide scale.
The main complaint against democracy was related to its complete defense-
lessness in face of innumerable human challenges. Most people found it hard to
believe that a system based on persuasion could meet effectively the huge material
needs of people and the web of opposing interests of society. Democracy was per-
ceived as a weak and useless system, unable to establish a fair order or to punish
those who might disturb social harmony.
In most cases, and for the same reason, democracy was perceived as a “luxury
article” reserved exclusively to highly industrialized countries. It was thought
that, only when societies could reach high levels of prosperity and equity, that
is when a majority middle class had been formed and the essential needs of the
poorest people were met, could a country afford a stable democracy. The democratic
system was seen as a higher stage of civilization that would be in place only after
abundant bloodshed and sorrow.
In that sense, it was thought that the main enemies of democracy were hunger,
unemployment and poverty, ghosts, which, clinging to anti-liberal ideologies such
13 The Amartya Sen objection regarding the presumption that democracy is a European product is well
known. The Indian economist shows that in Asia, for example, long periods of democratic life have
been in place, although the sense of such experiences cannot be defined under current parameters.
Such evidence shows that democracy has never been popular among thinkers.
[ 106 ]
- Bolivia: A Democracy in Dynamic Development, a Chronicle About a Struggle of Ideologists -
as Nazism or communism, had devastated European parliaments at the beginning

of the XX century. Reality seemed to shout it from the roof tops: not a single
democracy had been able to survive a significant social crisis.
In Latin America, the same perception existed during the 70s. For many, dic-
tatorships were a “necessary evil” accepted reluctantly in order to resolve financial
straits and build the basis for stable democracy. It was thought that, for example,
Chile was obliged to go through the Pinochet period before establishing a democ-
racy solid enough to resist any repeat assault. If we take a closer look at this con-
cept, it was first necessary to moderate social differences, which are the breeding
ground for revolutions, then to be able to “afford the luxury” of the vote. In other
words, the majorities’ involvement was admissible only if they were satisfied and,
therefore, vaccinated against revanchist or confiscatory options.
In this regard, Jorge Lazarte (1993) began to notice a significant change in
the behaviour of political actors in Bolivia at the beginning of the 90s and described
it as: “Politics is not perceived in simple terms of force, violence or imposition
anymore, but rather it is felt as a mechanism to reach an agreement between diverse
interests.” Perceived evolution led him to conclude that the actors were more and
more willing to talk and negotiate rather than pursue complete victory over their
occasional adversaries. This open and flexible attitude would make a democratic
stability possible in spite of the existing economic inequality between members
of society.
In a direct manner we have entered into discussion about what could be
called the “material conditions” of democracy, that is, its foundations which make
it possible. Viewing things in this light, one could imagine that the first step
to democratizing a country is to create financial prosperity, no matter if it occurs
under authoritarian schemes, to give way later to a transition which, little by
little, makes for more practicable political liberties, until fully attaining them. To
make this strategy understandable use has frequently been made of the metaphor
“maturation”. According to this image, societies have to mature in order to reach
democracy. This way of thinking is so rooted that many people do not care about
the lack of freedoms in modern China while that society records economic growth
exceeding 9%, which would be laying the groundwork to permit slowly the emer-
gence of new political actors who will finally demand both civil and market lib-
[ 107 ]
erties. Somehow, this way of conceiving democracy is deeply linked to economic

freedom. Democracy would be able to mature more in company with free markets,
as long as they produce free citizens, active contractual subjects and entrepreneurial
agents, who are the ideal raw material of elections.
This idea could well be called the “theory of democratic maturation” because it
maintains that democracy is far from being a mere institutional design to be applied
to any reality. Here, we understand democracy as a life system that embraces the
whole social existence. Then, it is not a mechanism to make decisions but rather a
comprehensive way where a vast human conglomerate is organized. In this sense,
to be successful, democracy depends fundamentally on largely matured institutions
and traditions among social groups. It cannot be merely transplanted from one
place to another, as if it were some technical tool. From this perspective, trying to
decree democratic systems through violent imposition, as was attempted in Haiti
or Iraq, appears as a vain or naive effort.
Democracy without Democrats
In Bolivia, this idea of democracy reached its theoretical peak during the 90s,
where most academics embraced it and developed a diverse set of methodological
instruments to consolidate it. For example, surveys on democratic culture became
fashionable in order to investigate how deep the democratic convictions and prac-
tices of citizens were. The strength of democracy was measured not only by the
number of elections carried out or by their degree of transparency, but also by the
existence of convinced and practicing democrats in society.
Jorge Lazarte successfully launched the idea that it was possible to denounce
an imposture such as “democracy without democrats“. In this framework, sev-
eral individual contributions produced an organic way of thinking. Everywhere,
democracy was just an apparent condition, ritual or merely symbolic state. On
the façade, the country was democratic, but behind every trace of social life, dis-
appointment was frequent.
In a paper at the time, Lazarte (1990) makes a balance of democracy’s health
in Bolivia and writes, “To stabilize democracy is to develop its potentialities (…) it
is to democratize democracy until making it desirable and not simply usable; it
[ 108 ]
is to pass from governed democracy to governing democracy. Democracy serves

both as a procedure and a regulation at the time of making political decisions and
as a possibility to convert it into a way of life and a collective ethos.” As we can
see, democracy is not defined here as a mere electoral fact; instead, it seeks a more
extended, ambitious and overreaching concept.
In another paper, Lazarte is even clearer: “In Bolivia, democracy is more a
new concept than the continuance of a previous process. Democracy, as pluralism,
as civil and political freedoms, and as a legal and real possibility to replace the
bearers of power, is something which truly began from 1982. The Bolivian past
was rather one of simplistic intolerance, of permanent violation of rights and of
a daily violent power struggle (…). We have passed from instability to stability,
but not from stability to consolidation. This problem is still to be solved.” The
diagnosis is lapidary. If democracy has to do with maturation, Bolivia is still at
the seedling stage.
Pessimistic assessments by HCF Mansilla fertilized even more this ground. In
one of his books that best illustrates the critique of modernization in Latin America,
Mansilla (1997) states that “ Aztec, Mayan and Inca cultures were not familiar with
proto-democratic models (…) ” and that ”among those civilizations, the social
structure must have had a pyramidal and very hierachical nature.” Mansilla says
that such authoritarian legacy was followed by the Iberian-catholic tradition, which,
far from improving things, worsened them. In his words, “The pre-Columbian
heritage, with strong paternalist trends and a particularly rigid and pyramidal social
structure, was followed by the patrimonialist and illiberal tradition of the Iberian
conquerors.” According to this interpretation of history, Latin America might
have adopted two anti-pluralist forms of conceiving social relations, producing
as a result an authoritarian tradition with strong roots. The balance could not be
worse. It seems that democracy in Bolivia not only lacks cultural sustenance, but
is instead besieged by very powerful antibodies.
Hence, if democracy needs sufficient material conditions to develop, it is
logical to think that, faced with such doses of pessimism, academicians felt the
weight of a monumental challenge. For this reason, they developed a continuing
effort to extend a democratic culture wherever possible and promoted initiatives
intended to multiply democrats and make of democracy something more than
[ 109 ]
a mere formality. Amongst other things, for example, they promoted the Law of

Parties in order to oblige the political organizations to conduct primary elections
to elect their candidates. During the 90s, the MIR, ADN and MNR parties carried
out internal elections, which were not free from strong internal conflict. This law
also regulated campaign funding and advocated the rights of party members, thus
allowing the Electoral Court to intervene frequently in the parties’ internal opera-
tions. For the promoters of this scheme, it was not admissible that the guarantors
of democracy were not democratic in their internal operations.
Furthermore, significant institutional reforms benefited from this academic
orientation, such as the establishment of the Ombudsman, the Judiciary Council,
an independent Electoral Court, Popular Participation, [the] National Dialogue,
and public hearings in Parliament.
During the 90s, the term “citizen” as a desirable goal became very fash-
ionable. It was aimed at building a new political actor, an authentic product
of democracy who, in an individual and meditated way, could become the
main actor of the processes as they were able to leave behind totalitarian and
corporative hindrances which hindered their potentialities. Therefore, the spe-
cific enemies of democracy were the coercive and plebiscitary ways inherited
from the colonial and pre-Columbian periods. Decisions taken in the framework
of unions or military environments, oligarchic or bureaucratic organizations were
perceived as a backwardness or as an obstacle which modernity had to remove.
The time of the citizen had arrived, that individual freed from ties, able to make
decisions for him- or herself, without masters had finally come, which best fitted
their interests.
It seems that the Bolivian political reality during the 90s fulfilled the academi-
cians’ wishes. While the theory of democratic maturation found its main player or
executor in the citizen, Bolivia went through a crisis involving miners, the military,
the ultimatum or decisive vote, and appeals to public opinion. Neither the Boliv-
ian Workers Union (Central Obrera Boliviana, COB), nor the civic committees,
much less the armed forces, were able to have an effective influence on the events
occurring in the country unless they acted within the reasonable framework of the
active citizenship. Democracy could thrive only if it could manage to avoid or stop
the corporate triggers of Bolivian society. That was the way of solving the difficult
[ 110 ]
equation of a democracy that did not meet yet the material requirements which
permitted a natural abundance of democrats. That society was not satisfied, at
least it had found pacific and tolerable ways for expressing its discontent. Since
the citizens deactivated the redistributing and confiscatory outbreaks, then democ-
racy was possible in an unequal and unjust country such as Bolivia, so we could
“afford the luxury” to think about democracy in a place of chronic shortcomings.
Indeed, the almost terminal crisis of the mining unionism and the military retreat
to barracks opened the opportunity to bet on voters.
As we see thus far, democracy is not in essence an indiscriminate participation
system. Although the level of participation is a critical feature to any democracy, it
is the type of intervention that qualifies it. According to the democratic maturation
theory, only citizens can participate, as any other type of interference could be
seen as a threat or a deviation. The main ingredient of democracy is participation
through the free and regulated organization of political parties or through indi-
vidual and secret vote. However, the belligerent and conflictive presence of social
groups making themselves visible through forms of pressure would instead be a
symptom of corporatism, which is behavior bringing into question other forms of
participation. When threats and pressure becomes a routine practice, democracy
begins to fall apart.
In other words, democracy is a system where the majority rules, but only when
the will is expressed but only without damaging the minorities. Lazarte (1989) very
clearly distinguished the forms of participation: “Based on the historic leftists, a
roadblock is a democratic action, but according to others, it would be an imposed
action that violates the others’ rights and freedoms. That is why a blockade is a
violent (though peaceful) act against others”.
Based on the above, it is clear that democracy is understood as the empire of
freedom and pluralism above participation. If those who participate infringe the
rights of others then they would be violating the compact between citizens. The
only valid participation is the one that is defined by law through the vote. Going
back to the beginning, the democratic maturation theory puts the voter as the
main and almost sole actor, as only the voter can make democracy work, whereas
those who mobilize embody anti-pluralist interests and reflect old non-democratic
currents of thought existing in Bolivian society.
[ 111 ]
The Challengers: Democracy of Mobilized Individuals
When national crisis erupted in 2000 with the Water War in Cochabamba (April)
and blockades on the La Paz altiplano (April and September), the precepts of what
we referred to as democratic maturation theory began to be questionable.
It turns out that, after two decades of relative calm, Bolivia returns again
to what its long history used to confirm (according to Mansilla). Those forces that
were believed to be buried have emerged again. It is no longer the COB of the
past, but rather, for example, the Water Coordinator or the Tropic Federations.
The forms of unions, which since 1985 proved to be unsuccessful when faced
with government assaults now begin to revive vigorously and manage to put the
authorities’ backs to the wall.
Slowly, the citizen or voter is replaced by the mobilized individual. Sud-
denly, the decision-making mechanism, which was firmly assigned to party leaders,
becomes irrelevant. Some sectors referred to as “anti-systemic” slowly begin to
take power. For the first time in 20 years, legitimacy divides its branches which
start to compete with each other. Elected or designed authorities appear on one
side, and new leaders empowered by union assemblies appear on the other. The
ideological basis soon appeared in front of this duality. A group of academicians
called “Commune” quickly began to produce papers when the Water War was
over, whose favorite theorization subject was this “other” democracy. They are a
quartet of authors: Gutiérrez, Prada, García Linera and Tapia, who followed a
kind of thinking which, aspiring to remodel Marxism, keeps a democratic iden-
tity, whose legitimation already seems incontestable by then. The main purpose of
this thought was to reclaim the democratic ideal, now not from the classic liberal
perspective anymore, but from a community stance, though also reputed to be a
democratic one.
The political advantages of this starting point were clear. Nobody would be
able to attack the new social movements labeling them as anti-democratic, since it
was necessary to confer on them this characteristic and strengthen it. However, a
similar action had been already taken a decade earlier with the political parties like
Condepa and UCS. The promoters of the “democratic maturation” current such as
Carlos Toranzo or Fernando Mayorga had managed to seduce them with the idea
[ 112 ]
that, although Palenque or Fernández were two leaders who opposed the “system”,

they actually strengthened a liberal democracy because they attracted those social
sectors which were excluded from the representation scheme in place at the time.
The two authors developed the idea that Condepa and UCS should be judged
because of their practices rather than because of their discourses. Their contribution
was that they widened the representative scope of the democratic system and that
this was essential at the moment of analyzing them. Why could they not say the
same about MAS or MIP? Surely because these parties were not any more in the
citizen behavior mood conceived as legitimate. Unlike Condepa and UCS, these
organizations were born from the workers unions and, above all, preserved the
prominence of the mobilized persons over the voters.
As a result, the theoreticians of the so-called social movements were neither
Toranzo nor Mayorga, but Gutiérrez, Tapia, Prada and García Linera. They intro-
duced new explanation schemes which no longer stemmed from the democratic
maturation theory. “Commune” discussed other currents and stopped thinking
that the main concern should be the development of democratic values in a society
resistant to them. That priority was not included in their agenda. Their diagnosis
was centered on [in] the decline of one democracy and the birth of another. For the
first time in this debate in the country, democracy was not seen anymore as a unique
system and began to be assessed based on its factual diversity. For “Commune”
there are several democratic practices which need to be classified. These authors
distinguish classic, which we have commonly known, from another democracy
called “plebeian”, that is, equipped with different content.
For example, shortly after the so-called “Water War”, Raúl Prada (2001)
argued that “The protesting social and mobilized individuals are not just the main
actors and bearers of concrete powers, instead, they are essentially the effective
force of democracy.” In the same book, García Linera (2001) goes further when
he makes a detailed analysis of the first two uprisings which occurred in neo-liberal
times in Cochabamba and in provinces of La Paz. Regarding the experience of
the Water Coordinator, García Linera stated: “As a result of the extension of local
democratic practices (…), the crowd has been acting basically as a form of democ-
racy and political sovereignty.” These new theoreticians find not only abundant
democracy where other theoreticians found corporatism, but they also perceive
[ 113 ]
development even stronger of consultative practices. García Linera describes them

clearly: “They became a type of social organization where the only authority they
recognized was themselves, in other words, a government founded on a fabric
having deliberative and representative democratic practices which actually replaced
the system of political parties, the legislative and judicial powers, and almost the
monopoly of public forces”.
As we can see, this “other” democracy not only differs from the official canon,
but also is able to replace its performance and become an alternative way of making
decisions. García Linera calls this type of actions a “communal democracy” and
confers it with the usefulness to allow community members to discuss their agree-
ments and turn them into a compulsory standard for all of those who participated
in its development. Obviously, it could not be otherwise, since the trigger of this
kind of participation is mobilization, where there is no room for disagreements,
as the aim is to defeat the common adversary. For this reason, it is not surprising
that Luis Tapia (2001) equates democracy with sovereignty. Tapia recalls that the
history of democracy contains not only “the fight for the acknowledgement of
political rights and representation, as the liberals would say,” but also it is about
“a process of dispute over the surplus.” This is the restructuring of democracy,
currently seen as a significant episode in the struggle for economic redistribution.
“Nowadays, the assembled crowd discusses directly, proposes, rejects, modifies
and approves. Leaders just convey the result. Once again, the decision-making
faculty was reclaimed by the social structures that, in a radical act of political
rebellion, abrogated the custom of delegating power in order to exercise it them-
selves” (Gutiérrez, García, Tapia). For the authors, this is the exercise of a plebe-
ian democracy, a new practice which has emerged from mobilizations. Here, the
citizen, that is the voter, is replaced by a mobilized individual, who does not just
have a preference but instead demonstrates it with direct actions.
The starting point for this new interpretation is that several civilizing regimes
coexist in Bolivia (García Linera, 2004). Each of them is characterized not only for
having diverse ways of producing wealth or presenting the world, but, especially,
they have different ways of choosing authorities.
Given the idea that there is a single possible democratic order, “Commune”
opens the concept to plurality and radically modifies the terms of the debate.
[ 114 ]
The theoreticians’ premises of the 90s were shaken. The former scheme where
corporatism and democracy tried to show themselves as legitimate in front of the
civic culture of people was being replaced by a civilizing struggle charged with
ancestral antecedents. What had been seen as corporative by the academics of the
90s, appeared to the “Commune” as the “other” democracy. In this context, clearly
antagonistic values became relative. Culture or democratic development no longer
acted upon a kind of regulatory vacuum nor upon the anti-values of patrimoni-
alism and corporatism anymore. Instead, they faced different, yet not necessarily
harmful, reasons. And another vocabulary emerged as well. The former “corpora-
tion” or “class” became “crowd form”. Supported by authors such as Toni Negri
and Michael Hardt, the members of “Commune” theorized about the beneficial
effects of the masses congregated in the public squares, rising above themselves
beyond past union structures. Spontaneity, creativity and flexibility were valued
among the new individuals, who left the class tradition behind and took on new
attributes such as networking or grass-roots vigilance. All of this was articulated
to a world-wide movement to resist the existing economic order. Class no longer
counted: now it was the neighborhood, youth, mothers’ clubs, casual labourers,
Internet, and counter-culture.
We find especially in Gutiérrez the desire to create new democratic thought
based on the grass-roots. Inspired by the Zapatista doctrine of her native Mexico,
Gutiérrez tries to find and strengthen the ties between the experiences of Coch-
abamba or Omasuyos and the other resistance networks in Chiapas . Every-
thing indigenous is seen as a new quality of things democratic.
We have another concept of democracy. The so-called communitarian democ-
racy is opposed to representative or liberal democracy. Let us examine at once
what are their characteristics. Basically, within communitarian democracy, the
mobilized individuals are the main actors, they are called to take actions and have
the willingness to strongly influence public affairs. This allows that decisions are
not delegated to a representative body as normally occurs in traditional democratic
schemes, but rather that every individual may act and mobilize without mediation.
In this sense, each one of them is able to hold public office in turn. Every
community member has to go through a chain of social duties in order to deserve
a temporary appointment. Among the academics such as Ticona, this is styled
[ 115 ]
“thaki” or path, with emphasis on the responsibility with which a given duty is
accomplished. As the exercise of certain powers is needed, they pass from one
individual to other within the community. Thus, more than a circulation of elites,
which is typical at the traditional democracy, we have here the rotation of roles
among everyone. In this way, holding a public office is far from being a privilege,
it is more a “burden” carried stoically on behalf of the community. Power is here
a tribute, a gift to benefit the others.
Since the basis for the alternating democratic system is not that of a voter
who delegates his/her willingness to a trusted representative body but a mobilized
individual who has taken control levels of representation are few and cover only that
which is strictly necessary. That is why in such environments there is much talk
about self-convocation and self-government.
It is clear that, under this manner of conceiving the process, the so-called
“material” basis for democracy assumes another nature. In this logic, democ-
racy also needs foundations, but these are related not to the generation of a material
basis as such, but rather to a cultural or political basis (the very mobilization),
which allows the individuals called to mobilize exercising their newly acquired
power. Thus, the so-called “water warriors”, young people organized to challenge
the rise of prices of this service, acquire a new quality when they defeat the police
and take over the main square. After that, converted into mobilized individuals,
they are invested with an unusual type of power, which qualifies them to enter into
the public sector and assume prominence. Here, the citizen’s logic, in other words,
a vote does not count, as it is only the equalization of all the options taken in a
collective manner. The important thing is the support of a cause validated by the
majority as part of the “common good”. Therefore, the “water warriors”, together
with the peasant union organizations, those using irrigation facilities, and neigh-
bours, are a sort of emerging power which makes decisions in a ‘multitude’ fash-
ion. García Linera notes that the difference between this kind of multitude and
the other forms of multitude lies in the fact that every person speaks on behalf
of his or her organization and has to be accountable for them. It is not anymore
the abstract representation given to the governor of the time, but the gathering of
people who define the situation in the framework of the conflict. It is obviously
an act of force, but invested with a majoritarian voice, reinforced by a type of
[ 116 ]
democracy that uses other possibilities.

These approaches undermined gradually the idea of democratic matura-
tion. Bolivia’s problems were not related to the survival of an authoritarian matrix
covered by a democratic veneer. Bolivia’s problems are related to the dramatization
of an institutional democratic farce clearly confronted with other schemes which
have emerged from other civilizations which conceive democracy differently. We
are here, if one wishes, facing a real conceptual impasse. Reality itself is perceived
in an antagonistic manner and it seems that there is no room for a conciliation
of perspectives.
Is there a democracy here beyond formally proclaimed democracy? Should
both forms of conceiving authority coexist, confront, or complement each other?
Is the current experience the fight of two insurmountable types of democracy ?
What Happens in Real Life
What is immediately noticeable is that, the more restricted the ambit of interven-
tion of public decision, more achievable seems the ideal of basic or communal
democracy. At the same time, as long as the debate topics are more comprehensive,
more representation levels are necessary.
Even in times of major disrepute, democracy has always been practiced in
reduced groups of individuals considered peers. The very communication theory
states that a plain dialogue can occur only in small circles of up to ten people,
where all the members enjoy certain horizontality between them. An extension
of this spectrum demands the building of hierarchies and spokespersons, so the
supposed antagonism between [the] representative democracy and participative
democracy is still something forced or artificial. One does not exist without the
other. Wherever full participation by everybody is possible and desirable, there will
be the conditions for this. However, from the logistical point of view, when such
participation obstructs itself, the only recourse will be to introduce an equivalent
amount of delegation and surveillance. The ideal formula seems to be: as much
participation as possible and as much representation as is needed.
In this sense, every democratic system comprises both mobilized individuals
and voters. Mobilized individuals are those who are very interested in a topic or
[ 117 ]
segment, they are the “warriors” strongly committed to a cause. Without them,
democracy would lose drive and would be sustained as a routine without any
engines. On the other side, democracy without voters could not be credible because
it would simply be the sum of acts of force. Voters are everybody, no matter if they
are interested or not, motivated, or just misinformed. They will always choose to
delegate, because they do not consider themselves as activists. They have their pref-
erences rather than causes for which to fight. There will be moments of strong con-
flict, where the mobilized individuals will develop the agenda and print their stamp
on it. During such times, voters will stay withdrawn and expectant, and then will
validate (delegate) what the mobilized individuals have done. Since mobilized
individuals pertain to different sides, opposed actions may end up neutralized
between each other. During such times of hesitation, the only remedy would be to
hand over the decision power to the voters, who will eventually reset the decisions
based on what they witnessed. Any democracy plays with such dialectics. Changes
are not possible without the mobilized sector, but they will endure only if they are
supported by the voters, who transform changes into institutional rules.
Academics from the 90s thought that democracy with only voters was the
key to stability, and they were right. For 20 years they experienced the validity of
their idea. Bolivia, from being one of the most violent countries in Latin America,
became one of the most calm and harmonious because the mobilized individuals
had few opportunities to be noticed. The great mass of voters eventually settled
events after observing the behaviour of their representatives. However, by 2000,
discontent and uneasiness increasingly mobilized more people. As a result, the aca-
demics of the XXI Century were astonished by the appearance of new decision
mechanisms, which can be set only during mobilization periods. Driven by assem-
blies, the workers unions, neighborhood councils, or civic committees, voters were
replaced more and more drastically. However, the proliferation of mobilized groups
with antagonistic standards created the need to settle matters through the vote.
This way, gradually more voters, persuaded by the polarization of turned out to
vote in events, order to validate the new rules of the game.
Indeed, academics of the 90s expected to provide the citizen, that is, he
voter, with the monopolist management of the process and tried to intervene
more frequently as a means to solve the tireless disturbances of the mobilized
[ 118 ]
individuals. They considered, not without reason, that, by making room to the

moderation of those who do not mobilize, they were stabilizing public manage-
ment. For their part, the academics from the first decade of the XXI century found
that the mobilized individual has important issues needing to be dealt with due
to their critical and urgent nature. Then, far from invalidating their attacks, they
assigned them with a democratic quality that other academics had denied them.
By recognizing them, they suggested a sort of honesty from the country towards
its population. “We are like this, and we had better accept it.” With this, they did
not remove the citizen nor the voter, but instead they provided them with the last
word. This means that, now, the mobilized individual actively drives the agenda
of the debate to the limit, where only a sovereign or supreme decision will finish
the process. Then, voters intervene with the vote, better if via referendum, and
consolidate the advances. They do it not to contradict the voice of the mobi-
lized but on most occasions to recognize their voices and bring calm to matters.
As we can see, we are talking not about two democracies but a single one with
different emphasis. And, obviously, once again the debate is defined within the
so-called “conditions ” of democratic possibilities. While for the academics of the
90s democracy was sustained by negation of the mobilized forces, which gave way
to the near monopoly of voters, for more recent academics, mobilizations rather
than being a threat, qualify democracy. In that sense it is necessary to integrate
their attacks, provide them with substance, and, without putting aside the voters,
give them the ultimate decision, which seals or institutionalizes the manœuvres
of mobilized groups.
It is not by chance that for this reason the referendum has become the most
used democratic mechanism in this period. Between 2004 and 2008, Bolivia
has organized five ballots of this type regarding specific issues without the need
of delegation. They were direct democratic acts where the electorate did not nom-
inate representatives to take decisions, instead they decided directly. Each of these
referendums was the result of multiple mobilizations and the final convalida-
tion needed by those who went to the streets in the pursuit of their objectives.
The referendum is the means that best expresses the dialectics between mobilized
individuals and voters in Bolivia; it is the anchor that binds their dynamics. The
mobilized forces drive the conflict until reaching two options, then the voters
[ 119 ]
have the last word. This is the manner in which Bolivians have reconciled and
balanced the two forces.
The clearest example occurred in October 2008, when a mobilization headed
by President Evo Morales ended its march in the main Murillo Square, where the
seat of the Legislative Branch is located. They demanded the approval of a call
for a referendum to approve a new Constitution. The mobilized people mounted
a threatening vigil pending the enactment of a law. Within the building, both the
governing legislators and the opposition were negotiating and writing the changes
to the Constitution. The Congress had set itself up as the Constituent body and
accepted the call for a referendum conditional on the text which would be put to
the voters’ consideration. The crowd was powerful enough to be able to destroy
the parliament and impose its leaders’ criteria while Congress was in a position
legitimately to flee and leave everything in confusion. Neither of these extremes
could resolve matters. The next day, the mobilized crowd celebrated that their call
for a referendum would be put to the voters. We are talking here of an institutional
channeling of street actions, a finally virtuous struggle between two poles claiming
to practice democratic practices.
In the country, mobilized individuals owe very much to voters. Thanks to
it, they are visible and have privileges. Therefore, there might be an unconfessed
respect from the streets due to their possibilities of achieving pacific and institu-
tional openness. The vote has carried the leaders of mobilizations to formal power.
So it seems that there is no disagreement between both. Mobilized individuals and
voters have discovered how to become synchronized. Bolivian democracy is pro-
gressing thanks to mobilized groups (their push ensures no stagnation), yet it does
not run off the rails thanks to the acceptance by the voters. They are like the
accelerator and the brake, two crucial functions to drive prudently.
The implication of this development of ideas is that the two academic currents
are not really antagonistic. The same practice has opened the possibility to make
them work concurrently. Today it would be impossible to keep the orthodoxy in
both of them because the concrete democratic exercise shown by the Bolivians does
not accord exclusive reason to either of the trends. We do not have permanent
mobilizations which rule out the need for voters, but nor can we go back to the
time when mobilizations seemed to be a marginal anecdote. Voters and mobilized
[ 120 ]
individuals are strongly present in the current Bolivian political scenario. A demo-
cratic theory loyal to the process should give them the same importance.
First Attempt at Improving the Merger
In January 2014, celebrating the fifth anniversary of the so-called Plurinational

State, Vice President Álvaro García Linera read in the Congress a main discourse
related to the analysis which we present in this document. The vice presidential
speech addressed exclusively the definition of democracy adopted by his govern-
ment. As a counterpoint, García said that the right-wing opposition “has perverted
the concept of democracy.”
Two views were confronted once again. The MAS government, through
its second man of the state, argues that democracy is a combination of votes and
redistribution of wealth. In his public speech, García reviewed the election results
from 2005 up to the present. In all of these processes, Evo Morales got overwhelm-
ing and indisputable support. Nonetheless, the opposition has frequently said
that Morales is a “dictator” because he aims to concentrate all power. His strength
among the voters and also among the mobilized groups is construed as a scheme of
encroachment of the minorities. His Vice President labels such objections “racist”
and says that, when someone got the presidency with 20% of votes in the past,
he was considered a “democrat”, while Morales, who easily exceeds half-plus-one
of the votes, is an impending totalitarian. This incoherence can be understood by
the fact that the traditional elites do not accept “an indian” to lead the country.
In this regard, García said that morning: “If the President is elected by a simple
majority and is a relative who has a noteworthy surname, then it is a democratic
ballot, but if he is elected by 64% of voters, and additionally is a peasant, then it
is tyranny, despotism.”
Further on, the Vice President explains another polarity. A democrat is not
anymore the one who obtains an indisputable support in the ballot boxes, it is
someone who also redistributes among the population the wealth produced or
acquired socially. Once again, Evo Morales seems to be a democrat par excellence.
He brings together two attributes chosen by the government to define democracy:
the vote and conviction about the common good. On the other side, we have
[ 121 ]
those leaders, who, though being elected, promoted, for example, privatization

processes of public companies. This point of view is clear when García says in his
above-mentioned speech: “Currently there is a better democracy because, for the
first time, it reaches the pockets of the poor and humble.” Then, democracy is
clearly synonymous with redistribution.
In the framework of this analysis, García Linera has made a first conceptual
synthesis. In his opinion, after almost a decade in power, mobilizations have ceased
to have a decisive role anymore, as they seem to break up through the beneficent of
the government. The democratic leader swaps votes for works. So why march then?
Seemingly, street actions are motivated only by material shortages. This sudden har-
mony between government and its subjects has been called by García the “integral
State”, a place where the public is blurred with the social world. The previous one
was [an] “apparent state” or, in other words, a disguise, an illusion, a deception.
Are we at the end of the controversy? Are the grounds lost for discrepancy
between the citizen’s theorists and those who advocated the rights of mobilized
individuals? Or the dilemma has been gradually diluted due to the appearance
of a strong, inclusive and co-optive state? Maybe it is too soon to answer these so
disturbing doubts. So let us leave in suspense for now reflection on what might
be in the future.
Conclusions
In conclusion, it seems important to enhance the usefulness of this development

of ideas. What might be the value of these reflections with an eye to the future?
Let’s see:
1. By trying to match the democratic maturation theory with that of the
civilizing regimes, one could say that any democracy comprises intense and exten-
sive ingredients. The first ones are characterized by their febrile activity, while the
second ones have a discreet, yet conclusive presence. The first ones are effective,
yet fleeting, and the second ones are quiet, but constant and definitive.
2. Democracy neither tolerates a permanent mobilization nor a never-inter-
rupted passivity either. Every cause for collective action will always be partial; it
will never bring together 100% of the citizens. Therefore, every democracy has to
[ 122 ]
face this asynchrony and develop institutional mechanisms to do so.

3. However, in order to be fully democratic, every decision has to have the
involvement of everyone, including those who have no interest in deciding any-
thing. This generates a distancing between those who are involved actively in the
decision making and those who choose to stay on the sidelines. The final deter-
minations are frequently made by those who take no risks or prefigure events,
although they make them inspired by those who did put themselves at risk.
4. Accordingly, it can be said that we have a high-intensity contemporary
Bolivian democracy. Unlike the decade of the 90s, it does not bet on the bloodless
annulment of the mobilized groups, but rather on their permanent activation. It
is not chance that this option is perceived as a threat and that all mobilized action
implies the segregation of those who do not participate in it. Any string of actions
oriented by a particular strategy always challenges the institutions. By doing so, it
puts previous consensus at risk. This is a continuing source of instability that can
only be stopped as long as voters validate the new consensus. This is what is known
as the struggle between constituent power and constituted power.
5. A view able to suggest a single \democracy comprising both mobilized
groups and voters, under the same regulating agreement, may help have a single
impression of the process. Thus, such different actions as the march for the Con-
stitution in October 2008 or the open forum for autonomies in Santa Cruz in
January 2004 might be seen as the ingredients of a same democracy with strong
recompositions.
6. Consideration of this type may mitigate the pejorative burdens produced by
any mobilized action among those who do not feel called to participate. It would be
understood that those who take to the streets, even if it were to invalidate other
mobilized individuals, are part of the same decision-making system. This is why it
is not a casual happening that it was possible that both the departmental autono-
mies and the indigenous autonomies have been included in the same regulations.
7. If we accept that democracy is organized by concrete moments, some
of them of intensity and others of extension, we will be able better to calmly
assess the facts. An election is always an extensive moment where everybody goes
to vote in a relaxed and confident spirit. This is when the mobilized individuals
relax. However, a conflict is the opposite, an intensive time where those who
[ 123 ]
mobilize and those who do not differ, and involvement is unequal: selective and
even damaging for many. These actions were considered as anti-democratic and
corporative. Maybe it is time to value them as a necessary ingredient for a society
which cannot remain static. It is here where the fears of a disturbance against
democracy emerge. However, the mobilized groups do not have the last word. The
vote is finally the act that closes the processes in Bolivia, and this is ultimately
the source of confidence in the future of democracy. It is clear that the mobilized
parties have constructed the vote agenda, have prepared the options on which we
decide, but and nothing more. They are the main actors of the circumstances, but
do not give them their ultimate democratic quality.
8. In consequence, analyzing the implications of the use of a referendum in
the country is a valid action. The referendum has become the ideal democratic
tool to articulate both voters and mobilized fronts. Since it is a medium of direct
decision and not a delegative means, it re-establishes the dimensions of democracy
as it was known up to 2004. It opens the possibility for mobilizations to produce
an election, with which it repairs the ever-tense relations between those who take
over the public squares and those who look at them from their balconies. It seems
that the country intuitively has found a formula to synchronize the seemingly
un-synchronizable14. Getting away from the idea of irremediable polarization, the
one and the other follow the same itinerary: street actions, negotiation, and elec-
toral consultation. Thus, we are far from having too demarcated civilizing regimes
and there will be a shared criterion about how to make decisions.
Sources
García Linera, Álvaro (2001) “Sindicato, multitud y comunidad: movimientos
sociales y formas de autonomía política en Bolivia”, in: “Tiempos de Rebelión”,
editorial Muela del Diablo, La Paz, Bolivia.
García Linera, Álvaro (2004), “El Estado Multinacional”, editorial Malatesta,
La Paz, Bolivia.
14 The referendum has been used both by the government and the opposition with identical enthusiasm.
Both of them used it to crown successful mobilizations. From the ‘Crescent Moon’, it has been used to
institute the autonomies, and from the government it has been applied to the new Constitution.
[ 124 ]
García Linera, Álvaro (2014), “Revolución democrática o Restauración neolib-

eral”, a speech given on January 22nd, 2014, Vice Presidency of the Plurinational
State of Bolivia. La Paz, Bolivia.
Gutiérrez Aguilar, Raquel (2001), “La Coordinadora del Agua y de la Vida:
a un año de la guerra del Agua”, in: “Tiempos de Rebelión”, editorial Muela del
Diablo, La Paz, Bolivia.
Gutiérrez, Raquel; García, Álvaro; Tapia, Luis (2000), “La Forma Multitud
de la política de las necesidades vitales”, in “El Retorno de la Bolivia plebeya”,
editorial Comuna y Muela del Diablo, La Paz, Bolivia.
Lazarte Rojas, Jorge (1993), “Certezas e Incertidumbres de la Democracia”,
Los Amigos del Libro / ILDIS, La Paz, Bolivia.
Mansilla, Hugo Celso Felipe (1997), “Tradición autoritaria y Modernización
imitativa”, Plural editores, La Paz, Bolivia.
Prada, Raúl (2001), “La Fuerza del Acontecimiento”, in: “Tiempos de Rebe-
lión”, editorial Muela del Diablo, La Paz, Bolivia.
Sartori, Giovanni (1976), “Parties and Party Systems, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England.
Tapia Mealla, Luis (2001), “El Movimiento de la Parte maldita”, in: “Tiempos
de Rebelión”, editorial Muela del Diablo, La Paz, Bolivia.
Zuazo, Moira (2009), “¿Cómo nació el MAS?, la ruralización de la política”,
FES-ILDIS, La Paz, Bolivia.
[ 125 ]
Chapter 6:
Perspectives on Three Historical
Decades
To review a country is to also review its processes of change: decentralization, the
evolution of women’s political participation, the relationship between the media and
democracy and other players. All are part of this democratic construction that has not
been without contradiction. Over 30 years, Bolivia has been constructing a narrative
that paints, projects and reveals the intimate relationship between social processes and
the building of democratic institutions.
Photo: Prefectura de Santa Cruz
In 2006, thousands of people (one million according to organizers)

met in Santa Cruz to demand greater autonomy from government.
Social Demands
Abdel Padilla15
30 years of struggles
After 18 years of authoritarian rule, in 1982 the Bolivian people had decided to
take back, by force, their restricted freedoms, especially the freedom of expression.
Even the dramatic political instability and the economic crisis could not decrease
this momentum. However, neither the government, the political parties, or the
unions showed responsibility or ethical behavior. This wasn’t the first time in the
nation’s history that political openness was followed by social frustration. This
time, however, the outcome would be different; a political change of guard without
tanks or guns. In 1985 Bolivia saw the start of a new era, a democratic handover;
one with economically orthodox methods, and with greater citizen participation
on social issues.
At the start of the 1980s Bolivia had just on five million inhabitants, distrib-
uted almost equally throughout the cities and the countryside, although with urban
areas showing much growth, as revealed by the 1992, 2001 and 2012 censuses.
At that time, the percentage of indigenous people was 54. Spanish-speakers
made up78% of the population, and 60% spoke Quechua or Aymara. This reality
was illustrated by a group of artists called the ‘Generation of 75’, who adopted the
cholo (mixed race people) in all their nuances as aesthetic objects. And as themes,
they focused on the urban person, the Indian immigrant, the drug trafficker and
his victims, according to Bolivian art critic Pedro Querejazu.
The vigorous development of the eastern lowlands, rather than the valleys
and the Andean Range, would determine a clear focus on the so-called Bolivian
central axis: La Paz-Cochabamba-Santa Cruz. The latter increased its population
from 42,000 in 1950 to 350,000 inhabitants in the 1980s. Three main factors,
among others, would determine the migratory movement from the Andes to the
lowlands: the successful exploitation of natural resources, the economies of scale,
15 Abdel Padilla is a journalist
[ 129 ]
and the big development in transportation, according to Bolivian economist and

Columbia University professor, Miguel Urquiola.
But the Bolivian population in those years was marked by social and economic
inequality. About 37% was illiterate, few had college education, and the levels of
maternal and infant mortality were well above South American averages. According
to the 1976 census, for every 1,000 live births, 167 children died before reaching
one year of age. The causes included diarrhea, pneumonia, polio, measles and
goiter (an enlargement of the thyroid gland). Official data revealed that endemic
goiter affected 60% of children of six or less years.
In the midst of this adversity and economic crisis, the administration of
Hernán Siles marked a milestone in the country’s public health history by creating
people’s health committees in 1983, implemented by his Minister of Health, Javier
Torres Goitia. Through this form of community organization and the support of
local leaders and mother’s centers the government managed to take the first steps
to eradicate polio and goiter. The task was not easy because they had to convince
key players, like the COB. The response, as described later by Torres Goitia, was
impressive. Every neighborhood council had its own health leader who acted in
response to specific circumstances and requirements.
For example, sometimes they’d lead vaccination campaigns and other times
encourage iodine consumption (to avoid goiter) – all this based on grassroots
organization and collective mobilization.
New Players
Acting together to form health committees was one of the rare moments when
citizens responded to a government call, and, perhaps, the single time when the
COB acted as an administration ally. The society, as a whole, was emerging from
a tough transition that began with the departure of Banzer in 1978, with nine
governments in four years (eight presidents and a military junta; a new government
every five and a half months, according to historian Carlos Mesa.) So Bolivia’s
susceptibility to another military coup and the distrust of yet another new gov-
ernment was understandable.
In this point, new players entered the political scene. Among them was the
[ 130 ]
- Perspectives on Three Historical Decades -
United Confederation of Peasant Workers of Bolivia (CSUTCB), which was created

in 1979 under the leadership of Genaro Flores.
As the Bolivian economic historian Manuel Contreras remembers, the peasants
originally sought some integration with the COB, without losing their indepen-
dence. They eagerly presented a draft of a Basic Agrarian Law with an unheard
of scope.
The Bolivian coca leaf growers were another prominent sector that would
also influence the country’s future. At this time, according to Mesa, 60,000 coca
producers worked approximately 23,000 hectares of land. This had grown to
65,300 hectares by 1985, and produced more than 100,000 tons of coca leaves,
85% of which was destined for cocaine manufacture and drug trafficking. Mesa
reckons that almost 10% of the population was directly or indirectly connected to
the drug industry, which, according to varying estimates, in 1985 moved between
US$ 600 and US$ 3,000 million a year.
After the approval of 21060 Decree in August 1985, and the dismissal of
20,000 miners, most of the unemployed relocated to the cities, but also to a region
that would become one of the epicenters of demonstrations and social conflicts in
the subsequent two decades, the Chapare region of Cochabamba, located in the
very center of Bolivia. It would become the site from where a new political actor
emerged in the transition from one century to another: the coca leaf growers.
Under Banzer’s mandate (1997–2002), Bolivia had achieved its highest rate of
coca leaf eradication; more than 25,000 hectares destroyed. According to a report
from Bolivia’s Coca Crop Monitoring unit and the US Department of State, about
45,800 hectares existed when Banzer assumed power, and by 2000, they had been
reduced to 19,900 hectares. By 2012, according to the United Nations and the
Government of Bolivia, there were 27,200 cultivated hectares. It is estimated that
the coca industry involved some 500,000 people in the late 20th century.
But the level of coca leaf production, and its eradication, are meaningless with-
out considering its direct impact on drug trafficking. Not until September 1986
did Bolivian society, particularly Santa Cruz, become aware of the gravity of the
situation. That year scientist Noel Kempff Mercado was murdered. He and other
scientists stumbled across a drug trafficking gang while in the field and were killed.
From this moment, the United States applied more pressure on the Bolivian
[ 131 ]
government and influenced many internal policies, as well as supporting the cre-
ation of ‘sustainable development’ programs to substitute coca growing with other
products in the Chapare region. During the Presidency of Victor Paz Estenssoro
(1985-1989), the US pushed the government to adopt one of the toughest regu-
lations in the fight against drugs: the 1008 Law.
This law, as defined by anthropologist Xavier Albó, assumed people guilty
until proven innocent, rather than the other way around, and put coca leaves and
cocaine in the same category.
Informal Jobs
Another consequence of the 21060 Decree was the widespread increase in casual or
informal labor, which created symbolic and representative urban spaces reflective
of this new way to survive. Examples are the traditional ‘16 de Julio’ fair (held
in the city of El Alto), La Cancha (in Cochabamba), and Barrio Lindo (in Santa
Cruz). Those are spaces where anything could be found, from a used sewing needle
to aircraft parts. Everything was for sale, and everyone had something to sell; a
paradise for informality and the black market.
This phenomenon, which was often linked to smuggling, resulted in the
emergence of a new social class, the ‘mestizo bourgeoisie’ (burguesía chola), coined
by sociologists to define the economic gains of Bolivians of indigenous descent.
This new class would have political importance in years to come and now supports,
economically and electorally, MAS.
Thanks to the support of the people in El Alto, a large Aymara city of almost
one million people, the populist movement grew with political parties like the Civic
Solidarity Union (UCS), founded by humbly born businessman Max Fernandez,
and Condepa, led by former folklorist and radio journalist Carlos Palenque. Many
analysts think that both parties seeded MAS, founded later. They were disbanded in
future years because of the unexpected deaths of Fernandez (in 1995) and Palenque
(1997). They both died at the height of their careers, at age 53.
During President Paz Zamora’s term, the last National Census of the century
was carried out. By 1992, Bolivia’s population totaled 6.4 million people with
more than 60% under the age of 25. The findings confirmed a country rapidly
[ 132 ]
urbanizing, migrating to the eastern lowlands, with high illiteracy (20%) and
infant mortality rates (75 deaths per 1,000 live births).
The ‘Leader Factory’
On June 6, 1993, new presidential elections were held. MNR’s candidate Gonzalo
Sánchez de Lozada won with 34% of the vote, and the Congress elected him Pres-
ident, along with Victor Hugo Cardenas, the first Aymara Vice President of the
country. The President instituted a policy driven by ideas of change: capitalization,
popular participation, and education reform.
The three measures were resisted in the streets and promptly labeled ‘damned
laws’. Of the three, only ‘Popular Participation’ was left standing and now is central
to Bolivian political life.
The purpose of the policy was to redistribute the country’s income via munic-
ipalities. It was a revolutionary measure that turned a municipality into a main
site of development and democratic practice. Financed by 20% of national taxes,
money is given to the municipalities on a per capita basis. Prior to the law, only
24 municipalities received resources; now more than 300 would receive assistance,
along with having management autonomy. Movements such as the MAS, and
President Evo Morales himself, are products of ‘Popular Participation’ which has
become a ‘factory’ turning out local and national leaders.
Like capitalization, education reform was long resisted by the teacher unions,
which forced the government to declare a six month state of emergency, the longest
since 1982 (also six months). The reform (now revoked) was able to introduce
concepts like intercultural and bilingual education, and promote community par-
ticipation in the schools. These are still in force.
In the health sector, Mother-Child Insurance was approved. Other welfare
regulations included the INRA Law (land reform), the Family Violence Law,
and constitutional reform which reduced the age of citizenship to 18 years, and
declared Bolivia, for the first time in history, as ‘multi-ethnic and multicultural’.
On Christmas Eve 1996, 11 people died, and 50 were injured in the mining
villages of Amayapampa and Capacirca when the workers took the mines. The
violent Police intervention affected the popularity of the MNR candidate, and
[ 133 ]
President Sánchez de Lozada was forced to pass power to Hugo Banzer after the
1997 elections.
Banzer’s administration highlighted a ‘National Dialogue’ with participation
from various social and political sectors. It also elected the first Ombudswoman,
Ana Maria Romero. The local elections in 1999 elevated new national figures like
Rene Joaquino in Potosi and Juan del Granado in La Paz.
But above all, the Banzer administration was the prelude to a decade of pop-
ular ‘revenge’ against established politicians. In the late 20th century, the fate of
the neoliberal political system seemed doomed.
Several ‘Wars’
Of the ‘wars’ experienced in Bolivia during the 21st century, two were fought
between 2000 and 2005 for water and gas. Both laid the foundation for a new phase
in the relationship between the State and civil society, and marked the beginning of
an era of conflict. During those five years, on average, there were between 50 and
60 new conflicts per month, a rate that continues to this day, despite the President,
Evo Morales, being of one of the original ‘fighters’ in those wars.
Let’s begin with the ‘Water War’ that christened the decade into cyclical
conflict and resistance, with wider consequences than expected. This battle and
the subsequent annulment of the water privatization law are considered an inter-
national milestone in that area. The movement, labeled in the academic world as
an anti-privatization urban uprising, set off a wave of social reaction that impacted
the political system over the next five years. That was April 2000. In September that
year Felipe Quispe organized a so called ‘siege’ of La Paz, blocking all the roads that
connect the city with the rest of the country. The next year he organized an on-
going road blockade and demanded to speak “president to president” with Banzer.
Due to elections, 2002 was strictly a political year. The two indigenous people’s
candidates (Evo Morales and Felipe Quispe), received a very high 28% of com-
bined support.
‘Zero coca’, the naive legacy Vice President Jorge Quiroga inherited from
Banzer (who resigned due to health problems and later, died) was the slogan that
drove many repressive police and army actions. The President’s decision in January
[ 134 ]
2002 to close a coca leaf market in Sacaba village, Chapare, resulted in the deaths
of two soldiers and a farmer.
Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada’s second term in office began in August 2002
(the first one was between 1993 and 1997). In February 2003, his government
drowning in the fiscal deficit, he enacted a tax rise, the ‘impuestazo’, which caused
the middle class to close ranks behind the social movements and their protests.
As they had done with Banzer in April 2000 (and with Evo Morales in 2002) the
police mutinied and public entities were left without protection, at the mercy
of the demonstrators. Between February 12 and 13, the burning and looting of
private buildings forced the government to deploy military units on the street,
which resulted in a predictable exchange of gunfire with the rebel police forces.
Thirty-three soldiers and police officers were left dead and tens wounded.
And then there was the ‘Gas War’, gas being a source of revenue but also issues
around it driving social unrest. In 2003 the Sánchez de Lozada administration
planned to export natural gas through Chilean ports – Chile being a neighbor
with many unresolved negotiations with Bolivia. These stemmed from the 19th
century war that left Bolivia a landlocked territory. This move inflamed Bolivians.
By October 2005, Sánchez de Lozada had left the country and historical change
was in the air.
Sources
Campero, Fernando, compiler (1999), “Bolivia en el siglo XX. La formación
de la Bolivia contemporánea”, Harvard Club Bolivia, La Paz, Bolivia.
Ibañez Rojo, Enrique, (2002), “Los Sindicatos en el Gobierno: la crisis del
movimiento obrero boliviano (1982-1985)”, Biblioteca de la Universidad Com-
plutense, PhD thesis, Madrid, España.
La Razón (2007), “25 años de democracia”, La Razón daily, La Paz, Bolivia.
Daroca, Santiago (2002, )“La Guerra del Agua, protesta y acción social en
Cochabamba”, http://idh.pnud.bo/usr_files/informes/nacional/INDH2002/doc-
umentos/guerragua2002.pdf
La Razón (2010), “Bolivia: 1980-2010”, La Razón daily, La Paz, Bolivia.
Mesa, José; Gisbert Teresa and Mesa Carlos (2001), “Historia de Bolivia”,
Editorial Gisbert, La Paz, Bolivia.
[ 135 ]
Página Siete (2011), “Anuario 2011”, Página Siete daily, La Paz, Bolivia.
Soto, César (2001), “La Bolivia de movilizaciones populares. Panorama polí-
tico del 2001”, text written for the “Pan para el mundo” cooperation agency, La
Paz, Bolivia.
Conflict and Democracy

César Rojas Ríos16
Democracy is made, unmade and remade almost entirely out of conflict. The rela-
tionship between democracy and conflict has always been intimate and substantive.
Paraphrasing Hegel, in his Philosophy of History, we can affirm that when one looks
at the past, to history, the first thing one sees is conflict. This is also the case when
one looks at the present. Is the outlook the same for the future?
Democracy was ‘made’ with the memorable events of 1977 when a group of
courageous mining women declared a hunger strike. Over the course of the pass-
ing days the action was transformed into a mass movement that ended Banzer’s
dictatorship. A society as downtrodden as Bolivia’s was in those days achieved this,
and other memorable successes, in a dramatic uprising.
But democracy was nearly destroyed in October 2003, 21 years after its estab-
lishment, when the uprising that grew from the ‘Water War’ removed Sánchez de
Lozada from power. A few blocks from the seat of government gathered the largest
accumulation of forces since the UDP’s show of strength in La Paz, in 1982. The
Presidency was hounded out and the crowds provoked constitutional succession.
Carlos Mesa took power with hopes for peace, but little by little popular unrest, and
sinister ambitions, arose. In the ill-fated months of May and June 2005, the pro-
liferation of deep hostilities almost caused the country to implode. Five years later,
during September to October 2008, the world witnessed a ‘lowland coup’ (golpe
cívico-prefectural). This period proved to be hellish for the MAS administration.
At that time, it seemed that the country’s opposing forces would collide. But it did
16 César Rojas Ríos is a sociologist and social communicator.
[ 136 ]
not turn out like that, although the population seemed stuck in a hopeless abyss.
Democracy was in fact reconfigured during the conflicts of 2000–2009. This
period made way for representative democracy. Although delegitimized, oligar-
chic, and weakened with deficiencies, it survived well enough to allow elections
to replace leaders peacefully, long term. Those years also fostered participatory
democracy, and because the MAS administration implemented inclusive policies
for the indigenous people, democracy was seen as not only “enlarged” and giving
life to a beautiful “festival of colors”, but also striving to end the “depravity of
inequality” (Zavaleta, 1983). It was the Bolivian people’s pain and blood that
achieved the establishment of a conventional democracy and created a shelter for
democratic rights. The people acted angrily and urgently to implement a democracy
that could make them real citizens.
Bolivia’s history is no longer a struggle between the army and the working
class or an inventory of victories and losses as took place after 1940. Instead, what
has evolved from 1982 on is a dialectical relationship between the polls and the
streets, impositions and negotiations. It’s not optimal, but if we take a look at
Bolivian history’s conflicts, many of them bloody, this is a significant advancement.
Conflict and Governance
The rise of democracy was dramatic in Bolivia because five military coups had tried
to nullify the three UDP election victories, and break its growing popular support,
which peaked in the 1980 June elections with an indisputable 38.7% of votes. It
was clear Luis Garcia Meza had intended to continue Banzer’s legacy, due to the
efficiency with which he executed his coup and the total defeat of the left-leaning
organizations. This fear of the left wing would resurface several years later when
trying to prevent the MAS administration from succeeding. The right panicked
at the possibility that the leftists would really apply what Marx proclaimed in The
Communist Manifesto.
If the Chilean UP Government was a “revolution that did not happen”, so
the Bolivian UDP followed the same route. This was not only because Parliament
was unsupportive, but also because inflation, which began during 1980 in Lydia
Gueiler’s Presidency, soared to unprecedented heights, and generated an escala-
[ 137 ]
tion in conflict never seen before. The government had to deal with nine general
strikes called by the COB, one business strike, farmers’ roadblocks, sabotage by
public officials, regional protests and a coup attempt that involved kidnapping the
President of the Republic (Laserna, 1985).
Here a pattern of popular behavior emerges: The social sectors that ‘invested’
time and resources resisting, mobilizing, and sacrificing against dictatorships or the
neoliberal governments ask for benefits when ‘their’ government is installed. This can
be called the ‘imprint of insurgency’: both the leaders and the followers, urged by
long-postponed needs and expectations, move away from political objectives to
economic demands, without counter responsability. In the case of the UDP, the
results were tragic. Hernán Siles quit office one year before his term was completed
and called for elections, which made way for the right wing parties. But this is
also happening now, in the MAS administration. Social conflicts have doubled in
relation to the UDP and the party has also intensified its political strategy (but
with no political depth to generate a governance crisis).
Why is the same situation not replicated today? In both the Siles and Sánchez
de Lozada administrations there was a systemic deterioration. That is to say, the
economic, political, institutional and social subsystems simultaneously began to
malfunction and yield flawed outcomes. The different characters in each admin-
istration led to different finales however: the early resignation of one, and the
strident fall of the other. But, their terms lead to enough instability to threaten
the sustainability of any regime.
In the case of Siles, there was progressive devaluation, unsuccessful price
controls, falling wages, abusive speculation everywhere, ‘de-dollarization’, hyper-
inflation as well as the loss of control over any economic aspect. Nothing was
overlooked in the unhinging of this economy. Water and electricity were even cut
off to the government palace and the presidential residence (Mesa et al, 1999). In
the political sphere, the opposition fought relentlessly in Parliament against any
reasonable solution to the crisis and the COB went on a permanent offensive. As
for the social sphere, it looked like a wasteland.
The same thing happened during Sánchez de Lozada’s second term. Everything
started to go from bad to worse. In his first election he won 38% of the vote; in the
second he took only 22.4% of the votes. The economy was unstable. The neoliberal
[ 138 ]
model failed to meet citizens’ expectations with its higher levels of unemployment
and higher concentration of wealth, and negative growth (0.2%) according to the
World Bank. There was a progressive loss of social legitimacy (patriarchy, cronyism,
nepotism, and corruption), erosion of the ‘settled democracy’, and at the same
time, sustained rise in the power of social movements since the ‘Water War’.
To complete the postmortem data analysis, in the elections after the collapse
of the UDP, the MNRI (this time by itself ) obtained 4.77% while in 2005 the
MNR, after Sánchez de Lozada’s fall, got 6.47%, the lowest percentage in the
party’s history. Everything was decreed for both parties from the moment the
leaders took antidemocratic measures and, creating a serious imbalance between
the government’s performance and social expectations. The clash of these opposing
forces could only produce one result: failed presidencies.
What is happening with the MAS administration? If we examine UNIR Foun-
dation data, from January to October 2011, 1,241 conflicts have been recorded
in Bolivia, the greatest number since 2005, and 458 more compared to 2010.
That is an average of 124 conflicts per month. And in the first quarter of 2012,
100 conflicts per month were counted. It’s also clear that since 2006, the MAS
government committed a series of blunders, as so reaped the loss of confidence of
the people. However, its electoral support seems to be at around 40%, and that’s
in the seventh year of leadership. The reason for this is that the country today lives
with both economic growth and government legitimacy, yet deficits exist in the
institutional sphere. In summary, the government has deep social roots. Conflicting
winds can whip from right and left, but the tree remains intact.
The Launch of ‘High Voltage’ Democracy
Democracy arose in Bolivia as part of a ‘high voltage’ process. First, the UDP gov-
ernment had to absorb the enormous number of conflicts in three years of office;
an average of 54 conflicts per month, or 1,825 conflicts in total (CERES data).
Second, it confronted ever growing conflict on the political stage. Instability had
proved to be chronic, the government crisis permanent, and the fall of President
Siles was always imminent, while the nascent democracy itself had chances of a
premature death. Third, the UDP showed an undeniable inability to reverse its
[ 139 ]
inefficiency and loss of legitimacy, nor had the authority or leadership to lead the
people, and lacked the capacity to strategically reposition itself against the political
and union opposition. Fourth, the drivers of these social and political conflicts
existed in a society that was extreme in tangible conditions (inequality), and social
distance (discrimination) that set the conditions for extreme politics (maximalist
and adversarial) but also in the depletion of the state capitalism model of 1952
(Puente, 2011).
High voltage democracy existed in 1985, but arose again 18 years later during
Sánchez de Lozada’s second term, during Carlos Mesa’s succession and continued
through Evo Morales’s first administration. How did this happen? The story begins,
in part, during Banzer’s democratic government (1997–2001). In 1985 his party
(ADN) won the elections with 28.57% of the votes in the post-UDP elections. It
triumphed even in the mining districts, the former strongholds of their most bitter
enemies (Puente, 2011). But in the 1997 elections, ADN was reduced to 22.3% of
the votes, and the MNR finished second with 18.2%. Neoliberalism’s ‘hegemonic
aging’ had begun to take hold, and the ‘Water War’ marked the turning point.
The ‘Water War’ was a conflict-event, contentious in nature, but especially
because the misguided Banzer administration, transformed it into a ‘conflict-pro-
cess’, based in a structural tension. The conflict was driven by an ideology and
was based on an emerging historical trend which had mobilized a social counter-
movement. In other words, this seed had been planted for the future. And indeed
that’s what it was. In April 2000 the democracy’s sixth State of Emergency failed,
despite being the most violent, with six dead, 50 people injured, and 22 arrested
or sent to internal exile. It left an ideological-political agenda firmly in place, that
was strengthened by other iconic conflicts, definitively achieving a rebalance of
power between State and society.
The saga continued with the second term of Sánchez de Lozada. In February
2003, in the center of political power, Murillo Plaza, police and military clashed
violently after the police mutinied. The confrontation between State and society
began to break down, like the State itself. This produced a vacuum of power that
was filled for two consecutive days by a mob that permeated the city of La Paz,
leaving its mark by burning and looting the headquarters of the traditional ruling
parties, the national brewery (a symbol of tax evasion), and the Vice President’s
[ 140 ]
palace. The body count was 33 dead, plus 70 wounded.

The prairie was parched, and one match could send it up in flames. The month
of September 2003 began with the people of El Alto protesting the Maya-Paya
plan, a new taxes program, which had been proposed by (former) Mayor Jose Luis
Paredes. By mid-month the protests had spread, with indigenous people’s blockades
appearing in the Lake Titicaca area. The government organized a military operation
to restore access to the town of Sorata. Far from frightening the demonstrators, the
repressive actions served as a wake-up call to the surrounding indigenous people
and impoverished residents of the city of El Alto, and its powerful Federation of
Neighborhoods (Fejuve). But what really motivated the protestors to close all access
roads to La Paz, was the decision to export Bolivian natural gas through Chilean
ports to the west coast of the United States, of Mexico, and Chile itself.
On October 9, the situation in El Alto turned violent due to the deployment
of military troops who killed tens of people and wounded hundreds. The resulting
collective sense of grief caused the conflict to radiate throughout the highlands
(Oruro and Potosi) and the valley (the city of Cochabamba, its rural areas, and
the city of Sucre).
Meanwhile, the lowland provinces gathered around the Santa Cruz Civic
Committee did not join the demonstrations. Rather, they supported the gov-
ernment and opposed the indigenous peoples’ and proletarian mobilizations. Its
leaders even ordered the repression of Santa Cruz indigenous groups that aimed
to take over the central plaza, a symbolic space.
The spread of the conflict and then the security forces’ harsh repression when
a military convoy tried to break a blockade in El Alto, causing several deaths and
hundreds of injuries, weakened the fragile ruling coalition. The indignant middle
class also joined the conflict with marches and hunger strikes in La Paz and other
cities. In the meantime, the initial demand of ‘No gas exports through Chile’
turned to a raucous ‘President out!’ and the protests began to spread like wildfire.
La Paz became a city overrun by the mobilized masses and neighboring El Alto was
barricaded by fire. Sánchez de Lozada resigned and fled the country. Congress held
an emergency meeting and swore in Vice President Carlos Mesa as President. The
first failed presidency had happened. Next Carlos Mesa’s improvised administration
would try to make history but fail to manage a very high number of conflicts (1,042
[ 141 ]
incidents over his 20 months in office). He too ended up with a failed presidency.
The ‘high voltage’ democracy saga does not end here, but continues during
Evo Morale’s first term. The first conflict that flared was the demand to bestow
upon the city of Sucre the full seat of government (it holds the Supreme Court),
which damaged the constitutional process and, because the administration rejected
the idea, deeply hurt its relationship with Sucre. Later, on January 11, 2007 in
Cochabamba the regional power struggle took on all the colors of a violent clash
between social classes and races, in a besieged, lawless city (Cfr. Zegada, 2007). But
the climax was marked by the ‘lowland region coup’ (golpe cívico-prefectural) when
the ‘Media Luna’ engaged the Evo Morales administration in an open challenge.
How can we interpret each and every one of these events? We return to the
beginning. In Bolivia nothing was resolved. Neither the UDP’s short term, or
the long term of neoliberalism, the extreme societal situation (the sickness) that
produced extreme politics (the symptom) which encouraged an ever growing
conflict, in which adversaries behaved (in the scientist Otto Schmitt’s logic) as
friends-enemies. Dramatic. But the perverse symptom of radical antagonism will
resurface again, as often as necessary; until Bolivia’s social structure is transformed,
making the poor a majoritarian middle class that could moderate politics.
In this regard, Evo Morales’s government shows a radical novelty in Bolivia’s
history, not seen since the 1952 Revolution. If, during Sánchez de Lozada’s second
term, Bolivia had five million poor people and two and half million members
of the middle class, today, the number of poor has fallen by one million people
(UNDP data), and the middle class now comprises 3.5 million. The monolithic
reality is changing: the Bolivia of the future is billed as a ‘leveled middle class
society’. Hope is there.
Major Changes During a Tense Calm
What happened between 1985 and prior to 2000 could be characterized as ‘street
democracy’, because while the tensions and disputes decreased, conflicts were
still evident in the streets. Over 15 years and three consecutive government terms
(Victor Paz Estenssoro, Jaime Paz, and Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada) there were
2,779 conflicts. Three main reasons seemed to be the cause. First, the neoliberal
[ 142 ]
model and the ‘settled democracy’, in relation to the UDP’s term, began to show
a systemic dualism (inflation is defeated, Bolivian currency stabilizes and economy
grows; on the other hand extreme poverty persists). Second, the truth is that five
States of Emergency were implemented by the government to quell social disorder,
and third, disappointment with the UDP failure almost extinguished the left and
made the unions ineffective, unable to propose an alternative to the neoliberal
model (Cfr. Puente, 2011).
The conflict process of this cycle was illustrated by the ‘March for Life’ (1986)
because it represented the defeat of the working class and the end of the era of
union power. The hegemony of neoliberalism was established. The bitter feeling
that the left was powerless even generated three eruptions of marginal subversive
struggle: the Zarate Willka Group, the Nestor Paz Zamora Commission (CNPZ)
and the Tupac Katari Guerrilla Army (EGTK). Here we find an historical pattern
in Bolivia. It is not the democratic pact, but the defeat (of the popular forces by
the MNR, or of the conservative sector by the MAS), which opens a cycle of
relative hegemonic stability.
Although, beneath the calm, a momentous change was brewing. The work-
ing class that had championed as a lone voice since the eve of the 1952 Revo-
lution, until precisely August 1986 during the ‘March for Life’, would give way
to a cacophony of protests. From 2000 this became a deafening movement and
included not only workers but informal sellers, members of civic organizations,
businesspeople, citizens of El Alto, coca producers, transport operators, informal
miners, union workers, peasants, teachers, doctors, civil servants, retirees, university
students, the landless and homeless, even police officers.
The loudest voices would eventually become those of the indigenous people
and the peasants due to the network of marches, rallies, agreements, organiza-
tions, leadership, ideology, strategic demands, manifestos, and politicization they
organized. Their path had been arduous and tortuous, after being at the bottom
of the military-peasants pact during the seventies until the advent of the MAS
administration when they had the chance to reach the very presidential seat. The
indigenous movement grew powerful because an undifferentiated and fragmented
mass ended up politicized and freed itself from its colonial complex.
Zavaleta Mercado (1985) wrote in The Masses of November, “What qualifies
[ 143 ]
a project as democratic or not, as we have said before, is the opinion or reception

of the working class. This is a law in Bolivia; where there is no labor agreement,
there is no legitimacy”. The ‘law’ has been broken but the indigenous people are
not holding, nor will, the proletariat center. There are two very simple reasons:
first, because of upward social mobility, the overlap between class and race begins
to disengage, allowing the indigenous people to scatter across the entire social
pyramid, where class, status and social position dominate ethnic identity.
Diversity will overcome uniqueness. And secondly, the variety of protests
reminds us daily of the power of plural voices and sectors. The class struggle,
the race struggle, the regional struggle, all give way to social struggles. Diversity
dominates monoculture and acknowledging diversity leads to healthy coexistence.
And now what? To accept democracy and its equalities; democracy and its
agreements; democracy and pluralism –because only democracy as a society’s syn-
thesis can deepen diversity. Democracy is no longer is an option, it’s our destiny.
And this is the best tribute we can make to democracy with our complex and
always changing reality on its thirtieth birthday.
Sources
Dunkerley, James (2003), “Rebelión en las venas”, editorial Plural, La Paz,
Bolivia.
Laserna, Roberto et al (1985), “La insurrección de la democracia”, in: “Crisis,
democracia y conflicto social. La acción colectiva en Bolivia: 1982-1985”, CERES,
Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Mesa, Carlos; Mesa, José y Gisbert, Teresa (1999), “Historia de Bolivia”,
editorial Gisbert, La Paz, Bolivia.
Miranda, Boris (2012), “La mañana después de la guerra”, editorial El Cuervo,
La Paz, Bolivia.
Puente, Rafael (2011), “Recuperando la memoria. Una historia crítica de
Bolivia” (2nd volume), editorial Plural, La Paz, Bolivia.
Zavaleta, René (1983), “Las masas en noviembre”, Librería Editorial Juventud,
La Paz, Bolivia.
Zegada, María Teresa (2007), “11 de enero: ¿Cochabamba a la deriva?”, Centro
Cuarto Intermedio, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
[ 144 ]
The 1952 National Revolution,

Decentralization and Democracy
Moira Zuazo17
“Ideas are long-term prisons”, said Fernand Braudel. Applying this notion locally
we can add that peoples’ ideas are the lifeblood which either enhance institutions
or make them obsolete.
The general question I want to discuss in this section is, how can we articulate
democracy and decentralization in Bolivia? The answer leads me to question the
sources of Bolivian democracy. I will analyze this question from two perspectives.
One, the idea of a shared collective, and two, the perspective from the political
institutions with which real democracy works over time.
Thinking of democracy brings us to the issue of social inclusion. Who are the
‘people’ or the ‘demos’? The question of inclusion/exclusion, the inside and the
outside, brings us to the most important turning point in the history of Bolivian
society, which is rejecting conquest/colony as its origin.
1825, Fear of Disintegration; Authoritarianism and Longing for

Democracy
Two elements mark the social imagery of the Republic of Bolivia’s founding process.
On one hand, it is a territory disrupted by mountains, inhabited by a Creole18
population in a few urban areas who are independent of one another and in the
middle of a rural environment marked by diverse indigenous people speaking
different languages. Amid this diversity and inaccessibility it is no coincidence that
the revolutionary uprisings in Sucre and La Paz occurred at different times, with
different agendas, or that the rebellion and insubordination in rural areas created
‘republiquetas? (small republics).
17 Moira Zuazo is a social scientist

18 “Criollo” in the original version
[ 145 ]
The second is the prevalent idea in the indigenous imagination that the found-
ing of the Republic happened as a continuation of colonization. The birth of the
Republic reflected only the desires of the small urban population, and was foreign
to 90% of the rural population. The continuity between the Bolivian colonial State
and the new republican order explains why the indigenous political presence was
a recurring element in the form of rebellion, and also explains the primary rela-
tionship of subordination, not belonging, that the indigenous people had with the
new republic. This helps explain the necessity, and to some extent legitimacy, of
an authoritarian style as the new, recurring power in the Republic’s early decades.
After the War of the Pacific19, the censitary suffrage system of unverifiable
elections and limited political pluralism was established. After 20 years of practicing
this ‘democracy of the 10%’, Bolivia entered the ‘federal war’, as a divided society,
and the result was a fear of federalism. Even 100 years after 1899, in Bolivia the
word ‘federalism’ is feared.
Indigenous people participated in the ‘federal war’, turning the battle in favor
of La Paz, to defeat Sucre. La Paz’s triumph in the conflict was, paradoxically,
cemented by the removal of federal ideals from the national agenda and the unifying
of the Bolivian elites around the thought that indigenous people were barbarians.
In Bolivia the 19th and early 20th centuries comprised a weak State, locked in
a drive to build a modern liberal nation, with a schizophrenic attitude towards the
real country (Rodríguez, 2012). In a society divided between whites and indigenous
people, the more enlightened dreamed of building a society that valued equality,
that is, a representative democracy.
In this scenario, Presidential rule stands as an institutional response to the
need to ‘preserve unity’. This idea, along with the legitimacy that the urban munic-
ipalities had among the white elite, (Rodriguez) explains why local government
(municipal autonomy) was condemned during the 1952 Revolution.
19 The War of the Pacific (in Spanish: Guerra del Pacífico, 1879 through 1883) was fought between Chile
and a Bolivian and Peruvian coalition. Due to this war, Bolivia lost its sea access which started a long
economic and social crisis. Bolivia still demands a solution to that conflict and awaits a verdict of the
Hague Tribunal.
[ 146 ]
The 1952 Revolution: Centralism and Ostensible Democracy
The 1952 Revolution was the first attempt to build a national State in Bolivia.
It was constructed on a centralist model as an institutional way to ward off the
persistent fear of disintegration.
The ideas that served as pillars for the construction of the 1952 State were a
homogenous nation and revolution. The idea of a nation born from revolutionary
nationalism (Mayorga, 1985) assumes deliberately ignoring the ethnic and linguis-
tic diversity in the society as a condition for the development of ideas and feelings
of belonging, and also comes from the differentiation of the ‘national popular’, the
demos, the inside, against the ‘anti-nation’ – the rich and the oligarchy.
The indigenous people’s rebellion was typical of colonial times and when
the Republic was founded. In the context of 1952, rebellion transmuted into
revolution, which was focused, from that moment, on building ownership and
a sense of belonging. For the peasants and the working class, being included
was only acceptable as long as the State was considered revolutionary. During
this National Revolution period (1952–1964), three elections were held despite
attacks on institutions, and political persecution. A lack of transparency and the
absence of political pluralism, however, caused the results to be challenged. Yet,
the elections themselves proved to be a legitimate and appropriate outlet for the
concept of democracy.
Presidentialism was now exacerbated together with a weak parliament; it
was the institutional form of government that was established. The newer version
includes the representation of the masses in politics with the working class and
the peasants co-governing.
By 1952, Bolivian society had experienced significant rural-urban migration,
resulting in a ratio of two thirds rural population and a third urban population.
This demographic data reflected in the increase in interracial relationships20. Since
1952, interracial relationships (mestizaje) have become a legitimate mechanism for
social advancement and mobility. For the majority of Bolivians living in rural areas,
the peasant´s identity emerging as hegemonic and positive is the ‘campesino’. This
20 “Mestizaje” in the original text
[ 147 ]
unfolds politically within the farmers’ union and is opposed to the ‘indigenous’
identity.
But that campesino identity and the farmers’ unions (sindicatos) directly ques-
tioned the primary institution of the Highland indigenous people’s tradition,
which is direct democracy. Based on the principle of equality, which states that
all members of a community are essentially equal in their ability to participate in
the community’s government (Dahl, 2008), indigenous communities have their
authorities lead their institutions on a rotating basis, not through elections. I believe
that this unresolved stress helps to build the Bolivian view of representation and
parliament.
In a parallel and subsequent process we will see that the during the 1952 Rev-
olution and afterwards, indigenous identities remained more intact in the lowlands,
where the Revolution had less influence, than in the valleys and highlands where
the farmers’ union advanced.
Part of the rhetoric that was now emerging from the State was to praise the mes-
tizos, in sharp contrast to the previous shaming from the Republic. This discourse
was accompanied by an accelerated rural to urban migration, which demonstrates
that the influence of modernity and urbanization was expanding. In turn, with
the influx of migration, the process of cultural mixing (mestizaje) gained pace.
Mestizaje is not equivalent to overcoming the prejudice of inequality as a
main currency of social exchange. To the same extent that cultural mixing and
urbanization increase, it is reaffirmed as a structure of discrimination that oper-
ates ‘in cascade’ (Zuazo and Quiroga, 2011) and undermines the idea of equality.
Discrimination via multiple hierarchies changed the role of the mestizos in the
social system. They, rather than being a unifying force, created widespread distrust.
1982–2000 Representative Democracy; Political Pluralism and

the Return of Decentralization
The return of democracy in 1982, as demanded by the masses, was the event that
characterized the period. It made it possible to effectively exercise universal adult
suffrage and verifiable elections.
During this period political parties assumed a role, significant and ‘for free’.
[ 148 ]
Significant, because for the first time in Bolivian history, political parties became
central to the scope of power; and without effort because the restoration of democ-
racy was not a product of the struggle of the parties, but rather a product of the
struggle of organized society, primarily expressed by the COB.
As a synthesis of society, the COB pushed for the establishment of an unre-
stricted democracy. Their decisions and actions were followed by most of the
left-wing parties in the country (Lazarte, 1987).
In this new, public role, for the first time in the history of the Republic, the
political parties introduced a competitive, interactive system based on political
pluralism, which is now unquestioned (Romero, 2012).
The 1994 Popular Participation Law was a form of radical decentralization
through the creation of municipalities in rural areas and the subsequent distri-
bution of important resources through them. With this reform and the creation
of individual electoral districts21 (as opposed to the rejected ‘candidates on a list’)
Bolivian democracy generated sources of legitimacy that would overcome the crisis
of the State, without breaking its weak institutionalism (2000–2005). However
the creation of municipalities also meant challenges for the established parties,
and finally the collapse of the old system.
This was the start of building a representative democracy for Bolivia’s masses
and also the time when rural-urban migration gathered pace. The 2001 census
results revealed that Bolivia now comprised two thirds urban and one third rural
population. This rural-urban migration over the past 50 years had created deep
wounds that would become evident in contemporary urban popular culture.
Plurinational State: Rejoicing in Diversity, Radical

Recentralization
The Plurinational State, established as part of the 2009 Political Constitution,

began addressing the 2000 crisis by uniting the rural, and most of the urban,
population under the slogan, ‘democratic revolution’. We see the revival of the
1950s ‘revolution’, but accompanied by the adjective ‘democratic’. These two
21 “Circunscripciones uninominales” in the original text
[ 149 ]
words together united and shaped the populace taking part in the street protests
and voted in favor of the ‘process of change’ by supporting Evo Morales.
If we analyze the union of the words, ‘democratic revolution’, we see that
the phrase articulates two traditionally opposing concepts. First, ‘revolutionary’,
opposes the idea of ‘the idea that being Indian equates with being a servant’, that
originated in the colonial period. Then the, ‘representative democratic’ tradition,
found in the elite since the beginning of the modern Republic, but absent from
popular battles for more than a century and a half. The first traces of ‘representative
democracy’ arose with the initial participation of Katarist political parties in the
elections of the late seventies (Zavaleta, 1983).
The second idea underlying the road to change is ‘autonomy’. The concept
provided a solution to the demand for power at the provincial level, which was
evident in the affirmative results from the 2009 referendum, and cleared the way
for the implementation of autonomous provinces across the country. Here we
confirm that ideas can be confining, like a prison, but possible to unlock. Bolivia,
which as a nation found federalism frightening, is now a festival of diversity.
A third leading concept is ‘plurinational’ as the State’s new description. The
appearance of the term ‘plurinational state’ in the 2009 Constitution seems a cel-
ebration of political, ethnic, cultural, linguistic and economic diversity. But this
idea found little basis in reality.
The most important change that was accomplished was the recognition of the
indigenous nations as collective entities with political rights. Institutionally, this
resulted in the addition of seven indigenous people’s deputies to the plurinational
Legislative Assembly, and the development of autonomous indigenous nations,
five of which are now discussing their ‘social contracts’.
The ‘Demos’: Bolivian Identity in Dispute or in Action?
When looking at survey data (Seligson, 2005 and 2006) we find there is a majority
‘Bolivian’ identity that resonates with about 87% of the population. If we consider
this data along with the fact that it’s collected at same time the Bolivian State reaf-
firms and celebrates diversity, we could conclude it’s a contradiction. However, in
an effort to go beyond the numbers, and looking at other sources, including artistic,
[ 150 ]
we see in reality that since the creation of the Republic, the majority of Bolivians
have shared the idea of belonging to the Bolivian nation. The concept of belong-
ing, nonetheless, has been precisely the subject of the dispute and the concept
has varied among different social groups and at a variety of historical moments.
The elite in the early Republic were marked by their belief that inequality
between whites and indigenous people was inevitable. For the indigenous people,
their concept of whites was, in part, illustrated by la diablada, the Bolivian dance;
all tall, white men who jump in their spaces are the personification of evil.
Between these opposite groups, the mestizos throughout the history of the
Republic embody the Baroque, they display wide diversity and are marked by
contradiction. Mestizos represent that contradiction: they have known discrimi-
nation as the victim and at other times themselves discriminate against others as
a mechanism to assert their place on the social ladder.
Sources:
Dahl, Robert (2008), “La democracia y sus críticos”, editorial Paidos, México
City, México.
Hegel, Friedrich (2009), “Fenomenología del espíritu”, translation of Manuel
Jiménez Redondo, editorial Pre-textos, Valencia, Spain.
Lazarte, Jorge (1987), “Cogestión y participación: Ideología y política del
movimiento obrero”, in René Mayorga (comp) “Democracia a la deriva”, editorial
CLACSO CERES, La Paz, Bolivia.
Mayorga, Fernando (1985), “El discurso del nacionalismo revolucionario”,
CIDDR, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Rodríguez, Gustavo (1995), “Estado y municipio en Bolivia”, Secretaria
Nacional de Participación Popular, La Paz, Bolivia.
Rodríguez, Gustavo (2012), “Las antinomias del nacionalismo revolucionario.
Documento para el debate”, in Zuazo, Faguet y Bonifaz, “Descentralización y
democratización en Bolivia. La historia del Estado débil, la sociedad rebelde y el
anhelo de democracia”, FES, La Paz, Bolivia.
Romero, Salvador (2012), “El sistema de partidos en Bolivia. 1952 –2012”,
in Zuazo, Faguet y Bonifaz, “Descentralización …”, op cit.
Seligson, Mitchel; Moreno, Daniel and Schwarz, Vivian (2005), “Auditoría
[ 151 ]
de la democracia. Informe Bolivia 2004”, LAPOP, UCB, La Paz, Bolivia.

Zavaleta, René (1983), “Las masas en noviembre”, editorial Siglo XXI, México
city, México.
Canetti, Elías (1983), “Masa y poder”, editorial Alianza, Madrid, Spain.
Zuazo, Moira and Quiroga, Cecilia (coordinators, 2011), “Lo que unos no
quieren recordar es lo que otros no pueden olvidar”, FES, La Paz, Bolivia.
Plurinationality and Education

María Soledad Quiroga22
Progressions and Meanings of Interculturality in Bolivia
These pages will attempt to outline the progression of, and meaning that, inter-
culturality has had in Bolivia over the past 30 years (since the restoration of
democracy).
This starting point is due not only to the need to mark a milestone in the
country’s recent history, but also because of the fact that both the validity of the
democratic system in this period, as well as its crises, created fertile ground for
intercultural development, which was understood as a transformative project or
proposal. The validity of, and crises in, the democratic system allowed the develop-
ment of social movements critical of the lack of correspondence between the State
structure and its policies to do with cultural diversity that had been historically
excluded (Tapia 2007).
As stated in the title, this section looks at progressions and meanings, in plural,
since the route to interculturality is not linear. On the contrary, the road this project
has followed is sinuous, with advances and setbacks, problematic bumps, escape
routes and new developments.
Within Bolivia’s original approach to interculturalism, we find the struggle
for the recognition of rights for native nations and people. In the first half of the
22 María Soledad Quiroga is a sociologist.
[ 152 ]
20th century, these struggles generated rebellions and isolated indigenous people’s
agendas that could not transmit their ideas to other social sectors. The prevailing
indigenismo approach in Latin America, which also was applied by the Bolivian
State, was not transformational in nature.
The 1952 Revolution proposed a nation building process, the development of
a strong, cohesive national identity through the project of mestizaje and the trans-
formation of the indigenous population into farmers, organized around unions.
More in line with the indigenismo rather than more radical positions, these practices
slowed down the indigenous people’s movement. The military-peasant pact of
the 1970s, patronizing to the indigenous population, acted in the same manner.
In the late 1970s, katarismo emerged. It was an indianista movement that
included modern versions of the long-standing indigenous people’s battles, and
reprised the theories of Fausto Reinaga, the Bolivian writer. During the next decade,
the katarismo grew, strengthened and divided into two branches. One derivative
was the indianista movement that advocated for Indian nations’ self-determination
and the need to establish ancestral organizations. The other, katarista, believed in
the articulation of its cultural and class claims, considering the country’s plural
reality. Each trend led to the creation of a political party, respectively the Tupac
Katari Indian Movement (MITKA) and the Tupac Katari Revolutionary Movement
(MRTK). In 1979, under the influence of the COB and the MRTK, the CSUTCB
(United Confederation of Peasant Workers of Bolivia) was created.
It was a union-type organization that over time spread throughout the country.
As Esteban Ticona noted, indianismo and katarismo tendencies were an unantic-
ipated result of the 1952 Revolution: peasant farmer political participation and
education, as well as frustration generated by its inconclusiveness.
Unlike Andean indigenous people, the lowland Indians did not yet have much
organizational and political clout, and the State had defined them as ‘tribesmen’
(selvícolas) and categorized them as inferior. It was as late as 1990 that they began
to emerge onto the national stage with their own political profile. This started with
the ‘March for Territory and Dignity’ that ensured they achieve legal recognition
of their territories and compelled the rest of the nation to acknowledge their social
and political significance.
But the ‘indigenous people’s issue’ that the National Revolution tried to resolve
[ 153 ]
through mestizaje persisted. Then in the 1980s the labor movement experienced
a decline. Policies that were emblazoned in the 21060 Decree and the ‘relocation’
of the miners destroyed the progress of the workers’ movement. This created con-
ditions for strengthening the indigenous people’s movement, and so introduced a
cultural, ethnic element to political struggles that were gaining ground. In 2000,
with both the political system and the State in crisis, the social movements and,
specifically, the indigenous people’s movement, went from claiming specific rights
(i.e. access to land, education, health and political participation), to challenging
the government directly and fighting to obtain political power.
From acknowledgement of diversity to transformative

interculturalism
The intercultural policies of the 1990s allowed social inclusion to develop, with a
set of rules and standards. The Constitution recognized the country’s multi-ethnic
and multi-cultural fabric, indigenous territories were recognized, the INRA Law
established Native Community Lands (Tierras Comunitarias de Origen) and the
legal status of grassroots organizations (organizaciones territoriales de base). The
Popular Participation Law democratized public management and strengthened
municipalities, educational reform developed a bilingual intercultural curriculum,
and the national biodiversity strategy accepted native cultural practices in bio-
diversity management. But these inclusions were only one side of the coin. The
other was the reduction of the government’s role, economic liberalization, and a
party system that only represented the economic interests of the ruling class and
excluded other people and social sectors. This led to intense social conflict and
mobilized large segments of the population to reject those policies and demand
a Constituent Assembly.
While multiculturalism was a step towards democracy, it did not change the
overall systemic domination and consequently, the ‘indigenous issue’ persisted
unchanged. As pointed out by Luis Tapia, multiculturalism embraced diversity
in so far as it did not affect the rule of the elite leadership and was presented as a
preferred substitute for Revolutionary Nationalism, because it had a progressive,
democratic flavor (Tapia, 2002) Arguably, while the multicultural policies recog-
[ 154 ]
nized indigenous differences they were ineffective because they did not address
the issue of power. The policies did not intend to dismantle the entrenched social
and political structure to build a different State and society. In any case, its effect
was to stifle the radical indigenous movement. The crisis in both the State and the
political system revealed the limitations of interculturality and the existence of a
strong social demand for change.
But under the umbrella of ‘interculturality’ there are several entirely different
approaches. A conservative approach reduces interculturality to a dialogue between
the different parties, but the structure of class domination never changes. This
approach arises from a liberal concept and ‘pluri-multi’ idea. It emphasizes an atti-
tude of tolerance and respect for others, but ignores the role of conflict and power
in the relations between different parties. Although it represents an improvement
from assimilation and mestizaje discourse, it does not propose a transformation
of power and leaves the general poverty and exclusion of indigenous people and
other sectors unchanged, though perhaps somewhat lessened.
Another approach supports dismantling the colonial matrix and the removal
of social structures and practices that perpetuate it. Within the parameters of
this definition we can identify two variants. Firstly, interculturality proposes the
existence of a fundamental contradiction between indigenous and non-indigenous
Bolivians. This can only be resolved by the hegemony of indigenous nations over
the rest of the society. Secondly, interculturality is seen as equitable cooperation
among different social, economic, political and cultural practices without a central
dominant sector.
In recent years, interculturality has become increasingly the, “centerpiece of
an alternative historical project” (Walsh, 2008) to which the indigenous move-
ment and other sectors of society have ascribed, although not without conflicts
and tensions.
The Link Between Interculturality and Education
The demand for their own schooling system as an instrument of resistance and
preservation of indigenous identity has been central in native struggles for much
of the 20th and 21st centuries. As is well known, in the early 1930s the Warisata
[ 155 ]
Ayllu School was founded and revived indigenous vision, ideas and practices,
including the use of native languages, which was against government policies that
put emphasis on Spanish education.
As part of a national project, the 1952 Revolution introduced education
reform, oriented to the building of a national consciousness. The reform estab-
lished both urban and rural education programs. The concept sought to, “dignify
peasants by creating efficient producers and consumers” (Bolivian education code,
1955) and developed literacy instruction as a stepping stone to learning in Spanish.
Only since the 1970s has the State, with the help of international organiza-
tions, introduced bilingual education projects in Aymara or Quechua, teaching
Spanish as a second language. After the return to democracy, the National Edu-
cation Plan was formulated, and for the first time it introduced multicultural,
bilingual education in order to reassert the majority indigenous cultures, in response
to the county’s cultural and linguistic pluralism.
The protection of languages and native cultures was central to the indigenous
people’s struggles. The CSUTCB proposed a bilingual education program in 1983,
and demanded that native languages be made official by the State. The most nota-
ble program was put forth by the Guarani People’s Assembly which developed a
successful educational program based in their own reality, language and culture.
They articulated this plan with their struggles for land and territory, rational natural
resources use, and reconciliation of traditional and western medicine.
From starting out an indigenous people’s demand, bilingual education was
supported later by a variety of social sectors. In 1989, the COB developed the
Popular Education Proposal which included multicultural and bilingual education
to affirm and develop native languages and cultures, and to strengthen national
identity by eliminating colonial education concepts. The Catholic Church and
many NGOs developed bilingual education programs in rural areas and left-
ist political parties also included proposals for developing multiculturalism and
bilingualism in their government platforms. The United Left (IU) proposed the
integration of Bolivia’s multi-national and multicultural attributes with proletarian
and regional cultural interests.
The 1990s educational reform established as one of its main points a vision of
education as being multicultural and bilingual, and developed this in rural areas in
[ 156 ]
one of two ways. Teaching and learning was either in Spanish, but also learning a
native language or using a native language as a first language and learning Span-
ish as a second language. It also introduced Native People’s Education Councils
(Consejos Educativos de Pueblos Originarios). They included ten ethnic groups that
participated in the formulation and implementation of educational policies. These
councils contributed decisively to better understanding the educational and lin-
guistic situation of the indigenous peoples.
In 2004, after canceling the educational reform program, a participatory
process was developed to formulate new policies and educational strategies, with
input from different sectors, including the most important indigenous people’s
and campesino organizations. This work subsequently served as the basis for the
relevant sections of the Constitution and the Siñani-Pérez Law in Evo Morales’
government.
The Unity Pact, intended to integrate farming and indigenous people’s orga-
nizations, introduced to the Constituent Assembly a set of proposals to ensure
the recognition of indigenous rights in various areas. They proposed an education
model that recognized the indigenous people as the ‘true nation’, and incorporated
intra- and interculturalism, multiculturalism and multilingualism. Also included
were acknowledgment of individual and collective rights, and the decentralization
of school management and curricula.
From Interculturality to Plurinationality
Between the indigenous people’s demands for bilingual, intercultural education to

the proposal submitted by the Unity Pact to the Constituent Assembly, there was
significant distance. This grew out of vindication of the right to claim an education
in a native language and culture, questioning the structural basis of the State. The
gap pointed to the path traveled by the country’s indigenous organizations as well
as other social sectors that became radicalized during the socio-political crisis in
2000, and developed an increasingly critical position that assumed the idea of
indigenous self-government. So the proposal of interculturality developed into a
demand for constructing a plurinational State, plus recovering sovereignty over
national resources. This would be not only for the indigenous communities, but
[ 157 ]
for a range of social sector players, peasants, workers and the middle class who
were increasingly coming on board.
It should be noted that the Bolivian nation was forged by popular movements
and through state capitalism (Tapia, 2007). This helps to explain why the working
class, accepted the indigenous people’s cause.
The Constitution adopted in 2009 contained the core of the Unity Pact’s
proposal. Probably one of the key elements was the creation of a new organization
named Naciones y Pueblos Indígena Originario Campesinos (Indigenous and
Peasents Nations and Peoples.)
This organization brought together peoples from different histories, interests
and viewpoints. The highland and the lowland indigenous people are fighting for
the reconstitution of their territories and ancestral forms of organization. On the
other hand, the unionized campesinos defend individual ownership of the land and
have a very different relationship with the State.
While the gathering of these sectors into a single entity could be seen as
a breakthrough for the advancement of interculturality (equitable interaction
between different parties) in the end divergent interests and the domination of
some sectors over others thwarted the initiative.
The Constitution considers this organization and the ethics of some indig-
enous groups as the core of the new plurinational State. This calls into question
the intercultural character established in Article 1.
Moreover, labeling as ‘intercultural communities’ all the Andean farmers who
migrated to the lowlands is controversial, because to undertake some economic
activity in a different region doesn’t necessarily make the migrant workers ‘inter-
cultural peoples’. (They are organized into the Confederation of Intercultural
Communities of Bolivia, previously known as the Confederation of Colonizers
of Bolivia.)
The presence of contradictions within the Constitution weakens the sense
of interculturality and plurinationality proclaimed in Article 1 (that defines the
plurinational state as a “Bolivian nation”).
The Constitution inconsistently introduces ‘pluralism’ in different areas:
government systems, education, health, political representation, autonomy and
the economic model. All of this involves an effort to coordinate individual and
[ 158 ]
collective rights that is not exempt from difficulties related to the construction of
interculturalism.
Affinity between or divergence of the multicultural and plurinational con-
cept established in the Constitution (it recognizes different nations with their
own territories areas, standards, and so on within a country, establishing long-de-
nied rights) entails the risk of forcing mismatched groups to coexist, or worse,
the maintenance or building of subordinate situations, and the exploitation of
some groups by others, as well as discrimination. This is because the construction
of both the national and the plurinational nation have produced political and
class monopolies (Tapia, 2007). Therefore, it is crucial to effectively incorporate
interculturality as a possible equitable articulation among those nations, peoples
and social sectors.
Finally, it is necessary to consider the existing relationship between the consti-
tutional provisions regarding interculturality and plurinationality, and the public
policies, noting in particular that Bolivian history shows a tendency to try to solve
problems by passing laws, although there is a reluctance to enforce them.
While the new Constitution and the advent of MAS in government allowed
for progress in overcoming the gap between society’s cultural matrix and the
ruling group, and the effective participation of various indigenous people and
other sectors in the State, eliminating the disconnect between State institutions
and other socio-political matrixes within the country appears to be unfinished
(Tapia, 2007).
Two issues that help illustrate the relationship between the Constitution and
policies are the TIPNIS conflict, and the progress of the autonomy process. In the
first case, the breach of the Constitution’s provisions in relation to self-determina-
tion of the indigenous community and the right to “prior consultation” (ILO 169
convention) undermines the multicultural and plurinational nature of the State,
and marginalizes the indigenous organizations. In the second case, the excessive
lethargy regarding the pace of the autonomic process and the retention of strong
centralization of power show that ‘plural articulation’ is not a reality.
This is why interculturality and plurinationality are objectives yet to be
achieved, but they are still alive as objectives within the indigenous organizations
and other sectors of Bolivian society.
[ 159 ]
Sources
Bolivian Education Code (1955), www.lexivox.org/norms/BO-DL-19550120.
xhtml
Martínez, Juan Luis (1996), “Educación intercultural bilingüe en Bolivia
(Estado del arte)”, Centro Boliviano de Educación y Acción Educativas, La Paz,
Bolivia.
Tapia, Luis (2002), “La condición multisocietal. Multiculturalidad, plu-
ralismo, modernidad”, CIDES-UMSA-Muela del Diablo, La Paz, Bolivia.
Tapia, Luis (2007), “Una reflexión sobre la idea de Estado plurinacional”, in
OSAL CLACSO, year VIII, Nº 22, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ticona, Esteban (2003), “Pueblos indígenas y Estado boliviano. La larga
historia de conflictos”, Universidad Cordillera, Anthropology Gazette, Nº 19, La
Paz, Bolivia.
Walsh, Catherine (2008), “Interculturalidad y plurinacionalidad: Elementos
para el debate constituyente” Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Quito, Ecuador.
Women and Congress

Eduardo Leaño Román23
The Takeover of Parliament (1982–2012)
A democracy is incomplete if more than half of the population is excluded from

its political representation for gender reasons. In 30 years of democracy we should
be celebrating the inclusion of women in Parliament. Although they were active
participants in the campaigns for democracy, they were really the target of pro-
longed contempt and discrimination. This created an electoral democracy which
was socially unjust, with a weak and unstable State.
This article describes the process of women’s inclusion in the legislature, as part
of the current democratic process. For this purpose, we identify three important
23 Eduardo Leaño Román is a sociologist
[ 160 ]
points: the absence of a quota law (1982-1996), a deceptive quota law (1997-2005)
and an equitable quota law (2006-2012).
Absence of a Quota Law
The transition to the current democracy involved three elections: 1978, 1979 and
1980. General Hugo Banzer, after seven years in office, called general elections for
July 9, 1978. In order to implement this election, he established the validity of
the 1966 electoral law. Due to an unseemly fraud, apparently encouraged by the
government in favor of General Juan Pereda, the 1978 elections were nullified. The
scandal was exposed by the number of votes cast (1,989,711) which were greater
than the number of registered voters (1,922,556). This was a blow to the citizens
and an immediate coup led by General Pereda tried to halt the social discontent.
But in November of that same year, Pereda was removed from office by General
David Padilla, who called for new elections in July 1979. In those elections, women
did not win seats in the Senate, and Lower House only had two female represen-
tatives. In the 1980 elections, only one congresswoman joined the Lower House.
During the transition to democracy (1978–1980) when Bolivia was struggling
to break away from rule by military governments, the main items on the political
agenda revolved around the quest for greater freedom, claims for amnesty, appeals
for political rights and demands for free elections. During this period of military
rule led by General Banzer (1971–1978), “… all political parties were banned,
union leaders were replaced by officially appointed union ‘coordinators’, and all
strikes and demonstrations were banned. Any violation of these provisions would
be punished by martial law. In this way, the armed forces empowered themselves
to govern the country until 1980”24.
This policy also affected civil society: “apart from the business sector all other
organized sectors were targets of repression (miners, workers, farmers, students,
journalists…); certainly, the majority of the political parties were persecuted and
many of their leaders were forced to go underground or into exile. Churches were
also suppressed; mainly the Catholic Church, whose progressive wing was particu-
24 Lavaud, Jean-Pierre (2003), “La dictadura mimada”, IFEA-CESU, Plural, La Paz, Bolivia.
[ 161 ]
larly attacked (Ibidem).” In this difficult context, to demand a greater representation

of women was not only out of place, but was inconceivable; this explains to some
extent women’s diminished representation in Congress.
Hernán Siles, leading the UDP, took office in October 1982, officially inau-
gurating the democratic process in Bolivia. Further administrations (1985, 1989,
and 1993) placed their main political focus on institutionalizing the political
system. This was the period in which the so-called ‘settled democracy’ (democracia
pactada) began. This system of political alliances was not only a tool to elect the
president, but also to create stable government coalitions.
Women’s participation in the social movements between the late 1970s and
early eighties contributed to the fall of dictatorship and accelerated the transition
to democracy. Despite this, during the first elections that followed (1985, 1989
and 1993), women were not promoted to positions of leadership and their political
representation did not increase.
In the Senate, women’s representation in 1985 was zero, and five women
made it to the Lower House. In the 1989 elections, only two women won seats in
the Senate and 10 in the House of Representatives. In 1993, women gained one
representative out of 27 in the Senate (3.07%) while in the House they achieved
12 representatives out of 130 (9.2%).
A Deceptive Quota Law (1997–2005)
Since the early 1990s, Bolivia’s feminist movement had been mobilized to demand
the introduction of gender equality, and eventually in 1997, the 1779 Law, or the
Quota Law, was enacted. The introduction of female quota numbers was achieved
through extensive work that involved much negotiation, numerous awareness
campaigns, and countless dialogues with the heads of political organizations.
Nevertheless, the validity of the Quota Law did not significantly influence
the gender composition of Parliament. In the 1997 and 2005 elections, there was
little female political presence in the Senate (one senator out of 27 in each case,
3.7% of the total representation). In the 2002 electoral process, four women were
elected to the Senate (13.3%). In 1997, women totaled 11 deputies (8.46%) and
rose to 24 deputies out of 130 in the 2002 and 2005 elections (18.46%).
[ 162 ]
The implementation of the Quota Law prompted a modest increase in wom-

en’s representation; however, the trap was that all this affirmative action initiative
did was ensure women’s candidacy – not their actual election. In the Senate,
nominations for women were registered in third or fourth places on the list of
candidates, when in general, all parties could win only two Senate seats. In the
Chamber of Deputies, women had the last spots on the candidates’ lists and, in
the case of single-member constituencies, regulations did not require any kind of
alternation. This restricted quota law did not ensure fair representation for women
in Parliament.
A Fair Quota Law (2006–2012)
The sessions to develop the Constituent Assembly (2006–2007) were a perfect

opportunity for the organized feminist movement to ask for a new and fairer quota
system. Woman Networking for Equity and Equality (Articulación de Mujeres por
la Equidad e Igualdad, AMUPEI) became a mainstay in the struggle for gender
equality within the fight for the renewed Political Constitution.
The new Constitution provides for the equality of men and women with
regards to political representation. The application of this principle was reflected
in the transitional Electoral Law (Law 4021) enacted on April 14, 2009 and has
governed the elections of December 2009 and April 2010. This legislation pro-
vided that the list of candidates for senators and deputies had to include gender
alternation. If the first candidate was a man, the second had to be a woman. In the
case of single-member constituencies, the alternation had to be expressed between
the official and alternate candidates.
In the election of 2009, women achieved 44.44% representation in the Senate
(16 female members out of 36). In the Chamber of Deputies, the progress and
presence of women has been important for the candidate lists. In this area, female
representation achieved 45.28% (24 out of 53). This progress was much less evi-
dent in the single-member constituencies, where political parties in general chose
male candidates as official candidates (and put women as alternate contenders).
Only five women, out of 77 spots (6.5%), were elected in these electoral districts.
Finally, in the seven indigenous people’s districts, no women were elected. In total,
[ 163 ]
45 women were elected, representing 27.1% of the total Congress (166 members).
Without a doubt, Bolivia has achieved significant female Parliamentary represen-
tation. Furthermore, for the 2012–2013 legislative period, women chaired both
Chambers for the first time in history.
Andean Indigenous Peoples

Esteban Ticona Alejo25
The Aymara, Quechua and Urus Nations during 30 Years of

Democracy
On April 9, 1952, the Revolution introduced greater Indian presence in national

politics. Nevertheless, in the first 12 years of the Revolution, they were subordinate
to the Nationalist Revolutionary Movement (MNR) and categorized as ‘campesino
deputies’.
The Indian (indianista) and Katarista movements began questioning the unfin-
ished nature of the 1952 Revolution, and advanced their organizational autonomy
through the founding, in 1979, of the United Confederation of Peasant Workers
of Bolivia (CSUTCB), headed by Jenaro Flores (Rivera, 1984; Hurtado, 1986
and Ticona, 2000). Out of this came the demand by the indigenous people’s and
peasants’ movement for full citizenship rights and recognition of their identity as
a people. They initiated a contemporary anti-colonial ideology, currently fully in
force in national politics as a recognized ‘process of change’.
The first indigenous deputies, Constantino Lima and Luciano Tapia from the
Tupac Katari Indian Movement (MITKA) (Tapia, 1995) and Victor Hugo Carde-
nas and Walter Reinaga from the Tupac Katari Revolutionary Liberty Movement
(MRTKL) opened the way for genuine participation in national politics, during
the ‘democratic process’ that began in 1982. During this decade the first ministers
were also appointed, including Zenón Barrientos, Mauricio Mamani and Simón
25 Esteban Ticona Alejo is a Bolivian Aymara. He is a sociologist and anthropologist
[ 164 ]
Yampara (Hurtado, 1986).
Neoliberal Times: In Search of a ‘Political Instrument’
After the CSUTCB was founded in 1979, various internal crises caused by a
number of factors occurred. But this did not stop additional political propos-
als being put forward, linked to the discourse around indigenous people’s and
campesino identities. 1992 was an important year for the movement as it led to the
rethinking of the ‘500 years’ issue regarding Spanish invasion, colonization and
resistance, and the effects on native people. Indeed, this inspired the CSUTCB
and the Confederation of Lowland Indigenous People (CIDOB) and other grass-
roots organizations to redouble their efforts. One of their intentions was to create
a ‘political instrument’ in the form of an Assembly of Nationalities. It had been
advocated since the first extraordinary congress held in Potosi in 1988, and dis-
cussed at several subsequent meetings of the CSUTCB and the CIDOB.
The central idea was to formally revive the ayllu (a form of Indian commune)
and indigenous people’s communities, and create a national coordinating body. It
was anticipated that this would eventually replace existing indigenous organiza-
tions and labor unions, where appropriate. The proponents of the idea hoped to
carve out a deliberative, decision-making and executive political space for ancestral
peoples. On October 12, 1992, mass demonstrations were held, full of symbolic
power, but the Assembly of Nationalities did not succeed, tangible evidence that
the process of building a ‘political instrument’ was just beginning (Villca, 1992
and 1995; Ticona, 1996).
A New Political Player: the Coca Growers’ Movement
The United States Government has always argued that preserving ‘national security’
was its central concern regarding drug production and trafficking rings. This was
the core of its strategy towards Bolivia and the Andean region in its ‘war on drugs’.
Since 1985, there have been on-going joint military operations in Bolivia, plus a
permanent military presence in the coca-leaf producing regions.
In the Quechua and Aymara movement, the importance of the coca leaf
[ 165 ]
producer has been recognized. Through the campesino federations of the Chapare
region the cocaleros have sought recognition and have gradually expanded their
influence and leadership in the country’s overall indigenous and farming organi-
zations. The coca leaf producers’ struggles have resulted in them being able to now
report on police corruption; misapplication of the law by judges, human rights
violations and so on. The level of corruption has now entered public consciousness,
but only after years of complaints and an environment of tension and violence.
The Chapare coca growers’ March to La Paz, in August and September of
1994, began a chapter of greater mobilization. The media named the leader of the
coca growers, little-known Evo Morales, detained at the beginning of the march, as
‘man of the year’. In 1995 widespread violence broke out, caused by the anti-drug
agencies during the Sánchez de Lozada-Cardenas’s government (1993–1997). In
response women linked to coca growers (wives, daughters and sisters) undertook
another long march to the city of La Paz to demand justice, respect and the protec-
tion of human rights for coca leaf producers. This, coupled with the coca growers’
success in the December 1995 municipal elections, gave them a stronger voice.
Their party (at that time Assembly for the Sovereignty of the People, (ASP) won
47 council seats in Chapare.
All of this success sparked more sympathy for the coca growers’ movement
from the indigenous peoples and farming base in other regions of the country.
The Aymara and Quechua have found in the movement an alternative to their
stalled claims to their rights. This background meant that the categorical triumph
of the coca growers in the 7th Congress of the CSUTCB in 1996 was no surprise.
Their strength meant they rose to be the representatives and spokespeople for all
the indigenous and farming communities.
Mobilization and Breakdown of the Neoliberal Model
After several years of attempted consolidation, the exclusionary neoliberal model

collapsed. The collapse began with the massive protests that started in April 2000
as part of the so-called ‘Water War’ in Cochabamba, against a multinational com-
pany that sought to privatize water. The Sánchez de Lozada-Mesa administration
(2002–2003) now operated in an atmosphere of intense questioning of tradi-
[ 166 ]
tional politics and neoliberal policies. The first political crisis occurred in Feb-
ruary 2003, with a mutiny of police units stationed near the government palace
against a decree to impose new taxes on citizens. This led to an unprecedented
conflict with the army, resulting in more than 30 casualties from the police, mil-
itary and civilians.
Subsequently, the so-called 2003 ‘Gas War’ and the killing of 66 people, plus
injuring of hundreds more, mainly among urban and rural indigenous people
from the city of El Alto and some provinces of La Paz, defined the most important
political schism of the neoliberal phase.
From it emerged an increasingly powerful role for the social, indigenous
peoples and farming movements from the Andes to the Amazon, the west and the
Chaco. All of them pushed not only an indigenous peoples-campesino agenda, but
were class conscious, and demanded protection of natural resources like gas, water,
and land. In this political climate, the breakdown of the neoliberal policies, and
the ensuing crisis among traditional politics, created an atmosphere for the rapid
rise of the Assembly for the Sovereignty of the People (ASP) created in 1995 by the
six Chapare federations of coca growers (later called Movement Toward Socialism,
MAS) led by Aymara leader Evo Morales.
An important national victory for the coca growers’ movement occurred in
2002 in reaction to attempts from both the traditional political elite and the US
embassy in Bolivia trying to stop Evo Morales’ presidential candidacy. Instead, this
attempt catapulted him to second place in the July national elections that year.
Evo Morales’s Government and the Social Movements
The next scheduled elections were on December 4, 2005 and for the first time
a winner with a clear majority was named. Morales and MAS won 54% of the
valid votes and a similar majority won in the Chamber of Deputies, but gained
a lesser 44% in the Senate (until then with three representatives per province).
The nation’s overwhelming desire for change was evident. However, only three of
the nine elected Governors belonged to MAS (Oruro, Potosi and Chuquisaca),
which showed the strength of the opposition’s regional leadership.
But what caught everyone’s attention was the rise of an indigenous Aymara
[ 167 ]
man to the Bolivian Presidential office, with a wide margin of votes. For the
indigenous people and the campesinos, this created greater access to key State
positions, although still within a colonial structure. The new administration pri-
oritized convening the Constituent Assembly, whose members were elected on
July 2, 2006, with results similar to December 2005. The new leadership focused
on its relationships with the social movements in various sectors, but especially
the indigenous people, farmers, and populist urban sectors. This was the bedrock
of MAS.
The Attempt to Reinvent Bolivia: the Constituent Assembly
The most significant historical achievement in the fight for a Constituent

Assembly was the indigenous people’s march in May 2002. Named as a march
for ‘Popular Sovereignty, Territory, and Natural Resources’, it was the first
indigenous people’s mobilization directly focused on gaining a Constituent
Assembly. The main leaders were from the eastern sector, comprised of indig-
enous people from the Amazon, the east, the Chaco, the Andean migrants
and other non-indigenous famers. Later, the Conamaq, from the Andean
region, joined the march.
The first act of Evo Morales’s administration was to install the new Parliament
on January 22, 2006. Months later, after long and heated debates between factions,
Congress approved an election to choose the members of the Constituent Assembly
and to call a referendum on regional autonomy. Both issues meant a new triumph
for MAS, which again showed the great strength of the Andes region against the
Amazonian ‘Media Luna’ made up of the provinces of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando
and Tarija.
In the election of July 2, 2006, for members of the Constituent Assembly,
MAS took 51% of the vote, with an absolute majority across all the Andean
provinces and, for the first time, the majority in Santa Cruz and across Tarija. It
claimed 137 (54%) of the 255 seats. The new Constituent Assembly was inaugu-
rated on August 6, 2006 supported by an extraordinary citizen’s parade, including
a huge contingency representing 36 indigenous and campesino peoples from all
across Bolivia.
[ 168 ]
The Proposal for a Plurinational State
The legacy of colonialism was a race-oriented, hierarchical system. The ‘republic’

of Spaniards and the ‘republic’ of the indigenous people had obvious and humil-
iating results for the second group (Quijano, 1992). However there was some
recognition of the rights of the second group via an implicit ‘contract of respect’
with regards to their territories, in return for taxes and mita, the forced labor of
indigenous peoples (Platt, 1982).
With the Revolution of 1952, some forms of colonialism begin to crumble.
The MNR opted for the liberal path of hoping to reach homogenization and
equality within the State. Rhetorically the Revolution transformed the indigenous
peoples into ‘farmers’ and recognized their right to private ownership of land, the
right to education, and universal suffrage. These were all important advances, but
the task remained unfinished and internal colonialism continued. The logical con-
sequence was to propose that Bolivia should be re-structured as a plurinational and
intercultural state. This notion first appeared in a CSUTCB document in 1983, as
the central political thesis of its second congress. But the same point was presented
in more recent proposals, such as the Assembly of Nationalities.
Basically, it was a proposal to re-structure the country to simultaneously bring
together different social sectors and indigenous civilizations, with a sense of fairness
and full participation. This was not the only approach, but we consider it to be
the most important. In spite of difficulties the Constituent Assembly encountered,
it remained in session for more than 18 months, and approved the State’s new
Political Constitution. For the first time in Bolivia’s history, all social sectors were
participants in a discussion that designed the new social model for the State.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, when viewing Bolivian democracy from the Andean indigenous

people’s point of view, there have been both positive milestones and major progres-
sive developments. The current ‘process of change’ is part of that, but we can also
see elements of re-colonization, apparently due to internal contradictions of the
current government but also among some indigenous social movements, especially
[ 169 ]
within the Andean region. But generally we can conclude that during the last three
decades, the indigenous peoples and farming movements have decisively supported
the building of an intercultural democracy, which has not yet been consolidated.
The plurinational State is still an ideal for which we stand, that is, to build an
intercultural society from within.
Sources
CSUTCB (1983), “Tesis política y estatutos”, CSUTCB, La Paz, Bolivia.
Hurtado, Javier (1986), “El Katarismo”, HISBOL, La Paz, Bolivia.
Platt, Tristán (1982), “Estado boliviano y ayllu andino”, Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos, Lima, Perú.
Quijano, Anibal (1992), “Colonialidad y modernidad-racionalidad”, in: “Los
Conquistados. 1492 y la población indígena de las Américas”, FLACSO, Bogotá,
Colombia.
Reinaga, Fausto (2001), “La Revolución india, PIB, La Paz, Bolivia.
Rivera, Silvia (2003), “Oprimidos pero no vencidos. Luchas del campesinado
aymara y quechua 1900-1980”. Yachaywasi-Aruwiyiri, La Paz, Bolivia.
Tapia, Luciano (Lusiki Qhispi Mamani, 1995), “Ukhamawa jakawisaxa. Así
es nuestra vida, autobiografía de un aymara, HISBOL, La Paz, Bolivia.
Ticona Alejo, Esteban (1996), “CSUTCB: Trayectoria y desafíos, CEDOIN,
La Paz, Bolivia.
Ticona Alejo, Esteban (2000), “Organización y liderazgo aymara. La experi-
encia indígena en la política boliviana”, Universidad de la Cordillera-Agruco, La
Paz, Bolivia.
Villca, Juan de la Cruz (1992), “Propuesta para la discusión en las bases”, in:
“Convocatoria a 1a. Asamblea de Naciones Originarias y del Pueblo”, CSUTCB,
La Paz, Bolivia.
Villca, Juan de la Cruz (1995), “La marcha nacional campesino-cocalera en
el relato de Juandela”, CSUTCB, Oruro, Bolivia.
[ 170 ]
Amazonian Indigenous Peoples

Elba Flores Gonzales 26
We have witnessed 30 years of democracy in Bolivia. The three decades have

seen periods of progress plus deep crises that have threatened the survival of that
democracy. But arising from this struggle, we have also seen profound changes
in the country.
Democracy is not only the political exercising of the right to elect and be
elected. It requires more than just that, such as economic, political, social and cul-
tural rights, and the recognition of individual and collective rights of the indigenous
people, who have become a socio-political force that has contributed profoundly
to the democratic process.
The Rise of the Indigenous Peoples Movement
After two decades of exclusion and marginalization from the nation-state, between
the 1970s and the 1980s, and since the restoration of democracy, a new social actor
has burst onto the national political scene. The lowland indigenous people have
demanded greater recognition of Bolivia’s ethnic diversity. This has happened in
a favorable international context of human rights awareness, as well as awareness
of the need to protect the environment generally, and specifically the Amazonian
jungle.
One of the first strategies was to look for ‘unity in diversity among indigenous
people’. In 1979, the first encounters were organized to enable indigenous people
to share their problems. This continued up until 1982, when the indigenous people
of Santa Cruz decided to form an inter-ethnic organization.
The organization later became the Confederation of Lowland Indigenous
People (CIDOB) in 1989. It was a parent body for indigenous peoples from the
Chaco, the Amazon, and eastern Bolivia.
CIDOB surged onto the national scene in 1990, with the ‘March for Territory
26 Elba Flores Gonzales is a social scientist
[ 171 ]
and Dignity’, that reshaped the political nature of the indigenous issue. The indig-
enous movement as a social actor not only demanded respect for their identity, but
also demanded recognition of their territory, as well as autonomy and participation
with their own voice in all political, economic and social spheres. In other words,
their rebellious proposal was aimed at transforming the State, to allow democracy
to include new criteria from indigenous identities. The mobilization achieved State
recognition of four indigenous territories through supreme decrees and initiated
reconsideration of the issues around indigenous people.
Bolivia was one of the first countries to ratify Convention 169 of the Interna-
tional Labor Organization (ILO), on indigenous people, in 1991. In light of the
constitutional reform of 1994, it was a substantial, but still limited, recognition
of the multi-ethnic and plurinational nature of the Bolivian State. It validated the
different identities, but basically did not disrupt the society’s structure or behavioral
patterns. The Constitution recognized and guaranteed territorial rights for regions
inhabited by indigenous people, but defined them as communal lands (TCOs) that
were private, collectively owned property, not an entire political region employing
the practices of self-government.
New laws were passed: for Forestry, Popular Participation, Municipalities
and Education, based on the revised Constitution. The laws meant progresses for
indigenous movements and were obtained from a neoliberal government.
The Popular Participation Law recognized the legal status of indigenous com-
munities and organizations within municipalities. However, colonialist mentality
persisted because the law required the creation of new entities such as the Base
Territorial Organization (OTB) which would be dominant over indigenous orga-
nizations, and so ignoring the forms of government already established within
the communities.
The Municipal Law reconfigured the country as part of a drive to empower
local government. The indigenous people achieved recognition of indigenous dis-
tricts, but within the municipal boundaries that sometimes did not correspond
to the TCO (communal land).
Indigenous people participated for the first time in the 1995 elections, but
under the representation of different right-wing political parties such as the MNR,
MIR, ADN, and MBL. The success of this democratic experiment was modest.
[ 172 ]
During this time, the indigenous peoples struggle for rights took on a more lim-
ited nature.
Increasing Power, and Constitutional Reform to Transform

Bolivia
The indigenous peoples movement and structural transformation
Since 2002, lowland indigenous peoples and farming organizations perceived that
the 1952 agrarian reform process was exhausted; that the political system was in
crisis and it was urgent to break the current political parties’ monopoly and move
to a more representative democracy, and the only way to change was by generat-
ing a process of structural transformation. Given this dual issue, the indigenous
movement’s strategy, led by the Coordinator of the Indigenous Peoples of Santa
Cruz (CPESC) and other indigenous peoples-farmer organizations, was to make
regional alliances with other excluded sectors, based on common demands, so that
the Lowlands Block (Bloque Oriente) was consolidated. In 2002 the ‘March for
Popular Sovereignty, Territory, and Natural Resources’ was organized, based on a
legal-political platform that proposed the immediate realization of a Constituent
Assembly, land and territory for indigenous and farming people, and the annulment
of the unpopular Sustainable Development Law.
In an historic milestone, the indigenous movement went from being a mere
legal player to a socio-political actor. Their actions went beyond their strictly sectorial
demands, and instead, acquired a new national dimension to bring structural changes,
like the Constituent Assembly, to transform Bolivia by generating a new social pact,
because the monocultural State model was outmoded. The mobilization generated a
first encounter and then an alliance between lowland and highland indigenous peoples.
The presidential elections were held that same year, with amazing results that
created a new political scenario. MAS, led by Evo Morales, took second place
(20.9%) while MNR won the election with just 22.5% of votes. The traditional
parties were the biggest losers because of social discontent with neoliberal policies
and the party system. Lowland indigenous organizations participated in the elec-
tions in alliance with the MAS.
[ 173 ]
The Constituent Assembly: from monocultural to plurinational State
Once the new demand for a Constituent Assembly was in place, the campesino-in-
digenous organization alliance worked to consolidate the idea. Thus, on September
10, 2004, all national organizations met in Santa Cruz and created the Unity Pact,
in order to create a consensual proposal for a law calling for a constituent assembly.
This had to be sovereign, original, participatory, inclusive and empowered to break
the current colonial view of, and exclusion of, the majority.
The social movements’ demands to convene the Constituent Assembly in
order to urgently hold a binding referendum on the gas issue, and to enact a
new hydrocarbons law, were delayed. Rather, presidential and governor (prefectos)
elections were held in December 2005. After Evo Morales’ big win a law was
approved to propose a constituent assembly, and the MAS won again. The lowland
indigenous organizations, in alliance with the MAS, won four indigenous people’s
constituencies. Lowland indigenous organizations like CIDOB, CPESC, APG and
CPBEM participated in commissions of the Constituent Assembly via a technical
team and a delegation of indigenous leaders who were physically in the meetings,
assemblies and public hearings.
The dynamics of the pre-constituent and Constituent Assembly processes
allowed for the expansion and strengthening of alliances around a common pro-
posal and agenda among rural-urban sectors at a national level. This was articulated
by the Unity Pact and, in the lowlands, by the Lowlands Block. This organizational
unity enabled joint proposals of policies and ensured that demands would be
incorporated into the new Constitution.
Defending democracy
The polarization of the two forces fighting for supremacy, the MAS promoting
the constitutional process as the realization of the project for change (proceso de
cambio), and conservative groups opposed to that change, generated a volatile
political climate. Aggression flared when the lowland power groups, in response
to the October Agenda (the leftists ideas of the so called “proceso de cambio” that
Evo Morales embraced before and after getting into power) proposed provincial
[ 174 ]
autonomy and introduced their proposal through the Santa Cruz Civic Committee
as a valid representative. This was a period filled with high tension and polarization
between east (lowland, less native population) and west (highlands and higher
indigenous people presence) Bolivia. The confrontation was characterized by the
use of slogans, actions and some speeches fraught with racist overtones that wid-
ened the differences. Yet it was a conflict between the power groups supposedly
defending democracy.
In different parts of the lowlands, a series of violent acts against indigenous
leaders took place. Whippings in the streets, fighting, and burning of indige-
nous organizations’ offices were happening because of the State’s absence in the
region. The MAS government was going through its weakest period. These acts of
intolerance, and racism against the indigenous and farming organizations, were
intended to serve as a lesson to those who dared to challenge the status quo on
land, natural resources and political power (Suárez, 2008). But this crisis propelled
the indigenous organizations to expand their alliances with urban organizations,
to position themselves as political figures and to confirm that they were advocates
in the region for the process of change and democracy.
Advancing the construction of the plurinational State
The indigenous people who had pushed for the plurinational State were now cementing
their claimed rights with the implementation of the Constitution, as well as through
community democracy, political consultation and indigenous autonomy.
December 6, 2009 was an historic and memorable day for democracy in
Bolivia. As part of the electoral process, eight lowland indigenous members were
elected to Parliament, in alliance with the MAS. By mandate of their members
they formed an ‘indigenous bloc’ which represented a new, weighty political player
in Parliament.
On April 4, 2010, mayors and council members were elected, as well as
provincial governors and members of the Regional Assemblies across the country.
Twenty-three indigenous, native and peasants provincial members of the Assembly
were elected through their own customs, giving life to the emergence of the new
plurinational State.
[ 175 ]
Additionally, Law 4021 provided for indigenous people and peasants to con-
vert their municipal administrative units into indigenous autonomies, through a
referendum. On December 6th, 2010, 11 of the 12 indigenous municipalities
opted to convert to indigenous autonomy. In the case of the lowlands, specifically in
the municipality of Charagua, an historic area dominated by white power groups,
voters said ‘yes’ to indigenous autonomy.
Within the scope of the Constitution and based on the Declaration of the
Rights of Indigenous People of the United Nations, the people of Lomerío also
decided to approve territory-based autonomy. This was an historic demand from
its indigenous population.
The Constitution recognizes, in Article 30, paragraph 15, that indigenous
peoples have the right to be consulted through appropriate procedures, and in
particular, through their own representative institutions, whenever legislative or
administrative measures may affect them. Similarly, the Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Convention (ILO-Convention 169), ratified by Bolivia, requires that the
State carry out prior consultation with the indigenous peoples.
Although this right was nationally recognized in the first term of the MAS
administration, the indigenous peoples and peasant organizations presented a
detailed proposal that was incorporated into the hydrocarbons law in a specific
chapter, and expanded later in the regulation norms. This has been implemented,
notably in the Guarani territory where the oil companies operate.
This was a substantial advancement in legal and declarative terms, but was
limited in its application. For example, the State assured stakeholders that the
‘prior consultation’ would be done in good faith, within the law and respecting
the indigenous peoples. But during the TIPNIS crisis, the government’s decision
to build the road through that indigenous territory was unbending and arrogant
and the ‘prior consultation’ wrongly timed; contravening the essence of the ILO
Convention and Bolivian Constitution.
Conclusion
The indigenous movement grew from being merely a legal actor to a socio-political
player. As a fundamental part of the broader social movement, the indigenous
[ 176 ]
peoples movement was pivotal in ensuring that the notion of a Constituent Assem-
bly be added to the national agenda. It was able to unite the social movement
around a national demand and to promote connections between social sectors
previously viewed as antagonistic due to their ideological positioning, as well as
their regional and cultural differences.
Their proactive stance was recognized; they strengthened the mass mobi-
lization process with proposals that came out of a participatory process. These
proposals were incorporated into constitutional and national legislation. With this
experience, they are still positioned to contribute meaningfully to the development
of new Bolivian legislation.
Indigenous people were committed to building a new plurinational State. Yet,
they have found that ‘their’ government reproduces the discourse and actions of the
old monocultural model and, in that way, makes the process of change uncertain.
The Highlands: Land and Territory

Gonzalo Colque27
Bolivian Peasants in Times of Democracy and Neoliberalism
In early 2006, after winning the elections with 53.7% of the votes, the Movement
Toward Socialism (MAS) took power by declaring itself anti-neoliberal and anti-
capitalist, and promised a new State policy under the slogan ‘process of change’.
Workers movements voted for MAS precisely because they were tired of the
consequences of the prior economic and political model. However, over the years,
the revolutionary tone was diluting and it became obvious that, in practice, the new
administration promoted a capitalist economy based on the extraction of natural
resources. The only difference is that the State has a greater share in the revenue
from the extractive industries, primarily in the hydrocarbon sector.
The government’s policy of free-market capitalism is expanding, with imme-
27 Gonzalo Colque is a economist
[ 177 ]
diate consequences for the agricultural and rural sectors. The agro-industrial sector
(the Santa-Cruz elite that during the democratic era, was noted for opposing the
redistribution of land) not only approve the government’s economic policy, but
also managed to obtain several specific advantages which allowed them to retain
and consolidate agrarian capitalism.
Agricultural capitalism also has, among its supporters, the medium scale and
small scale farmers who benefited from extractive agriculture’s grow. They are the
entrepreneurs in the Santa Cruz medium and small soybean, sugarcane, sunflower,
corn, rice and livestock sectors. In another geographical context, although using the
same logic, are the Andean migrants engaged in the production and marketing of
the coca leaf. The economic growth of these rural enclaves immediately increases
requests for the expansion of the agricultural frontier at the expense of the forest,
the Amazon jungle and the indigenous people’s territories.
But this dynamic agricultural economy has an opposite: the small farmers in the
highlands who do not produce commodities for the world market, nor coca leaves. It
is estimated that two thirds of the rural population in Bolivia fall into this category
and have been replaced as the domestic food market’s major suppliers (Urioste et al,
2007). The purpose of this brief text is to review the land question in the context of
Bolivia’s 30 years of democracy. As we shall see, it is a history of land policies driven
by neoliberal democratic governments. We will review the conditions under which
land reform was reinstituted at a time when political liberties and free expression
were regained (1982), the process that followed, and its current status.
The 1980s: Light and Shadows
The military dictatorships, and especially the first government of Hugo Banzer
(1971–1978), distributed thousands of hectares of land in eastern Bolivia through
fraudulent means, free of charge, and mainly as payment for political support. The
argument was that the 1953 Land Reform Law allowed for the delivery of up to
50,000 hectares of land to anyone interested in becoming an entrepreneur. The
beneficiaries took control of the lands, but not necessarily for productive purposes,
but to speculate in the promising emerging land market of eastern Bolivia.
The arrival of democracy in 1982 created new expectations for access to new
[ 178 ]
lands among the small Andean producer. From this point in time, the proposal
for the Basic Agrarian Law presented by the CSUTCB led by Jenaro Flores was
highlighted. The project was approved publicly by President Hernán Siles, but
it was never properly implemented. The group led by Flores argued that a dual
structure of large and small landholding co-existed, which had resulted in capitalist
exploitation of the latter. It proposed that the land should be owned by whoever
‘works it personally’. Since then, to the present day, the CSUTCB has been unable
to come up with a better proposal (CEJIS, 2001).
The subsequent government of Victor Paz Estenssoro (1985–1989) adopted
the so-called New Economic Policy (NEP), thus beginning the neoliberal cycle
according to the ‘structural adjustment’ measures designed by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) for developing countries. The
government was focused on controlling inflation and the fiscal imbalance, and
established the basis of a free market economy and the privatization of State com-
panies. The IMF and the WB made their loans conditional upon these measures.
In this context, the demand for equitable land distribution was removed from the
core of the State’s agenda, although not entirely canceled. Paz Estenssoro did com-
mission a study aimed at restructuring the National Agricultural Reform Council
and the Internal Colonization Institute.
During the 1980s Santa Cruz agro-industry managed to replace the small
Andean farmers as the food market’s major supplier. For example, in 1950 Coch-
abamba (peasant production) had about 230,000 hectares surveyed as farmland
while Santa Cruz had only 96,000 hectares. But by 1984, Santa Cruz recorded 5.5
million hectares while in Cochabamba the figure remained virtually unchanged
(Agriculture Census 1950 and 1984).
The 1980s defined the model of agriculture in Santa Cruz, orienting it to
the international market, based on the production of soybeans, and the arrival of
massive transnational capital, mainly from Brazil.
1990–1995: Return to the Agriculture Debate
1990 was the year of the ‘March for Territory and Dignity’ – the first one led by
the CIDOB – whose main demand was the legal recognition of their territories
[ 179 ]
and collective rights. This social mobilization led to Paz Zamora’s administration
approving the ILO’s 169 Convention and recognizing, by decree, the territories
of the Siriono, Moxos, T’simanes, Yucaré, Movimas and other indigenous groups
(Coca Suárez, 2009).
This mobilization for land was a sign of an agrarian crisis. Allegations made
by the CSUTCB, of corruption in the distribution of lands, and the case dubbed
‘Bolibras’ (an illegal delivery of a large landholding, denounced by parliamentarian
Miguel Urioste) forced the government to halt all agricultural land proceedings
and initiate the development of new land laws (Hernaiz and Pacheco, 2000).
The debate over new land laws continued until mid-1996. The eastern region
businessmen were against it, and also the Andean farmers, who considered it a
neoliberal measure. The process was influenced by the IMF and the WB, organiza-
tions that gave financial and technical assistance (ibidem). At stake was the strategic
approach that agricultural reform would take. The discussion included whether it
would be directed by the State, or would be a measure driven by free market rules;
whether property rights would be reviewed; whether it would be conducted by the
central government or the provincial governments, as demanded by Santa Cruz.
When Law 1715 of the National Institute of Agriculture Reform (INRA)
was approved, it was rejected by both the eastern region agricultural capitalists
and the CSUTCB. The first group pointed out that it was a law confiscating their
properties. The small producers saw the law as neoliberal, not incorporating their
demands, and called for resistance against getting land titles.
1996–2005: Expansion of Agricultural Capitalism in Santa Cruz
The INRA Law of 1996 ordered a legal and technical review of all properties and
delivery of ownership titles to all who proved they had obtained the land by legal
means, and could prove that they were using the land for a social or economic
function, formalized as a certificate of Social/Economic Function (SEF). The law
provided for a period of 10 years during which the State should recover all large,
illegal landholdings for distribution and delivery to the farmers with little or no land.
After ten years, the process was still not completed. It hardly achieved 10%
of the goal, and most of them were TCOs in the lowlands. For 10 years, large
[ 180 ]
livestock and agricultural properties successfully dodged the agricultural reform

process using their economic power against the diminished political strength of
Sánchez de Lozada, Quiroga and Banzer. Santa Cruz’s elite had also benefited from
the higher international prices of soybean, agro-industrial technology, and invest-
ments from Brazil and Argentina. Recent research indicated that, “after 1990 there
was a jump in the acreage of the province of Santa Cruz from 413,320 hectares
to 1,821,631 in 2007. The cultivation of soybeans and other oilseeds was around
one million hectares and the remaining 800,000 hectares were used for sugarcane,
cotton, wheat, rice, corn and other food crops” (Urioste, 2011).
Santa Cruz capitalism, united around the Eastern Agricultural Chamber
(CAO) achieved several victories over the central government.
Another rejected measure was land tax. Banzer accepted the tax base calculated
on an owner’s self-appraisal of the land, not by market price. Additionally, Sánchez
de Lozada (2002–2003) reduced the tax rate after agro-industry complained that
natural disasters were bankrupting them. Consequently, tax revenues were mini-
mal, and collected by municipalities, that were required to reinvest 75% in favor
of the agro-business sector itself in the form of services and economic promotion
(Morales, 2011).
Santa Cruz’s last method of eliminating the role of central government in
agricultural reform was to demand provincial autonomy. Starting in 2004, the
Santa Cruz Civic Committee led mass demonstrations to push for a referendum
on autonomy. It was held in in 2006. The main demand was to retain the biggest
portion of tax revenues for the people of Santa Cruz, and that the regional gov-
ernment would gain control, regulation and use over all land and natural resources
(Plata, 2008).
2006–2012: ‘Process of Change’ Contradictions
In 2006, Evo Morales said: “Those lands that serve only for accumulating and
negotiating, we will revert back to the State for redistribution to the people without
land.” Under this premise, in November 2006, the government enacted an amend-
ment to Law 3545 concerning “Community Reorientation of the Agricultural
Reform”, focusing on community ownership, and distribution of State land. It
[ 181 ]
was argued that this measure was approved to prevent commercialization of land
and to “dismantle existing neoliberalism and 500 years of colonialism in Bolivia”.
During 2006–2010, there was massive transfer of title deeds to TCOs,
amounting to 20.7 million hectares. At the same time, other measures stalled, such
as recovery or expropriation of large landholdings and illegal lands, the certifica-
tion of smallholders and distributing title deeds on small properties. But after the
2011 TIPNIS conflict, the government stopped recognizing TCOs, and trampled
over recognized indigenous people’s rights. With this setback, it was evident that
the land reform had not advanced substantially enough to alter the existing dual
structure of large and small landholding.
Therefore, capitalist agriculture gained even more strength. In addition, during
the last years, agro-industry entrepreneurs have successfully demanded that the
State renounce its control over the agro-industry lands. This proposal had backing
at the highest political level from social movements allied with the government,
which adopted it as one of their own demands; even the President himself publically
defended Santa Cruz’s demand during his 2012 report to the nation.
Conclusions
Agricultural reform resurfaced as an issue during the past 30 years of democracy

in Bolivia. Driven by sectors that opposed the large lowland landholdings of illicit
origin, public pressure forced the neoliberal governments of the 1990s to prepare
a legal framework (although not free from the influence of ‘structural adjustment’
policies) that gave the key role to the State, rather than the market, to carry out
land redistribution.
Previous administrations to Evo Morales’s government kept a low profile in the
implementation of agricultural reform, especially in regards to sensitive issues such
as outlawing speculative land ownership, and the control of large landholdings.
Neoliberal policy hampered the implementation of the new policy, as well as the
relations between democratic governments and economically powerful, influential
ago-industries. The alienation of the different democratic governments from the
peasants and indigenous sectors also hindered the agrarian reform process.
In 2006, the Morales’ administration tackled the land problem afresh and
[ 182 ]
made considerable progress in consolidating the indigenous territories, and even

confronting agricultural capitalism. However, since 2010, the government’s policies
drowned in a sea of contradictions, uncertainties and pragmatism. In this scenario
neoliberal policy continued to play a decisive role, both because it is part of global
capitalism and due to MAS support of extractive industries. Under these circum-
stances, the black market in land continues to play a growing role in defining how
to access land, those who control it, and those who are excluded.
Sources
Artículo Primero magazine, N° 12 (2003), CEJIS, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
Borras, Saturnino, et al (2007), “Agrarian reform and rural development: his-
torical overview and current issues”, in: Haroon Akram-Lodhi et al (eds), “Land,
poverty and livelihoods in an era of globalization”, Routledge, US.
Coca Suárez, Paúl Antonio (2009), “Conmemorando sus 29 años: La Marcha
Indígena por la Constituyente y Autonomías”, in: Pukara newspaper, Año 3, Nº
45, La Paz, Bolivia.
Fundación Tierra (2011), “Concentración y extranjerización de la tierra en
Bolivia”, La Paz, Bolivia.
Fundación Tierra (2011), “Reconfigurando territorios: reforma agraria, control
territorial y gobiernos indígenas en Bolivia”, La Paz, Bolivia.
Henáiz, Irene y Pacheco, Diego (2000), “La Ley INRA en el espejo de la his-
toria: dos siglos de reformas agrarias en Bolivia”, Fundación Tierra, La Paz, Bolivia.
MAS-IPSP (2006), “Programa de gobierno 2006-2010: Bolivia país líder”,
La Paz, Bolivia.
Morales, Evo (2012), Presidential speech, www.bolpress.com/art.php?-
Cod=2006012301.
Morales, Miguel (2011), “Bases para el nuevo impuesto a la propiedad agraria
en Bolivia”, in: Miguel Morales et al (eds), “Hablemos de tierras: minifundio,
gestión territorial, bosques e impuesto agrario en Bolivia”, Plural editores, La Paz,
Bolivia.
Plata, Wilfredo (2008), “El discurso autonomista de las élites de Santa Cruz”
in Ximena Soruco et al, “Los barones del oriente: el poder en Santa Cruz ayer y
hoy”, Fundación Tierra, La Paz, Bolivia.
[ 183 ]
Urioste, Miguel, et al (2007), “Los nietos de la reforma agraria: tierra y comu-

nidad en el altiplano de Bolivia”, Fundación Tierra, La Paz, Bolivia.
Valdivia, Gabriela (2010), “Agrarian capitalism and struggles over hegemony
in the Bolivian lowlands”, in Latin American perspectives, http://lap.sagepub.com/
content/37/4/67.short
1715 Bolivian Law, www.inra.gob.bo/InraPb/upload/LIBNORMASAGRAR-
IAS.pdf
1950 and 1984 Agrarian Census, www.ftierra.org/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=1667:rair&catid=96:mensual&Itemid=115
20374 Bolivian Supreme Decree, www.derechoteca.com/gacetabolivia/
decreto-supremo-20374-del-31-julio-1984
3545 Bolivian Law, www.google.com/search?q=2006+Ley+modificat-
oria+N%C2%BA+3545+de+reconducci%C3%B3n+comunitaria+de+la+refor-
ma+agraria
Participation and Political Parties

Renata Hoffmann28
A Look at Democratic Institutions
From ancient Greece to the present day, the most diverse definitions of democracy
have been given. The answers depend on the time, place and ideology. It is not any
different when it comes to democratic institutions. In general, we can say that the
concept of ‘democracy’ refers to the set of political institutions that organize the
State and the society, as well as the rules and regulations which define a particular
social order.
When viewing the topic more closely, the conceptual and ideological differ-
ences emerge. From a more liberal tradition, the main function of the democratic
institutions would be to apply checks and balances on the power exercised by the
28 Renata Hoffmann is a sociologist
[ 184 ]
State, to help ensure freedom for all citizens. This view is criticized by ideologies
which question the universality of these principles and liberal values, because they
emphasize the rules and regulations of each people and culture. Specifically, in the
present debate, it is an approach that gives priority to collective rights arising from
indigenous peoples and farming cultures, over individual rights that come from a
western tradition that cannot be separated from its colonial past.
The complexity of this debate lies not only in ideological and political dif-
ferences. It is also due to the difficult process of institutionalization which must
balance and harmonize the standards that have arisen over time, and the innova-
tions produced by any social dynamics.
These differences and clarifications carry great weight when assessing the
strength or weakness of political institutions, since they contain an assessment of the
quality of democracy, which is always made from a particular ideological position.
Without ignoring all this complexity, we will conduct a brief review of the
process experienced by those political institutions that were recognized by all the
political forces as an essential part of the democratic process. Using this approach,
we will examine how some key public institutions have performed, and on the
other hand, the process of institutionalization of social participation.
Performance of State Political Institutions, and Parties
Over the past 30 years, there have been seven national elections of presidents and
representatives to Congress (not counting the 1980 election that brought the UDP
to power), 10 municipal elections (since 1995 in 327 municipalities and no longer
only in the capitals), several provincial elections, an election of representatives to
the Constituent Assembly, several referendums and mandate recalls, and finally,
election of judicial authorities.
This election marathon gives a first impression of a very high level of institu-
tionalism, which is essential for democracy. However, when we consider elections
as a means to designate representative authorities and achieve political stability
based on the legitimacy granted by the vote, a first look is only relative. It also
displays a number of weaknesses, attributable both to State institutions and also
to society itself.
[ 185 ]
There is notable political instability in the municipalities and in the provinces

and even at the national level; although the authorities have been chosen, we cannot
hide the fact that the democratic institutions in Bolivia are fragile. Lack of respect
for the terms of mandates for elected officials is an example of this fragility regard-
ing the State authorities, as well as the political parties and social organizations.
The reasons are many, and range from a lack of respect for political pluralism,
to cronyism in the political and social organizations, to political practices that value
the elections themselves, but not necessarily their results.
This institutional weakness originates, and is also expressed, in the weakness
of political parties. The three decades of uninterrupted democracy have had little
or no effect on the party system that, at least in terms of classical theory, should be
the basis of a representative democracy. Beyond the ideological differences among
the major political parties, most of them are characterized by a single leader, and by
being short-lived. Examples abound: Nationalist Democratic Action (ADN) was
born and died with its founder Hugo Banzer; Homeland Consciousness (Condepa)
experienced the same fate with Carlos Palenque and the Civic Solidarity Union
(UCS) with Max Fernandez.
In comparison, the life of the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR)
was more institutional. The party and its leaders survived longer than 50 years,
although their significance is relatively unimportant. MIR can be considered
another survivor. Born out of resistance to the dictatorship of the 1970s, it sur-
vives to this day, after being overtaken by several fast moving political currents
and parties.
The most successful political party in recent years is the Movement Towards
Socialism (MAS), which defines itself as an instrument for the advancement of
social movements rather than a traditional political party. This coca growers’ move-
ment began in defense of the coca leaf but evolved into an anti-imperialist force that
took on western and agricultural unions. It became convinced of the need for social
organizations to enter the political struggle with their own organizations, and under
former leftist leaders, who abandoned worker organizations to become militants
for the indigenous people. These people created a powerful political movement
that shook, even destroyed, the previous system of traditional political parties.
The 1997 national elections saw MAS enter Parliament and in the following
[ 186 ]
2002 elections it became the second most powerful party. The economic and
political crisis over the following years continued to strengthen the party, with it
playing a key role in the downfall of President Sánchez de Lozada and his succes-
sor, Carlos Mesa.
The presidential elections in December 2005 gave MAS an unprecedented
54% of the vote and thus the possibility of governing with a comfortable majority –
something that none of its predecessors had enjoyed since the return of democracy.
With this majority and a new Political Constitution in place, MAS finally was
able to take part in the presidential elections in December 2009. This consolidated
the party as a leading force with 64% of the votes, and two-thirds of Congress.
The rise and dominance of MAS ended the long crisis of the so-called tradi-
tional parties, but also weakened democracy because it was left without the checks
and balances necessary to avoid excessive concentration of power in the Executive.
The current balance of power democratically expresses the will of the majority
of citizens, but at the same time, shows that we are still far from a multi-party
democracy that helps to perpetuate ideological debate and choice between different
visions and proposals for the country.
In this situation of shadow and light, the National Electoral Court has a signifi-
cant role, specifically the Plurinational Electoral Organ, as it has been called since
2010. This body is recognized as guardian of the new State political Constitution.
It is also one of the branches of government that, in the 1990s, experienced a deep
institutional crisis. Its top officials became notorious as the ‘Gang of Four’ due to
electoral manipulation that resulted in loss of legitimacy, not only for the Electoral
Court, but the elections themselves. This crisis was resolved in 1999 with the
appointment of respected, well-known personalities in the country, independent
of the State and political parties.
This change restored the reliability and reputation of the electoral body and
marked a major step forward in building democratic institutions that, to date,
have survived, despite the change of government and problems in various electoral
processes in recent years. But still it would be naive to believe that such progress
is both definitive and irreversible. Also, it exists the risk that the Executive will
strengthen its control over the electoral body and thereby remove the independence
demanded by the citizens.
[ 187 ]
Institutionalization of Social Participation Mechanisms
Bolivia is a country rich in social organization and participation experience, espe-

cially in rural areas. The persistence of indigenous traditions and the reduced
presence of the State are factors that contribute to the validity and importance of
these rural organizations.
This fact gained critical recognition in the 1990s, during Sánchez de Lozada’s
first term. In addition to a series of economic adjustments due to the ‘capitalization’
of State enterprises, a broad program of reforms was launched that leaned toward
modernization. The notable part of this process was the Popular Participation Law
(1994) which, interestingly, was aimed precisely at these traditional organizations
in order to promote State decentralization, through the creation of 327 munici-
palities across the country.
The uniqueness of this process was not only in the magnitude of the public
resources channeled to the municipal governments (with 20% of revenues from the
national Treasury, this was well above what was the norm in other countries) but
also in the new and significant design of a powerful social participation model, in
which local investment and control over it was defined. The Popular Participation
Law itself defined the OTBs as the representatives of social participation, as well
as many established, representative regional and traditional social organizations.
Examples are farming unions, also known as ayllus among the indigenous Andean
people; captaincy (leadership) of central lowland indigenous communities and
neighborhood councils in the cities and larger towns.
The rural experience of Popular Participation was very different to that of
the cities. In the countryside, the Popular Participation Law was much more
important and successful because the social organizations retained their validity
and legitimacy. They were thus able to successfully absorb and exercise new duties
and rights assigned by law.
In the cities, the law was more problematic and less successful because the
neighborhood councils did not have the representation required. While the farmers’
and indigenous peoples’ organizations were strengthened and empowered through
this process, gaining more weight in local elections and in public office, the neigh-
borhood councils became entangled in fights for their increasingly client-focused
[ 188 ]
policies and practices, upwards (against municipal authorities) or downward (in

relation to their ‘bases’).
Even with these differences and difficulties, undoubtedly Popular Participation
was an extraordinary step forward, compared to the possibilities of participation
that had previously existed in the country, and even in comparison with what
has been done in other countries that are going through the process of decentral-
ization and democratic transition. Thanks to the wide recognition that Popular
Participation achieved in a few years, it could not be reversed by Hugo Banzer’s
administration (1997–2001).
Popular Participation, as part of the democratic system of the country, has
survived for sixteen years. However, it has been transformed and even suffered
a relative loss of importance. In the rural areas it is no longer as attractive as it
once was. But at the same time, its fading popularity is also due to the fact that
social organizations have gradually politicized with the emergence and the grow-
ing strength of MAS. The lack of a political culture of respect for diversity and
for minorities, and the prevalence of corporate principles within organizations,
inevitably led to a growing conflict in the municipalities and provinces, and even
at national level.
It can be seen as a paradox that empowerment by means of Popular Participa-
tion was a key factor in the emergence of, and subsequent dominance of, MAS. But,
at the same time, it has led to a concentration of power in the central government
that restricts options for social participation. The situation is further complicated
by the MAS policy of ‘rule alongside the social organizations’. Which can be the
starting point of another paradox: politicization of the social organization weakens
it and it loses authority, as the leaders work more (even become officials) within
the central State power.
This politicization of rural social organizations was not as new as it seemed
to be at first glance. It has been part of the political makeup of the political party
that led the National Revolution, and during the military-peasant pact during
the Barriento dictatorship of the 1960s. But urban social organizations, clustered
around the COB, experienced first-hand the politicization process. This occurred
when they replaced the political parties in the struggles against dictatorship and
for democracy, but then they did not have the capacity to adapt to the rules and
[ 189 ]
conditions of democracy when they were the leaders of the political crisis during
the UDP government (1982–1985). We do not intend to make simple analogies,
but the lessons of history must be taken into account (“so that history does not
repeat itself as farce” as Karl Marx said).
This reflection is not intended to detract from or underestimate the importance
of citizen participation. It is an essential part of the democratization process that
goes beyond the mere exercise of voting, especially in a country like Bolivia where
the representativeness of political parties is weak. Thus, the challenge is to find an
appropriate balance between forms of representative and direct democracy. Both
must be complimentary and institutionalized in order to avoid imposing a stronger
power rather than a democratic consensus across sectors and visions.
Citizenship
Marlene Choque Aldana29
Civic Culture 30 Years after the return of Democracy
Achieving thirty years of democracy in Bolivia is a good opportunity to examine just

who we are since Hernán Siles took office in October 1982. It is an opportunity to
remember. Since history does not have a chronological limit, in which things happen
one after another, memory allows us to relive different events simultaneously.
We can evoke the absurdity of the coups, and the sentencing of Garcia Meza,
the March for Life and the war over tin, the black Octobers, the ‘Water War’,
January 11, September 11, and January 22; places like Huanchaca, Villa Tunari,
Pananti, Maragua, Chaparina, Amayapampa, or Abdon Saavedra Street, the
indigenous peoples march of 1990, the autonomy councils. We can evoke names
like Lechín, Flores, Barrios de Chungara, Picachuri, Vildoso, Banzer, Sánchez
de Lozada, Palenque or Mesa. We can remember hyperinflation and the nation-
alization of hydrocarbons; the image of Dr. Siles announcing his hunger strike,
29 Marlene Choque is a sociologist and social communicator
[ 190 ]
Evo Morales enacting the Constitution or Victor Paz stating, “Bolivia is dying”.
The angel of history continues to be dragged forward by the forces of progress (or
as others prefer: by the forces of the process). So we must recognize those who
contributed to making the path on which Bolivians are now walking now. We
continue in their footsteps. From this perspective, one of the irrefutable truths of
October is that 30 years is an achievement for Bolivians (President Hernán Siles
hinted at the precariousness of democracy by using the expression “democratic
juncture”). Against the odds, we became acclimated to the normal electoral pro-
cesses and civil government, the parliamentary and media debates; elements which
are achievements themselves.
Although the stigma of political instability earned by our chaotic politics has
not been completely dispelled, we are in the longest period of elected government
in our history. Between 1982 and 2012 we had the same number of administrative
changes as in that compressed transitional period between 1978 and 1982. Several
factors converge in this achievement. We will not examine them in detail. We
will not take into account the strategic-rational explanation, in which democracy
would have been convenient (over other ‘available’ options) for potential strategic
partners, nor appeal to structural factors of the policy (or of the economy). The
institutions (political structure) have changed in the past 30 years. This probably
does not guarantee adequate distribution of power considering our differences and
inequalities, but the parties were very successful at times when we were trapped
in paradoxes (or ‘on the brink’) as they always found solutions recognized as con-
stitutional. And even the delegitimized political organizations met the ‘minimum
requirements’ and so did not irreversibly affect democracy. Beyond strategies and
institutions, it’s necessary to examine the political culture. The so-called culture
of citizenship is recognized as an unavoidable factor of stability. We will briefly
cover it as it is appropriate to make a detour through one of the fundamental
characteristics of democracy.
Civic Culture and Participation
One of the characteristics of democracy is the need for change. We cannot have an
‘eternal’ definition of democracy because it could be used to justify non-democratic
[ 191 ]
regimes. Beyond the principle of popular sovereignty (which in many regimes

is subordinate to effective liberal principles of individual rights) or some ad hoc
adjectives, we cannot definitively define democracy.
During the past 30 years, changes have affected the structure of the State. The
Law of Municipalities restored municipal autonomy in 1985, while the Popular Par-
ticipation Law municipalized the country. The current Constitution establishes four
levels of autonomy. Also changed is the relationship between representatives and voters
(since 1997 there have been single-member constituency councils), the political orga-
nizations (since 2004 the parties do not have a monopoly on political management),
the gender quota (there is a direct, participatory and communal democracy). We went
from problems associated with agreed democracy (the practical exclusion of ‘others’ or
the symbolic incorporation, the conversion of ‘policy matters’ into the political domain)
to an option, still under construction, which should be able to overcome exclusions (of
women, indigenous people, and religions). Intercultural democracy was proposed in
regards to the current electoral laws, precisely aimed at harmonizing diverse practices
(recognized as democratic or not) of the political communities in the country.
This characteristic is linked to the idea of civic culture. Civic culture (we use the
expression ‘civic culture’ because it is more common in other languages) is associated with
the prevalence of biases and democratic conditions for political participation (attitudes,
opinions, values, orientations) which contribute to strengthening the democracy, if the
relationship with undemocratic attitudes or values is stable and ‘tamed’ by democracy. In
other words, democracy must coexist with undemocratic values and any consideration
of ‘civic culture’ must consider the possible existence of a ‘non-civic culture’.
Civic culture is key to the external valuations made of our democracy. For exam-
ple, the latest report from the Economist Intelligence Unit rates Bolivia a 5.84 out of
10 on its Democracy Index. This, explains the ranking, is due to the hybrid regime in
place, which is not a democracy. The factor that accounts for this low score is political
culture (3.75)30.
30 Other indexes evaluate Bolivia differently. The Polity IV Project (2010 ) describes the Bolivian regime
as democratic, with a score of 7 out of 10. Freedom House states that Bolivia is “partly free”. Unified
Democracy Score, made by MIT (combining data from Polity IV , Freedom House and a group of
authors known as PACL) presents information of Bolivia since 1946; in 1982 the democratic average
was 0.51; in 2008 was 0.56 out of 10.
[ 192 ]
It is not advisable to subscribe to these observations without examining some

basic factors of Bolivian politics from other points of view. Several authors recog-
nize that Bolivia’s politics have developed in two sectors that can overwhelm each
other: the institutional politics and the ‘street politics’. Thus, we refer to two forms
of political participation: voter turnout and participation in protests. Political
participation is often defined as activities undertaken by citizens to influence the
government’s decision-making in policy design or selection of those responding
to the policies (Huntington and Nelson, 1976 and Verba, Schlozman and Brady,
1995). Along with voting and protesting, other forms of participation are lobby-
ing and campaigning for political organizations (Miller, 2002) which we won’t
examine in this text.
Voter turnout reveals the citizens’ liking for institutionalism. Simultaneously
it expresses the will of the voters and also support for the rules of the game. Apart
from countries with compulsory voting, Bolivia has one of the highest percentages
of participating electorates on the continent.
In 2005, there was a new increase in participation after the electoral roll was
refined and implemented. In any case, public support was unquestionable. After
eight rounds of voting – a significant number – the probable disenchantment with
politicians has not translated into disenchantment with democracy.
Regarding institutional policy, it is generally accepted that the public’s con-
fidence in institutions (their legitimacy) contributes to the stability of democracy
(the causal connection is not always explicit but may affirm that the more confi-
dence there is in institutions, the more confidence is displayed in the democracy).
Surveys conducted since 1998, as part of the Americas Barometer of the Latin
America Project on Public Opinion (LAPOP), show that political parties are the
least trusted institutions among citizens.
Additionally, decreases in the trust in, and reputations of, several institutions
were noted during the years of political crisis (2000, 2004), and significant increases
from 2006. This coincides with openness and favorable expectations regarding the
political process led by President Morales. The decrease between 2010 and 2012
is also important: general decrease in satisfaction with democracy is observed.
In fact, Bolivia is the Latin American country where support for democracy has
dropped more than anywhere else between those two years (8.5%, second, only
[ 193 ]
after Honduras with 9.55%).

Political tolerance also decreased during the last period. Surveys revealed
that Bolivia was among the Latin American countries with less tolerance
(respect for the rights of those who think differently than oneself ). Although
in 2012 it was not among the three least tolerant countries, as in previous
years, Bolivia’s score of 44.4 out of 100 on the tolerance index was far removed
from the 72.6 of the United States, but not too distant from Honduras’s rate
of 36.6 (Schwarz-Blum, 2012)31.
When thinking about the politics of the ‘other’, Bolivians often say
that we constitute the most mobilized society on the continent; that we are
the most accustomed to participating in protests. With the exception of
2010 (the inaugural year of the plurinational State and the end of the deep
political polarization that framed the constitutional process) surveys of the
LAPOP found that the proportion of people participating in protests was
the largest in Latin America (17.7% in 2012, more than 11.4% in 2010 but
less than the 29.3% registered in 2008).
If protests were quantified (without considering the differences in mag-
nitude) over the past 30 years, we would see a period of “agreed democracy”,
especially during Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada’s first administration. It was
a period with less agitation than the whole of the democratic period. His-
torical social forces (the workers and peasant, as well as others who fought
for democracy) had become obsolete and the new (which were created with
democratization) have not yet been entrenched.
Since the miners marched in 1986, and the sacrifice of principles during
the 1990s, the protests have become more demanding and dramatic (for
instance tapiarse or literally barricading oneself into a room with mortared
bricks, burying oneself, sewing one’s lips together, and messages written in
blood) and are pervasive throughout all sectors of society. Today’s social move-
ments are by-products of democracy, and an opportunity for organizations
31 The high or low level of democratic tolerance and high or low support to the system are used to build
a typology comprising: stable democracy, authoritarian stability, unstable democracy and democracy
at risk.
[ 194 ]
under democracy, as well as the inability within a democracy to recognize

issues and process demands. They are also related to the current process of
revitalization and to the principle of popular sovereignty.
Conclusion
It is not possible to further examine civic culture within the limits of brevity
for this text. However, it is pertinent to reaffirm certain findings. The three
decades are a triumph for the Bolivian people (who are not the same people
of 1982). The electoral support for democracy has not decreased, and that
mitigates risk for a democracy riddled with exclusions. We remain a partic-
ipatory society, which raises requirements for any government, and avoids
possible manipulation of the people.
But this does not guarantee stability, growth or democratization of democ-
racy; values such as tolerance are not yet part of the core of politics. But
moreover, in recent years, tolerance of Bolivian democracy has decreased.
Nonetheless, 30 years is not a point of arrival. But it is a point on the way
to reaffirming our collective commitment to further deepen the country’s
democracy and continue to build a more inclusive society.
Sources
Huntington, Samuel and Nelson, J. M. (1976), “No Easy Choice”, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Ma, USA.
Miller, W. L. (2002), “Political participation and voting behavior”, in: M.
Hawkesworth y P. Kogan (comps.), “Encyclopedia of Government and Politics”,
Routledge, London, England.
Schwarz-Blum, Vivian (2012), “Legitimidad política y tolerancia en Bolivia”,
in: D. Moreno (comp.), “Cultura política de la democracia en Bolivia y en las
Américas”, LAPOP-Ciudadanía, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, K. L. and Brady, H. E. (1995), “Voice and Equal-
ity”, Harvard University Press Cambridge, Ma, USA.
[ 195 ]
The Mass Media

Isabel Mercado32
From Political Crisis to Media Crisis
Over 50 years ago, we thought about and discussed the power of the media. For
many, it represents a fourth power, or an additional power, to the three traditional
powers of a liberal state, with a function defined by facts. I myself prefer to view
the media as a counterforce, a specific weight (the other side of a scale) which
provides a balance in society.
A democracy, full and free, is unthinkable without the media exercising free-
dom of expression as an essential condition for human beings. And in this context,
the media acts within its excess, success and roles in society as a response to the
excess, success and roles of formal powers.
Therefore, thinking in opposites – right or wrong – in this field seems inap-
propriate. The media are part of democracy and represent the society from which
they emerge and for which they act. If they act rightly or wrongly is a matter of
approach, of subjective views that have more to do with what we want than what
we have. The media are what they are, and democracy is better with them than
without them or with them silenced, self-censored or manipulated.
To try to track its presence over the past 30 years is both too much and too
little. We have walked the road of a democracy under construction (it’s always
under construction) with its contradictions, weaknesses, progress, and challenges,
all of which are also a reflected in the media. How do you assess or evaluate the
role played by the media in Bolivia during the most meaningful period of the
Republic’s democratic life?
There is no one, irrefutable answer to this question, as with any diagnosis of
political journalism. What is not debatable is that the media will play a major role
in Bolivia’s future democratic process, in the political debates, and among leading
political players. There is no doubt: we live in times of a media-driven democracy.
32 Isabel Mercado is a journalist
[ 196 ]
A statement like this is obvious if, as Italian political scientist Giovanni Sar-
tori (2003) says, the media and politics are two sides of the same coin. Therefore,
analyzing the role of the media in Bolivia’s democracy is challenging. Either we
accept that the media and what they publish is what we deserve as a reflection of
the accumulation of successes and failures within the democracy itself, or, on the
contrary, we condemn them as confrontational, lawless outsiders to our society.
Use and/or Abuse of the Media within Democracy
José Luis Exeni (2005) argues that we are either a ‘media-phile’ or a ‘media-phobe’.
That is, we either read the news and recent history believing the media have an
unhealthy power over politics, or we do so from a perspective that highlights the
benefits of this relationship.
The history of Bolivia’s journalism is rich with examples and experiences of
how much influence the media has, especially radio and the press, in the struggle
against the oppression of the dictatorships and the victory of democracy. From
the heroic role of the miners’ radio stations, to the militancy of print media in
democracy’s defense, the media has played a crucial role.
From a ‘media-phile’ point of view, this role of the media in politics arose
from the emergence of independent, privately-owned television stations. These
reconfigured the national media scene and increased the media’s variety and reach
and, therefore, increased access to information for broad sectors of the population.
It also accompanied the boom in information technology and the appearance of
the so called homo videns (Sartori, 1997).
Despite regulatory restrictions since the start of the 1960s, there have been
several private television stations since the early 1980s, which expanded the options
for audiences previously subjected to a single option (the State broadcaster). This
phenomenon of diversification resulted in the emergence of a multiplicity of polit-
ical positions in the media, which tested the oft-cited freedom of expression. Note
that the attempt to shut down Popular Radio and Television (RTP) during Paz
Estenssoro’s last term had disastrous results and met with resounding popular
rejection. This set the precedent that government cannot, nor should, limit media
freedom.
[ 197 ]
In short, through the media, it became possible in Bolivia not only to restore
democracy but to herald the advent of ‘modernity’, expressed in the ability to
choose from many options, the democratization of media and access to it.
Let’s take a look at the other side of the coin. The ‘media-phobe’ warns
that once democracy is achieved, the media will lose the moral compass of social
commitment, and, with the advent of commercial television, jump to defend the
interests of business.
In the late 1980s, the media grew enormously in relation to previous years of
the restoration of democracy. Numerous television stations launched in response
to business and market opportunities, as expected. It was clear that there were also
business media interests that allied themselves closely with those in power, in order
to benefit from the relationship.
In this context, and as per many situations faced within the democratic pro-
cess, the country saw an on-going struggle between media power and political
power. This tussle, which almost completely ignored those outside the media’s
reach, also left many doubts about the quality and accuracy of the disseminated
information.
Sartori (2003) said that, “democracy does not require a wise and educated
public, but people adequately informed; people who have some idea of what is
happening,” and at this level the media played an important role in Bolivia by
both reporting, and under-reporting. This resulted in a multiplicity of options,
but often without the responsibility that should come with the understanding that
information is a public commodity.
The media’s engagement in the reporting process means it is also involved
in the formation of public opinion, said Satori, and is the entity responsible for
disseminating the views of the people on matters pertaining to the State, the public
interest, the common good and collective social issues. The media must be com-
mitted to the citizens in a democracy but in this has not been entirely satisfactory.
During these years of democracy, it is clear that the country has become
multicultural, judging by the quantity of media, and the freedom with which they
work. However, the media operates under a set of limitations and shortcomings,
both intentional and circumstantial, that undermine its performance and pollute
its credibility.
[ 198 ]
High and Low Points in Journalism
In October 1982, when the country regained democracy, amid the hubbub few
people were aware that the country was dying an historic death, not only econom-
ically and politically, but culturally. The era of globalization had begun.
Between 1984 and 1985, the first private television media outlets began
to appear. The legal State television monopoly made little difference. Illimani
Communications started up with Raul Garáfulic at its helm, plus Bolivian Tele-
system under Carlos Cardona. Almost a year later, Victor Paz Estenssoro issued the
famous 21060 Decree, which buried an era of state-directed economics, politics,
and information. Thus began democratic liberalism and its media: the reign of
McLuhan’s global village.
Apparently this new reality was not fully understood or accepted by Paz Estens-
soro’s government. The attempt to close RTP, media excesses, and the resolution
of the problem were, apparently, the pattern of what was to come.
Soon, new TV channels and radio stations started to spread. It was then that
the free market came into play. The struggle for information was becoming more
frenzied. Newspapers chased the news, and not only competed with each other,
but also with the television news that beat them to the scoop. But where the com-
petition really became a relentless struggle was on the small screen: where the news
channels became real-life cannibals. They devoured the news, people, dignitaries,
politicians, rulers, truths and lies. Nothing would stop them.
The first ‘March for Territory and Dignity’ in 1990 was a great event. Each
medium wanted to show its audience their skill and seduce them with firsthand
headline news. The mightiest covered the entire march.
Meanwhile, the media began to uncover the new political actors and Evo
Morales appeared as a captivating news subject, especially given his irreverent
attitude towards power. Then, suddenly, the trial of Supreme Court judges was
in the news. That of Edgar Oblitas really became a media circus, as would later
be repeated with others with narco-ties, as well. The Bolivian mass media did
not care if the politicians used them, or if it was they who used the politicians.
In the frenzy, just the scoop and creating sensational news capable of selling and
capturing audiences was enough. During those years, the so-called ‘media shark’,
[ 199 ]
Raúl Garáfulic Gutiérrez, said that to be a successful media entrepreneur you had
to have huge ambition in order to be ‘first in the ratings’.
In 1993, the capitalization and privatization of public companies began.
Although Sánchez de Lozada’s government was powerful, Garáfulic faced him
down. The feud between the president and the media entrepreneur was no secret.
Why did they face off? Perhaps because the Ex-president was intolerant of criticism
or because, according to some, the entrepreneur wanted to buy ENTEL and other
companies they wanted to privatize.
Four years later, Carlos Palenque, a popular television guru and owner of
RTP, died of a heart attack. He was a man who knew how to seduce crowds with
persuasive speeches that captured the demands, anxieties and needs of those who
were marginalized. According to some political scientists, he was the person who
in fact controlled the very poor El Alto city “time bomb”. He challenged the
President and had a strong shot at winning, but he could only reach the Andean
regions of Bolivia, not the lowland.
Shortly before his death, his wife, Monica Medina, won the municipal elec-
tions in La Paz. This was a time when many men and women with media back-
grounds dived into the sea of politics: Cristina Corrales, Rodolfo Galvez, Lupe
Andrade, in the first wave. Later came Carlos Mesa, Maria Renee Duchén, and
more recently, Iván Canelas and Ninoska Lazarte, among others.
Under Hugo Banzer’s government, the media tested the limits of their ability
and influence by clearly and directly confronting political power. The scandal that
involved Walter Guiteras, then Minister of the Presidency, and Garáfulic, made it
clear that political power held little sway against a media outlet.
Almost simultaneously came the crisis in Argentina of 2000, and the media
had a lot to say on the subject. What responsibility did the media have in the fall
of De la Rúa? The answer was controversial, but in any case, it clearly showed the
irreverence of the media and the lack of authority and moral crisis of the democratic
governments in Latin America at the time.
During those years, the Cochabamba ‘Water War’ also exploded. Apart from
the various political implications of this event, it was certainly a warning from the
people, who were tired of being ignored by the leaders they had chosen.
The 2002 elections demonstrated what political marketing could do to assure
[ 200 ]
a candidate’s victory. That’s how Sánchez de Lozada won: by foisting an unethical

communications strategy on the populace.
As part of that contest, the media did what had been avoided so far, or at
least they had tried to hide, during all the other campaign terms: they took sides.
PAT sided with Sánchez de Lozada and Carlos Mesa while Red Uno supported
Reyes Villa and Kuljis. Throughout Bolivia’s history of contemporary journalism,
such a situation had surfaced only when La Razón, led by Jorge Canelas, decided
to openly support Ronald MacLean’s candidacy for mayor of Laz Paz in the 1991
municipal elections. In response to that decision, several journalists resigned. There
wasn’t a similar response in the case of the 2002 elections.
In February 2003, a battle between police and soldiers fought at the Plaza
Murillo was broadcast live by television channels. Seven months later they reported
in detail the October crisis and the resignation of Sánchez de Lozada. Were the first
attacks on media and journalists in this period in support of democracy? Doubts
arose that these events were spontaneous, or, perhaps, a response to orders given
by social organizations reluctant to accept critics against the government.
In June 2005, Carlos Mesa’s government also collapsed. How did the media
react? Perhaps this is the only time in the history of Bolivian journalism that a
couple of TV channels were openly anti-democratic, almost subversive. Unitel and
several other media outlets based in Santa Cruz celebrated the events, promoted
violence and thus helped to divide the country.
From January 2006 the story was different. Bolivia saw the emergence of
a new ruling elite that had struggled for power and resisted the influence of the
media. Now the State media was redefining itself, trying timidly to ally itself with
the public during Carlos Mesa’s government. In response to a new scheme for
the government to use the State channel news agency ABI, the radio station Red
Patria Nueva and also the former Radio Illimani, teamed up with other stations
and delivered transmission equipment to social organizations (the so-called native
radio) to amplify their broadcasts.
This was also the period in which the PRISA Media Group in Bolivia was
sold. Upon the death of Spanish media mogul Jesus Polanco, whose worth matched
that of Raul Garáfulic, owner of Bolivia’s most important media group, PRISA
chose to get rid of their loss-making media outlets. First, PRISA sold El Nuevo Día
[ 201 ]
daily, based in Santa Cruz, and then, in a more difficult and discreet negotiation,
sold the ATB television network and the newspaper La Razón, which had been
the country’s most influential paper up to that point (2008).
In 2007, Carlos Mesa and his partners sold PAT to a Santa Cruz businessman
of Lebanese origin. Abdullah Daher was unable to hold on to the channel; after
five years of heavy investment and fruitless management he sold it.
Following a trend that has become the norm in some countries like Argentina,
Ecuador and Venezuela, the State media’s expansion strategy, or ‘commitment’ to
the government’s political project, was growing.
In January 2009, the newspaper Cambio appeared, specifically focusing on
government information that complemented the vision of Bolivia TV, ABI and
Red Patria Nueva.
Despite the difficulties in which the practice of journalism found itself through
confrontations with political power, and as a result of the audience crisis throughout
the world caused by the boom in new technologies and social networks, a new
newspaper, Página Siete, was launched in April 2010. The paper is owned by a
holding company with a principal member, Raúl Garáfulic (Jnr).
Although lagging considerably behind the rest of the world, digital media has
begun to have a presence in our country. All the newspapers publish daily editions
online, and some have specifically installed a digital portal which is updated sev-
eral times a day. Also, seasoning the Bolivian media scene are social networking
sites and, recently Twitter (posting), which has changed the history of politics in
countries like the United States. In Bolivia, without being a massive force, Twitter
has demonstrated its ability to mobilize and to generate debate – debate from
which much of the traditional media has been absent, given its tense relationship
with political power.
The ‘Mother of all Battles’

The shift in media/politics or media/state relations is not only about the
emergence, or strengthening, of State media to neutralize the influence of private
outlets. It is also said to be in a permanent battle with the journalists’ guild. In
addition to several episodes of confrontation and aggression, the Morales govern-
ment has been explicit in showing little sympathy to the press.
[ 202 ]
The enactment of laws against racism, as well as the electoral system, caused
negative reactions from the media because some of their clauses were restrictive
of the information freedom. Journalists took to the streets to express their oppo-
sition and outrage at the contents of both laws. It is expected that the moment
the government tries to repeal the Press Law of 1929 (considered by journalists
as a legacy that guarantees the freedom of expression) it will start what will be
considered the ultimate battle for press freedom.
This also sets up ideal conditions for a tense and acrimonious relationship
between the media and the State.
It is undeniable that the media, in its first 25 years of democracy, acted with
disrespect; press outlets were rebellious, disruptive and overly commercial. Also
they emerged and consolidated during a weak period of the State. So, to evaluate
the media without judging it is necessary to understand, to grasp its essence, its
rhythms, its strengths and its weaknesses. Angry and justified criticism aside, the
media remained a key player in a democracy, not only enabling citizens their right
to information, but also being the site of essential public debate, without which
democracy is diluted.
This situation has changed in the last seven years, with a media system under
pressure from Evo Morales government.
Raul Peñaranda’s book “Remote Control” details this new situation. The
text is the first in-depth study of how the left-wing government of President Evo
Morales has carried out a silent campaign to gain the editorial support of several
TV stations and newspapers through their purchase by business people friendly to
the government33. “Remote Control” also accuses the government of harassing crit-
ical media outlets through advertising boycotts, labor inspections, and tax audits.
“I have never before seen such a well-built strategy by a government to take
over the media,” Rafael Loayza, director of the journalism program at Bolivian
Catholic University in La Paz, said. Still, the effort is strikingly similar to the Ven-
ezuelan and Ecuadorian government’s campaign to force the sale of independent
news outlets in that country to businesses with ties to the administrations.
33 Otis, John, “Journalist investigates Bolivia’s ‘silent campaign’ for editorial control”, CPJ blog entry,
September 2014
[ 203 ]
In Bolivia, “Remote Control” has been especially controversial because the

Morales government has never acknowledged its role in the recent media transac-
tions that include the sales of the television stations ATB, PAT and Full TV and
La Razón daily. No paper trail proving these links has emerged. Instead, Peñaranda
sometimes relied on second-hand accounts when piecing together the puzzle.34
Sources
Exeni, José Luis (2005), “MediaMorfosis: Comunicación política e in/gobern-
abilidad en democracia”, Plural, La Paz, Bolivia.
Peñaranda, Raúl (2014), “Control Remoto”, author’s edition, La Paz, Bolivia.
Sartori, Giovanni (2002), “Homo Videns. La sociedad teledirigida”, Taurus,
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Sartori, Giovanni (2003), “Videopolítica: Medios, información y democracia
de sondeo”, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México City, México.
Culture and Arts

Martín Zelaya Sánchez35
What has changed, and how? If it has, is it the way of thinking and doing art in
Bolivia since October 10, 1982 when democracy was consolidated? How much has
national artistic creation been affected by the advent of the information age, the
ubiquity of the Internet, the endless possibilities opened up by the development
of technology?
When challenged to think about Bolivia’s art and culture in the democratic
era of the past 30 years, we are faced with a barrage of possibilities, areas and
objectives so vast that to draw a brief and complete analytical account of the
time is nearly impossible. We propose a chronological and thematic approach to
the government’s efforts as a framework, and will, in parallel, track the leading
34 Otis, John, op cit

35 Martín Zelaya is a journalist
[ 204 ]
figures in the most common areas of art production and consumption: literature,
film, music and visual arts. The writer Cárdenas Cleverth notes, “The changes
in the form of the state, the technology and the relaxing of censorship certainly
transformed things…The issue is affected by the context in which to react, as for
example during the dictatorship”.
Could it be that 30 years is too short a time to reflect in perspective? Could
it be that enough time has passed to conclude that the modern Bolivian democ-
racy does not mean a particularly inspiring period as a theme, source or object
for artistic creation, as perhaps were other key periods such as the Chaco War (in
excellent books like The Well by Augusto Céspedes, or Barrage of Fire by Óscar
Cerruto, or Bolero Calvary, and another handful of songs) or the dictatorships
and the subsequent exiles?
Chronology
1982–1985
Luis Rico, the songwriter from Tupiza, recounts his story: “I returned from exile in
November of 1982, bringing valuable anthropological, musicological, and ethno-
cultural management experiences from Mexico. I explained a plan to replicate them
in Bolivia to the Vice President (Jaime Paz Zamora) and his response was, ‘to do
something you have to be a member of my political party’”.
“I did not accept that so I went back to the old ways of rebellious music and
my artistic journey since then has helped me to conclude that until 2003, an
complicit and corrupt democracy was developed in Bolivia and nothing changed
for the workers in the arts and culture.” Although for a long time it was almost
impossible to gauge its true effect, the transformation that Bolivia and Bolivians
began experiencing on October 10, 1982, was momentous.
Beyond the extreme economic crisis, hyperinflation and the political instability
which bordered on bizarre (with cash payments and collections loaded into bags, a
President Hernán Siles, now on a hunger strike, who had once been kidnapped…),
Bolivia’s release from the dictatorial regime allowed for fully embracing the post-
modernity that Europe, and the United States had already entered several years
[ 205 ]
ago, and the rest of Latin America had taken to gradually, as they were mostly
victims of identical regimes.
This is to say, from listening to La caraqueña by Nilo Soruco in live guitar
sessions or via clandestine cassettes, the Bolivian youth changed and began to
watch TV video clips of Michael Jackson.
These were difficult years, a time of transition, in which Oswaldo Guayasamín
in Ecuador, and Walter Solon Romero and Miguel Alandia Pantoja in Bolivia
persevered with their murals and paintings, bringing attention to, tracking and
exposing the fragility of the rule of law, and the constant danger of a fatal return
to dictatorship.
It’s time to share Edgar Arandia’s testimony: “I was censored during the Banzer
dictatorship because of a work in which the military were portrayed as wolves …
I imagined the Myrmidons as dwarves with Nazi helmets, riding on rabid dogs.
The drawing was the most effective weapon of expression, it was like a poem in
your face; it was urgent; a crisis.”
There is no comparison with what is happening now. So many artists, just
trying to get attention, who publish scandalous little works, but without content,
just to grab attention. It is the shortest way to the ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ that
Andy Warhol foretold.
1985–1989
The filmmaker Marcos Loayza reflects, “In general, there were never State policies
for culture. The Finance Ministers have always been the least appreciative and
always cut the budget, as if they were blind, couldn’t see. For example, Rome is
one of the most visited cities in the world, and receives most foreign currency for
its architecture, its sculptures, but not for the political speeches left behind by the
emperors of the Roman Empire.
After gaining democracy things did not change much, although freedom and
free will always allow society to flourish”. Especially since the crucial 21060 Decree
which radically changed the political-economic matrix of the country, Victor Paz
Estenssoro last government must be understood as a watershed.
Artistically, after years of fear, Bolivians remembered to laugh. Peter Travesi
[ 206 ]
and Dennis Lacunza introduced the café-concert to the performing arts scene, via
Tralala (a comedy show). It not only latched on to political satire (shortly before,
this could lead to arrest or exile, if not torture or death) but was the precursor of
variety theater, up until that time non-existent.
Moreover, this was a key period for protest songs from Luis Rico, Savia Nueva
(the memorable, The Miners Will Return…) and other singers who realized that
their social role was to accompany the people through difficult times of shortages
and instability while we were entering the cut-throat world of neoliberalism.
During these years major works also emerged in different areas, proof that free-
dom loosened the wings of creativity. In 1987, author Wolfango Montes published
Jonah and the Pink Whale, an innovative novel that portrayed the rise of the Santa
Cruz metropolis, drug trafficking as a social phenomenon and the consolidation
of the dominant new social and regional elites.
In 1989, Bolivian film director and screenwriter Jorge Sanjinés released The Clan-
destine Nation, a masterwork that ranged over the still-fresh memory of the dictatorships,
but led inexorably into ongoing rural-urban migration, and the rootlessness that marked
this transition from provincial Bolivia to the urban Bolivia of many cities.
This chapter closes with a key event for the entire planet: the fall of the Berlin
Wall. It was an unmistakable symbol of the beginning of the globalization that
sealed the intercultural fate of the world at the end of the 20th century.
1989–1993
Arandia says, “For many years democracy was weak, co-opted by the elites. And the
cultural world was only a reproduction of Western values with no local contribution.
That is, as John Acha, says, ‘The great powers engulfed the third world countries.’”
Under the Presidency of Jaime Paz Zamora, an essential element of Bolivi-
an-Andean culture was first rescued and vindicated before the world: the coca leaf
and coca leaf chewing.
Thereafter, several new concepts and visions of a more inclusive society and
culture began to take shape, with the help of reflection upon, in 1992, the com-
memoration of the 500th anniversary of the ‘union of two worlds’. Once we had
definitely passed the stage of de facto governments, art was finally detached from
[ 207 ]
constraints and restraints.

“Social and political commitment? Really,” story-teller Manuel Vargas says,
“these are terms already with a moldy smell. Or let’s say simplistic. One cannot
fail to compromise, but with oneself, with one’s own works. And the political and
social comes in addition, because we live in this world.
1993–1997
“We sense that freedom, technology, the political processes, national and interna-
tional cultural contexts, the increasing migration must have influenced literature,
the arts… in its themes and aesthetics,” Cardenas said in June 2009, when he and
other scholars began researching Literature and democracy (1983–2009).
“Probably finding new expression, according to these times – that is something
that characterizes the emerging writers,” he added.
The iconic ‘hand of capitalization’ –imposed by Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada’s
administration, and the Popular Participation gave rise to decentralization (1994),
individualism and existentialism, as well as embracing of contemporary interna-
tional trends (the consumer society), and all of which changed the direction of
the themes and motivations of the artistic creators.
The renewal in creativity manifested between 1995–1996 with the so-called
national film boom and movies like Question of Faith, Jonah and the Pink Whale
and To Receive the Birdsong. The first two films broke the unspoken and almost
unbreakable rule: that films should reflect a commitment to the social and political
resistance.
Another example is the organizing in 1996 of the first International Book Fair
of La Paz; still today it remains the most important literary event in the country
and is an excellent opportunity (previously non-existent) to showcase national
titles and authors to the world.
1997–2001
According to the novelist Ramón Rocha Monroy, “The youth who grew up under
democracy explore new issues within the information society; the Internet and
[ 208 ]
the digital technologies … sharing a primarily acidic literature, disillusioned and

common of a globalized humanity whose problems at times are the same here as
in Korea, or Belarus.
“We found that in a democracy there are vital eternal issues: love, death, life,
pleasure, eroticism, humor… the tenderness of everyday life…”.
Along with the consolidation of Internet services in Bolivia, and mobile cell
phones (and the resulting influences on the daily lives of the new generation) the
planet witnessed a crucial, historic, event that for many theorists marked a change
in eras; as had happened after the fall of the Roman Empire, and the Industrial
Revolution: the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001.
At home, meanwhile, amid the debate provoked by the democratic election
of the former dictator Hugo Banzer, new international artistic and cultural offer-
ings were generated. An example is the cementing of the international reputation
of Edmundo Paz Soldán, one of Bolivia’s best known contemporary writers, and
the face of a literary movement that rejects the long and sometimes pernicious
tradition of social and political literature in Bolivia.
Another example is the creation of the International Theater Festival of La Paz
(FITAZ) which was able to quickly position itself as a major theater in the region
and enabled, for years later, the flowering of new Bolivian dramas, and the dream
of professionalization of theater to become increasingly a reality.
2001–2005
For Manuel Vargas, “all the old days were better. Now, I feel a little out of place,
more out of place than usual, because the fashions and the universalism and literary
trade harass us more than before. I have to fulfill my role as an elder in defense of
what I made my living of, and I will die happy and at ease.”
Perhaps this nostalgic-iconic reflection is appropriate to describe this period.
Bolivia was once again, in transition; this time there was a new way of understand-
ing and conceiving democracy.
The ‘Gas War’, a social phenomenon that marked, politically speaking, the
beginning of a new century in Bolivia does not even have a book, a movie or a
song attributed to it (except the novel Black October, by Adolfo Cáceres Romero.)
[ 209 ]
However, the new ways of interpreting such an event, and other symbols of rebel-
lion, also gave rise to developments in other areas of aesthetic creation.
Shortly before, but within this context, Bolivia’s visual arts finally arrived in the
third millennium. The organization of the first International Art Room (SIART)
showed that technology and the new trends are increasingly determinants: video
installations, digital art, hybrid techniques, mixed performances, and so on.
And one must not forget to mention the launch of an International Cartoon
Festival, ‘Cartoons in the Altitude’. The first exhibition in 2002 marked not only
the opening up of a once marginalized and even censored field, but also the democ-
ratization of new arenas, offering great opportunities for craft workers at various
levels and as full members of an economically active population.
But among so many leaps forward, we also need to note acknowledgement of
our heritage in 2001 and 2003, when UNESCO declared the historical ‘Carnival
of Oruro’ and the Kallawaya world view, respectively, as Masterpieces of the Oral
and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. This vital recognition was a vindication of
Bolivia’s native and ancestral cultural wealth.
2006–2012
Luis Rico admits, “From my particular point of view, as an anti-political member,

party leftist, and somewhat anarchist, I think since 2006 we are living a partici-
patory democracy in which the actors are in the streets, at the vigils, blocking the
roads, marching and demanding their rights, while we are looking how to protect
the breast that fed us for 500 years, the natural resources, Mother Earth.”
Of note in this period are the concerts of Inti Illimani and Piero, the masterful
speeches from Eduardo Galeano in the San Francisco Plaza on January 22, 2006
(the same day as President Morales’s inauguration) and the boom, the past two
years, of international concerts of world class musicians. Inaugurated in 2012 is the
Eduardo Abaroa Plurinational Award that will annually recognize the best cultural
and artistic productions in several fields and there is much more.
Both apologists and detractors of the ‘process of change’ have to admit that
opportunities have multiplied: the political-economic situation heralded the arrival
of world renowned intellectuals interested in our current affairs (Antonio Negri,
[ 210 ]
Michael Hardt, Ernesto Cardenal, Slavok Zizeck, Boaventura Souza). And more
than ever, creativity has flourished in different genres: folklore, indigenous art,
textiles have being shown in countless summits and international meetings.
And to top it all, digital democratization has given way to a wave, of ambig-
uous value, of audiovisual productions. These are so easy and cheap to produce
that while many a good filmmaker now has great tools, a few mediocre to bad
filmmakers should save their efforts and save the viewer valuable minutes!
Conclusion
These 30 years of democracy have coincided with the introduction of new tech-
nologies, and therefore, the expansion of new possibilities, channels, means and
resources used by some individual creators. They are not yet available throughout
the community, the country, the state, and the community.
Any isolated progress, no matter how great and promising, will not help to
strengthen or create a solid mechanism to inspire similar initiatives.
We have to give credit to great achievements, such as the international recog-
nition of writers, filmmakers, painters, songwriters … the growing tourist appre-
ciation of our natural and cultural wealth, or the appreciation of the indigenous
worldview. So, more than ever, in times like this in which taking immediate action
is essential, I urge us to once and for all take measures to ensure there is a basis for
the encouragement and advancement of Bolivian arts and culture.
Whether it comes from institutions or legislation, how do we expect more
achievements in literature, or in cinema, without even a basic legal framework?
How do we ensure the preservation and advancement of our rich historical and
cultural heritage without appropriate laws?
The doors of culture, as we have seen, opened as never before during the past
30 years, but we are still missing the final and decisive push for Bolivian arts and
culture to step forward with both feet into the twenty-first century.
Sources
Huyssen, Andreas (1989), “Guía del Postmodernismo”, in: “El DebateMod-
ernidad/Posmodernidad”, Puntosur, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
[ 211 ]
Zelaya, Martín (2007), “El paso de la literatura por la dictadura boliviana”

article published in Fondo Negro literature section, La Prensa daily, La Paz, Bolivia.
Zelaya, Martín (2009), “Especialistas rastrean la influencia de la democracia
en la literatura boliviana” article published in Fondo Negro literature section, La
Prensa daily, La Paz, Bolivia.
[ 212 ]
About the editor
Raul Peñaranda (1966) is a Bolivian journalist and

author. He is currently the editor of Aldea Global (Global
Village), a weekly supplement about international affairs,
distributed by the Página Siete newspaper.
The author of a 2014 book, “Remote Control:
How Evo Morales’ Government Created a Network of
Para-Governmental Media and a Plan to Harass the Inde-
pendent Press”, has authored or co-authored other nine
books on media and politics. Many of these are being
used as textbooks in Bolivian universities.
Peñaranda was founding director of three newspa-
pers: Nueva Economía (1993), La Época (2001) and
Página Siete (2010), now one of the most important
newspapers in Bolivia. He left the latter position in
August 2013.
He received Harvard University’s Nieman Fellow-
ship in 2008. During his academic year at Harvard, he
focused on issues related to development, democracy and
political conflict.
Peñaranda has received the United Nations’ Eliz-
abeth Neuffer Medal (presented by General Secretary
Ban Ki -moon); the Latin American Studies Association
Media Award, in Chicago; the Universidad San Fran-
cisco de Asis’ and the Association of Journalists of La
Paz’ Defense of Freedom of Expression Awards and the
Franz Tamayo Intellectual Merit medal conferred in the
presence of the President of the Republic.
Morales’s rise to power meant a significant change for Bolivia, in
that it ended almost two centuries of republican rule in which the
participation of the indigenous people was limited and inconsis-
tent. For a start, there had never been a Head of State who was (or
would have declared him or herself ) an indigenous person. The
symbolic power of this has been enormous, and it has enriched
Bolivia’s democracy. There has also been a positive and encoura-
ging change in the political elite that has helped to promote social
mobility and the inclusion of big sectors of Bolivian society that
had in the past generally been excluded from decision-making.
But also, under the presidency of Evo Morales, the Bolivian State
continues to be unable to enforce the rule of law with full sepa-
ration of powers, protect the freedom of the press, and ensure a
free and independent judiciary. On the contrary, some of the un-
democratic traits of the Bolivian State are now stronger, showing
frightening signs of authoritarian and abusive behavior.
www.paginasiete.bo

3 Decades of Bolivian History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Decades of Bolivian History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Decades of Bolivian History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Military Dictatorships

to Evo Morales Populism

Raúl Peñaranda, editor and coordinator

Raúl Peñaranda, editor and coordinator

All rights reserved

From Military Dictatorships to Evo Morales populism,

Raúl Peñaranda, editor, coordinator

Special thanks to Alan Shave

Chapter 1: From Military Governments to Evo Morales years 5

Chapter 2: The pendulum of public versus private ownership and the

Chapter 3: The perennial political stability-instability

Chapter 4: Paradoxical revolution, evaluating the Evo Morales

Chapter 5: Bolivia: A Democracy in Dynamic Development, a

Chapter 6: Perspectives on Three Historical Decades 127

freedom of the press, and ensure a free and independent judiciary.

Raul Peñaranda, Editor

A group of soldiers control a La Paz street after Colonel Alberto

2 Lupe Cajías is a journalist and historian

Democracy starts in 1982

Presencia daily, La Paz, October 7, 1982

In addition to the decline, the de-dollarization decreed by MIR Minister

adopted wide-ranging free market policies.

1986–1999: Stability and Liberal Reforms

3 Guimer Zambrana Salas is a journalist

The Final Blow

Presencia daily, July 12, 1986

Reading Coca Leaves

be eradicated from the tropical areas of Cochabamba province, in the center of

Deceit and the MIR

found in an agreement with Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. The Lima

Those Bolivians with Feathers…

dictator to become a democratic President.

2000–2005: Unrest and Protest for Change

4 Andrés Gómez Vela is a journalist and lawyer.

The ‘Water Wars’

CSUTCB (United Confederation of Peasant Workers of Bolivia), which, in Sep-

Indigenous Candidates on the Rise

Los Tiempos daily, July 14, 2004

The presence of the fugitive former fugitive former President, following

government into a game of lottery. The traditional parties’ candidates included

The War over Gas

El Potosí daily, October 18, 2003

La Razón daily, December 19, 2005

Preliminary results on the national leader of MAS achieved a victory that

2006–2012: The reform years

5 Ilya Fortún is a social communicator.

Los Tiempos daily, January 22, 2006

voting citizens and the system of political representation.

in South America, which some classify pejoratively as ‘populism’. For example,

From Blinding Lights to Dark Shadows

Los Tiempos daily, May 2, 2006

6 Fernando Molina is a journalist and economic analyst.

Serious shortages and subsequent hyperinflation occurred

The Military Legacy

De-dollarization, Depreciation and a Moratorium

Table 1: The 1970s – a decade of growth

Exports External debt

Table 2: More inflation, less reserves

Rate of Inflation (%) Level of International Reserves