Bolivia: From Colonization to Representation
By Monica Carroll
1: Intro
Bolivia has long been referred to as one of South America’s poorest countries due to the history of systematized inequality, racism, and poverty. A variety of indigenous groups have been suffering since the dawn of Bolivia’s colonization. Some of these groups include the highland Quechua and Aymara populations and the lowland Guarani. They have been the victims of systemic racism and prejudice, which is closely tied to their ethnicity and class position. For centuries Bolivia has only been recognized by colonizers for its raw material, and the indigenous people have been exploited as laborers of these resources. The Morales administration has shifted this perspective and created a new identity as a postcolonial, multi-ethnic society, moving forward from one of the most underdeveloped nations in South America. Some of his most significant achievements were designing a national health policy, passing environmental laws, and creating a new constitution. However, many people remain unsatisfied. This paper will look at, despite the long rule of Evo Morales, why do indigenous people in Bolivia feel that their rights have not improved? I hypothesize that despite progress in representation, the colonial past has made it extremely difficult to change the elites’ attitudes toward indigenous people and, in return, has made change difficult to achieve.
2: The Colonial History of Bolivia
In pursuit of gold, Spain began to colonize Bolivia in the 1500’s. Like many colonial conquests of the time, the native population was severely suppressed and harmed by disease. Although some tribes showed resistance to the Spanish eventually, the colonizers gained complete control of the territory. Like most of South America, the colonizers imposed Christianity, and the natives lost many aspects of their culture. After generations of hardship, Bolivia gained independence from Spain in 1825, but while the colonial rule was legally over, the government officials stayed the same. The situation deteriorated for some indigenous groups as the new liberal republic imposed communal land ownership, which created the most significant dispossession of native lands since the Conquest. While Bolivia was technically independent, the ruling elite was a small majority and are tied back to colonial times. Spanish landlords or “hacendados” continued to take advantage of indigenous people for more than a century.
Then a turning point occurred with the revolution of 1952. Many people consider this moment the end of colonization. Yet, another group of people thinks the revolution to be incomplete. Andrew Canessa, head of the sociology department at the University of Essex, believes that politics during this period of rapid social change were dominated by three parties that alternated power: the Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (Revolutionary nationalist which was the party that led the 1952 revolution; the Acción Democrática Nacionalista (nationalist democratic Action); and the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (movement of the Revolutionary Left.).[1] Yet, these parties only acted to exploit their nation and people while maintaining a neoliberal order.
While the legal system granted indigenous people the right to vote in 1952 and the Law of Popular Participation (LPP) of 1994 brought more representation, the system still marginalized the indigenous voices. The LPP, in theory, gave the indigenous populations recognition as citizens of Bolivia, and they had the same rights and obligations as all other Bolivian citizens. However, in practice, the LPP did not grant increased economic rights or access to the indigenous population's social services. What happened was that the LPP allowed the government to cut social programs and introduce neoliberal shock policies. We cannot ignore that the LPP did some good by granting indigenous people citizenship and allowed them legal rights or joined political parties and other civil society groups to enact their new identities as Bolivia citizens. However this change meant that technically naive people were recognized by law but not in practice.
The National Revolution and the LPP are of great political significance, but they failed to empower the indigenous people. A centralized state structure was created, and instead of elective representatives, power distribution was based on the president’s approval. Additionally, the mentality surrounding indigenous people shifted from the notation that they were ignorant to the idea they are destined to be poor. The world bank highlighted this idea when they claimed a 90% probability that an indigenous person lived below the Bolivia poverty line.[2] Morales’s support started to grow in 1985 when the neoliberal status quo was challenged, and opposition groups began to form. As we advanced, in 2002, “Water Wars” broke out against multinational corporations. This momentum carried forward to 2003 with the “Gas Wars” which toppled the second term of Sánchez de Lozada. These different protests kickstarted a social movement that gained support from marginalized people throughout the nation. These protests then evolved into a large issue of injustice and exploitation, which resulted from European colonization. Coca growers such as Evo Morales were extremely targeted and marginalized mainly due to U.S intervention. These factors allowed Morales to grow support and win the election in 2005.
[1] Canessa, 151
[2] Bueno, 5
3: Evo Morales
Indigenous people have been excluded from the political process for centuries. Evo Morales’ election in 2005 was a monumental shift in a system that has systematically benefited the colonizers and hurt the natives. In the 1980s, Morales became involved in the local coca grower’s union. Then, in 1985 he became general secretary, and in 1988 he was elected as the executive secretary of a federation of various coca-growers unions. The 1990’s was a difficult period for coca growers because the United States started getting involved in suppressing coca production. During this time, Morales helped found a national political party (MAS) or the leftist Movement Toward Socialism. The MAS emerged in the political scene and claimed to represent the poor and indigenous majority of Bolivians' interests.
The MAS government achieved its position through indigenous social movements. Their platform aimed to address racism, colonialism, human rights reforms, cultural identity, and indigeneity. The idea that the MAS is an ethnically based political party is debated. Still, it is agreed that the party’s platform was meant to gain indigenous voters through ethnic appeals and by drawing on indigenous symbols, history, and embracing land reform. Furthermore, Carew Boulding, political science professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, et al. state the MAS criticized the traditional parties and elites and introduced themselves as the outcast who would serve the poor and indigenous people’s interest.[3] This momentum helped grant Morales a seat in the lower legislative in 1997 and allowed him to run for MAS president in 2002. He narrowly lost but was still determined to make a change. Finally, in 2005, Evo Morales was elected president of Bolivia with a 54% majority and made history as the first indigenous president in Bolivian history and the first president to win a majority since 1982.
One of Morales's platforms was to fight against the US-backed campaign to eradicate illegal coca production. He pledged to protect the indigenous population by reducing poverty, removing restrictions on coca farmers, renationalize the country’s energy sector, fighting corruption, and increasing taxes on the wealthy. This election transformed the social and political landscape, and Morales embarked on a world tour and started transforming Bolivia’s international image. Canessa comments on how this win has changed the identity of many people. This change has consequences for how power is exercised at the political level but also at the micro-level; it has consequences for people's sense of who they are as Bolivians and as indigenous people, and it has consequences in the more intimate spaces of people's lives.[4] Evo Morales built his rise to power within the MAS party on this momentum by adopting the language of indigenous rights and referring to Bolivia as an “indigenous nation.”
[3] Boulding, et al, 43
[4] Canessa, 147
4: Policy Change
Morales was committed to changing the neo-liberal economic policies to a more socialist form of government. Reacher Anna Vogt claims that Bolivia has an enduring legacy of racism, inequality, and poverty. However, the election of its first indigenous president, Evo Morales, has heralded a time of rapid transformation within the nation.[5] One of the most monumental changes was the Constitution of 2009. It incorporates a variety of indigenous symbols and cultural rights while also recognizing 32 indigenous nations. To take this a step further, a new national Constitution was put in place to reach indigenous demands to address the long history of marginalization. This new Constitution's preamble calls for a “refounding” of Bolivia under the premises of respect and equality. However, we must analyze the scope of which the Constitution has brought multiculturalism and how this impacts Bolivians' daily lives.
The 2009 Constitution includes three significant changes that substantially expand the almost exclusively symbolic multiculturalism of the 1995 and 2004 Constitutions. The first is the recognition of indigenous autonomy as a distinct—yet equal—category, separate from municipal, regional, or departmental autonomy. The second is the establishment of special indigenous electoral districts. The third is the recognition of indigenous jurisdictional competence as distinct from, and equal to, the “ordinary” justice system.[6] Yet, a key problem in regard to indigenous autonomy is territorial restriction. In other words, political boundaries restrict indigenous communities. The 2009 Constitution did not radically reform the postcolonial order as much as many people had hoped. Departmental boundaries were not discussed, and the Constitution closed the door on this conversation. Finally, the basic structure of government remained unchanged, leaving Bolivia in a runoff presidential system.
This new model is not a failure. However, imperfections are present. For example, Miguel Centellas, a Political Science professor at the University of Mississippi, would say, despite indigenous autonomy originating as a grassroots demand, the application of indigenous autonomy is still primarily understood as structured and applied “from above” in ways that privilege the central state.[7] Furthermore, the document was not drafted by a plenipotentiary or original Constituent Assembly, but behind closed doors with a handful of government officials and opposition leaders.Another one of the MAS's projects was designing a new national health policy in 2008 called The Family Community Intercultural Health Policy (Salud Familiar Comunitaria Intercultural). This policy aimed to address significant health inequities through primary care in a country that is over 60% indigenous. The health care reform process started taking place in 2006 but did not gain momentum until 2008.
Alissa Bernstein, medical anthropologist at UCFS, comments that Bolivia's health care reform and the SAFCI policy emerged as part of a broader movement of social and political change and a reaction against the nation's colonial past and a neoliberal political movement that began in 1985.[8] There is a desire to “Vivir Bien” or return to their indigenous roots for many. This notion means recognizing the importance of the nation’s history, culture, dress, and language and recovering from colonialism. Dr. Tamayo states Vivir Bien is an alternative paradigm to capitalism. The model we are fighting against is market-oriented and biomedical. That model is the bad one, the biomedical one, the Western one, the exclusionary one. The thing that challenges that is the SAFCI model, guided by the paradigm of vivir bien.[9] This concept has helped shape the health policy and has made the past become the future.
Nevertheless, there were a variety of problems when it came to implementing this health care reform. To start, many urban clinics wanted to keep the current biomedical hospital-based model. Some doctors recognize the importance of traditional medicine but do not believe it should be implemented within the health care system. Representation is another issue that arose when looking at the SAFCI policy. Many stakeholders were involved in combating this issue and making sure the implementation of SAFCI was as inclusive as possible. The nation’s history and individual experience helped shape this policy in a way that acts to include the indigenous population. However, preconceived notions of indigenous people were present.
Another meaningful change was the “Law of the Rights of Mother Earth” (Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra), also known as Law 071. This law gives nature the same rights as humans by stating the earth is a collective, and it is in everybody’s interest to protect it. The indigenous people and the MAS helped pass this law, and it is the most radical environmental bill to date. This law draws on indigenous identity and the belief that nature is our sacred home. Buxton states that the indigenous believe in the Pachamama (Mother Earth) on which we intimately depend. As the law says, “Mother Earth is a living dynamic system made up of the undivided community of all living beings, who are all interconnected, interdependent and complementary, sharing a common destiny.[10] The protection of the earth is vital for indigenous people as it is a significant part of their identity and is now protected by law. In other words, this law institutionally protects indigenous culture. It is anti-colonialist because the colonizers have a disturbing past of treating the earth as a commodity and focusing on extraction and exploitation of the natural world.
Additionally, considering the dark past of land distribution, this law is a slap in the face for the elites. Environmental politics have become ever more polarizing in the neoliberal world, and the need for profit often surpasses the planet's protection. This law is not only an achievement for environmentalists but also indigenous identity.
[5] Vogt, 2
[6] Centellas, 102
[7] Centellas, 90
[8] Bernstein, 223
[9] Bernstein. 237
[10] Buxton, “The Laws of Mother Earth”
5: Indigenous Attitudes
Before and shortly after the election of 2005, the indigenous attitudes toward Morales were extremely high. This support remained high through Morales’s second term but started to decline in 2017. A study conducted by Boulding et al. claims that in 2017, there is no difference in system support between indigenous and non-indigenous Bolivians, and the boost in generalized support for the system that the election of an indigenous president provided fades.[11] Many believe this is because the initial excitement of gaining representation has disappeared, and reality has set in. It is essential to look at ethnicity because ethnicity can be a necessary and useful tool for mobilizing political support and a vital factor for shaping attitudes toward government and support for the political system. This recognition is especially true in countries where ethnicity is politically essential, where political parties campaign along ethnic lines, and where longstanding political divisions have an ethnic dimension.[12] This notion can explain why, shortly after the first and second elections, indigenous people are more supportive of the political system than the non-indigenous. However, this support has not lasted indefinitely. The referendum of 2016 demonstrates this disconnect. In recent years, corruption scandals on a high and low government level, and accusations of authoritarianism have tainted Morales's reputation. Another factor is the political and economic transformation that opened institutional channels for the indigenous population's participation has also brought with it the incentives necessary for these communities to want to be better informed of their rights and use them.[13] The attempt to run for another four years startled many, including his supporters. A variety of people felt that letting Morales run again was a borderline coup and undemocratic. Then in 2019 elections, similar sentiments rose, and the U.S.A claimed voter fraud. Whether the election was fraud or not is an entirely different paper, but the fact that the west, more specifically, the U.S.A, claims fraud speaks volumes.
This movement created an uprising resulting in Morales fleeing the nation. Jeanine Añez, Morales' successor, frightened the indigenous population due to his harsh anti-Morales rhetoric. Many people fear conservative politics will be a return to the past, and the representation gained in the last decade will be revoked. These conservatives and the non-indigenous postcolonial people known as the Camba have started a counter-movement, which Vogt describes as the Camba counter-movement blends the legacies of colonialism, 19th-century liberalism, and U.S. imperialism into a contemporary style neofascism: brute violence used to advance a particular form of salvage capitalism, specifically privatization, extraction, and export of natural resources.[14] A tiny group of men in Santa Cruz control the counter movement and have abused indigenous protests on numerous occasions. The elites also control the local media, giving them the power to push their agenda forward. These counter-movements have not only threatened the indigenous community but also Morales' reputation.
[11] Boulding, et al, 43
[12] Boulding, et al, 48
[13] Boulding, et al, 54
[14] Vogt, 4
6: Conclusion
In conclusion, the indigenous people of Bolivia have gained representation over the years in various ways. The election of Evo Morales in 2005 was groundbreaking and provided hope for many people. It represented a shift in the status quo and provided one of the most marginalized groups of people a seat at the table. Morales was able to gain support due to his socialist and anti-colonial rhetoric. He was also able to mobilize various social groups, which led to him remaining popular for a variety of years. The MAS was a way for marginalized people to feel represented and gave hope to many. However, as the initial excitement wore off, people were less pleased with Morales. This sentiment is mainly because many of his policies are inclusive in theory, while in practice, they did not change much. Colonial structure does not change overnight, and neither does people's mentalities. The referendum of 2016 was an enormous turning point for Morales as his request to run for another term was denied. This tainted his image and people grew wary.
Furthermore, corruption rumors and the 2019 election harmed his image even further. Despite this, it is vital to acknowledge the change Morales has made and the symbolic importance of an indigenous president. While there is still work to be done, Morales moved the nation in the right direction. The 2020 election has created another shift and only time will tell the outcome. With all this said, another question arises, will Morales' legacy live on or will Bolivia return to a colonial system?
Bolivia has long been referred to as one of South America’s poorest countries due to the history of systematized inequality, racism, and poverty. A variety of indigenous groups have been suffering since the dawn of Bolivia’s colonization. Some of these groups include the highland Quechua and Aymara populations and the lowland Guarani. They have been the victims of systemic racism and prejudice, which is closely tied to their ethnicity and class position. For centuries Bolivia has only been recognized by colonizers for its raw material, and the indigenous people have been exploited as laborers of these resources. The Morales administration has shifted this perspective and created a new identity as a postcolonial, multi-ethnic society, moving forward from one of the most underdeveloped nations in South America. Some of his most significant achievements were designing a national health policy, passing environmental laws, and creating a new constitution. However, many people remain unsatisfied. This paper will look at, despite the long rule of Evo Morales, why do indigenous people in Bolivia feel that their rights have not improved? I hypothesize that despite progress in representation, the colonial past has made it extremely difficult to change the elites’ attitudes toward indigenous people and, in return, has made change difficult to achieve.
2: The Colonial History of Bolivia
In pursuit of gold, Spain began to colonize Bolivia in the 1500’s. Like many colonial conquests of the time, the native population was severely suppressed and harmed by disease. Although some tribes showed resistance to the Spanish eventually, the colonizers gained complete control of the territory. Like most of South America, the colonizers imposed Christianity, and the natives lost many aspects of their culture. After generations of hardship, Bolivia gained independence from Spain in 1825, but while the colonial rule was legally over, the government officials stayed the same. The situation deteriorated for some indigenous groups as the new liberal republic imposed communal land ownership, which created the most significant dispossession of native lands since the Conquest. While Bolivia was technically independent, the ruling elite was a small majority and are tied back to colonial times. Spanish landlords or “hacendados” continued to take advantage of indigenous people for more than a century.
Then a turning point occurred with the revolution of 1952. Many people consider this moment the end of colonization. Yet, another group of people thinks the revolution to be incomplete. Andrew Canessa, head of the sociology department at the University of Essex, believes that politics during this period of rapid social change were dominated by three parties that alternated power: the Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (Revolutionary nationalist which was the party that led the 1952 revolution; the Acción Democrática Nacionalista (nationalist democratic Action); and the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (movement of the Revolutionary Left.).[1] Yet, these parties only acted to exploit their nation and people while maintaining a neoliberal order.
While the legal system granted indigenous people the right to vote in 1952 and the Law of Popular Participation (LPP) of 1994 brought more representation, the system still marginalized the indigenous voices. The LPP, in theory, gave the indigenous populations recognition as citizens of Bolivia, and they had the same rights and obligations as all other Bolivian citizens. However, in practice, the LPP did not grant increased economic rights or access to the indigenous population's social services. What happened was that the LPP allowed the government to cut social programs and introduce neoliberal shock policies. We cannot ignore that the LPP did some good by granting indigenous people citizenship and allowed them legal rights or joined political parties and other civil society groups to enact their new identities as Bolivia citizens. However this change meant that technically naive people were recognized by law but not in practice.
The National Revolution and the LPP are of great political significance, but they failed to empower the indigenous people. A centralized state structure was created, and instead of elective representatives, power distribution was based on the president’s approval. Additionally, the mentality surrounding indigenous people shifted from the notation that they were ignorant to the idea they are destined to be poor. The world bank highlighted this idea when they claimed a 90% probability that an indigenous person lived below the Bolivia poverty line.[2] Morales’s support started to grow in 1985 when the neoliberal status quo was challenged, and opposition groups began to form. As we advanced, in 2002, “Water Wars” broke out against multinational corporations. This momentum carried forward to 2003 with the “Gas Wars” which toppled the second term of Sánchez de Lozada. These different protests kickstarted a social movement that gained support from marginalized people throughout the nation. These protests then evolved into a large issue of injustice and exploitation, which resulted from European colonization. Coca growers such as Evo Morales were extremely targeted and marginalized mainly due to U.S intervention. These factors allowed Morales to grow support and win the election in 2005.
[1] Canessa, 151
[2] Bueno, 5
3: Evo Morales
Indigenous people have been excluded from the political process for centuries. Evo Morales’ election in 2005 was a monumental shift in a system that has systematically benefited the colonizers and hurt the natives. In the 1980s, Morales became involved in the local coca grower’s union. Then, in 1985 he became general secretary, and in 1988 he was elected as the executive secretary of a federation of various coca-growers unions. The 1990’s was a difficult period for coca growers because the United States started getting involved in suppressing coca production. During this time, Morales helped found a national political party (MAS) or the leftist Movement Toward Socialism. The MAS emerged in the political scene and claimed to represent the poor and indigenous majority of Bolivians' interests.
The MAS government achieved its position through indigenous social movements. Their platform aimed to address racism, colonialism, human rights reforms, cultural identity, and indigeneity. The idea that the MAS is an ethnically based political party is debated. Still, it is agreed that the party’s platform was meant to gain indigenous voters through ethnic appeals and by drawing on indigenous symbols, history, and embracing land reform. Furthermore, Carew Boulding, political science professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, et al. state the MAS criticized the traditional parties and elites and introduced themselves as the outcast who would serve the poor and indigenous people’s interest.[3] This momentum helped grant Morales a seat in the lower legislative in 1997 and allowed him to run for MAS president in 2002. He narrowly lost but was still determined to make a change. Finally, in 2005, Evo Morales was elected president of Bolivia with a 54% majority and made history as the first indigenous president in Bolivian history and the first president to win a majority since 1982.
One of Morales's platforms was to fight against the US-backed campaign to eradicate illegal coca production. He pledged to protect the indigenous population by reducing poverty, removing restrictions on coca farmers, renationalize the country’s energy sector, fighting corruption, and increasing taxes on the wealthy. This election transformed the social and political landscape, and Morales embarked on a world tour and started transforming Bolivia’s international image. Canessa comments on how this win has changed the identity of many people. This change has consequences for how power is exercised at the political level but also at the micro-level; it has consequences for people's sense of who they are as Bolivians and as indigenous people, and it has consequences in the more intimate spaces of people's lives.[4] Evo Morales built his rise to power within the MAS party on this momentum by adopting the language of indigenous rights and referring to Bolivia as an “indigenous nation.”
[3] Boulding, et al, 43
[4] Canessa, 147
4: Policy Change
Morales was committed to changing the neo-liberal economic policies to a more socialist form of government. Reacher Anna Vogt claims that Bolivia has an enduring legacy of racism, inequality, and poverty. However, the election of its first indigenous president, Evo Morales, has heralded a time of rapid transformation within the nation.[5] One of the most monumental changes was the Constitution of 2009. It incorporates a variety of indigenous symbols and cultural rights while also recognizing 32 indigenous nations. To take this a step further, a new national Constitution was put in place to reach indigenous demands to address the long history of marginalization. This new Constitution's preamble calls for a “refounding” of Bolivia under the premises of respect and equality. However, we must analyze the scope of which the Constitution has brought multiculturalism and how this impacts Bolivians' daily lives.
The 2009 Constitution includes three significant changes that substantially expand the almost exclusively symbolic multiculturalism of the 1995 and 2004 Constitutions. The first is the recognition of indigenous autonomy as a distinct—yet equal—category, separate from municipal, regional, or departmental autonomy. The second is the establishment of special indigenous electoral districts. The third is the recognition of indigenous jurisdictional competence as distinct from, and equal to, the “ordinary” justice system.[6] Yet, a key problem in regard to indigenous autonomy is territorial restriction. In other words, political boundaries restrict indigenous communities. The 2009 Constitution did not radically reform the postcolonial order as much as many people had hoped. Departmental boundaries were not discussed, and the Constitution closed the door on this conversation. Finally, the basic structure of government remained unchanged, leaving Bolivia in a runoff presidential system.
This new model is not a failure. However, imperfections are present. For example, Miguel Centellas, a Political Science professor at the University of Mississippi, would say, despite indigenous autonomy originating as a grassroots demand, the application of indigenous autonomy is still primarily understood as structured and applied “from above” in ways that privilege the central state.[7] Furthermore, the document was not drafted by a plenipotentiary or original Constituent Assembly, but behind closed doors with a handful of government officials and opposition leaders.Another one of the MAS's projects was designing a new national health policy in 2008 called The Family Community Intercultural Health Policy (Salud Familiar Comunitaria Intercultural). This policy aimed to address significant health inequities through primary care in a country that is over 60% indigenous. The health care reform process started taking place in 2006 but did not gain momentum until 2008.
Alissa Bernstein, medical anthropologist at UCFS, comments that Bolivia's health care reform and the SAFCI policy emerged as part of a broader movement of social and political change and a reaction against the nation's colonial past and a neoliberal political movement that began in 1985.[8] There is a desire to “Vivir Bien” or return to their indigenous roots for many. This notion means recognizing the importance of the nation’s history, culture, dress, and language and recovering from colonialism. Dr. Tamayo states Vivir Bien is an alternative paradigm to capitalism. The model we are fighting against is market-oriented and biomedical. That model is the bad one, the biomedical one, the Western one, the exclusionary one. The thing that challenges that is the SAFCI model, guided by the paradigm of vivir bien.[9] This concept has helped shape the health policy and has made the past become the future.
Nevertheless, there were a variety of problems when it came to implementing this health care reform. To start, many urban clinics wanted to keep the current biomedical hospital-based model. Some doctors recognize the importance of traditional medicine but do not believe it should be implemented within the health care system. Representation is another issue that arose when looking at the SAFCI policy. Many stakeholders were involved in combating this issue and making sure the implementation of SAFCI was as inclusive as possible. The nation’s history and individual experience helped shape this policy in a way that acts to include the indigenous population. However, preconceived notions of indigenous people were present.
Another meaningful change was the “Law of the Rights of Mother Earth” (Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra), also known as Law 071. This law gives nature the same rights as humans by stating the earth is a collective, and it is in everybody’s interest to protect it. The indigenous people and the MAS helped pass this law, and it is the most radical environmental bill to date. This law draws on indigenous identity and the belief that nature is our sacred home. Buxton states that the indigenous believe in the Pachamama (Mother Earth) on which we intimately depend. As the law says, “Mother Earth is a living dynamic system made up of the undivided community of all living beings, who are all interconnected, interdependent and complementary, sharing a common destiny.[10] The protection of the earth is vital for indigenous people as it is a significant part of their identity and is now protected by law. In other words, this law institutionally protects indigenous culture. It is anti-colonialist because the colonizers have a disturbing past of treating the earth as a commodity and focusing on extraction and exploitation of the natural world.
Additionally, considering the dark past of land distribution, this law is a slap in the face for the elites. Environmental politics have become ever more polarizing in the neoliberal world, and the need for profit often surpasses the planet's protection. This law is not only an achievement for environmentalists but also indigenous identity.
[5] Vogt, 2
[6] Centellas, 102
[7] Centellas, 90
[8] Bernstein, 223
[9] Bernstein. 237
[10] Buxton, “The Laws of Mother Earth”
5: Indigenous Attitudes
Before and shortly after the election of 2005, the indigenous attitudes toward Morales were extremely high. This support remained high through Morales’s second term but started to decline in 2017. A study conducted by Boulding et al. claims that in 2017, there is no difference in system support between indigenous and non-indigenous Bolivians, and the boost in generalized support for the system that the election of an indigenous president provided fades.[11] Many believe this is because the initial excitement of gaining representation has disappeared, and reality has set in. It is essential to look at ethnicity because ethnicity can be a necessary and useful tool for mobilizing political support and a vital factor for shaping attitudes toward government and support for the political system. This recognition is especially true in countries where ethnicity is politically essential, where political parties campaign along ethnic lines, and where longstanding political divisions have an ethnic dimension.[12] This notion can explain why, shortly after the first and second elections, indigenous people are more supportive of the political system than the non-indigenous. However, this support has not lasted indefinitely. The referendum of 2016 demonstrates this disconnect. In recent years, corruption scandals on a high and low government level, and accusations of authoritarianism have tainted Morales's reputation. Another factor is the political and economic transformation that opened institutional channels for the indigenous population's participation has also brought with it the incentives necessary for these communities to want to be better informed of their rights and use them.[13] The attempt to run for another four years startled many, including his supporters. A variety of people felt that letting Morales run again was a borderline coup and undemocratic. Then in 2019 elections, similar sentiments rose, and the U.S.A claimed voter fraud. Whether the election was fraud or not is an entirely different paper, but the fact that the west, more specifically, the U.S.A, claims fraud speaks volumes.
This movement created an uprising resulting in Morales fleeing the nation. Jeanine Añez, Morales' successor, frightened the indigenous population due to his harsh anti-Morales rhetoric. Many people fear conservative politics will be a return to the past, and the representation gained in the last decade will be revoked. These conservatives and the non-indigenous postcolonial people known as the Camba have started a counter-movement, which Vogt describes as the Camba counter-movement blends the legacies of colonialism, 19th-century liberalism, and U.S. imperialism into a contemporary style neofascism: brute violence used to advance a particular form of salvage capitalism, specifically privatization, extraction, and export of natural resources.[14] A tiny group of men in Santa Cruz control the counter movement and have abused indigenous protests on numerous occasions. The elites also control the local media, giving them the power to push their agenda forward. These counter-movements have not only threatened the indigenous community but also Morales' reputation.
[11] Boulding, et al, 43
[12] Boulding, et al, 48
[13] Boulding, et al, 54
[14] Vogt, 4
6: Conclusion
In conclusion, the indigenous people of Bolivia have gained representation over the years in various ways. The election of Evo Morales in 2005 was groundbreaking and provided hope for many people. It represented a shift in the status quo and provided one of the most marginalized groups of people a seat at the table. Morales was able to gain support due to his socialist and anti-colonial rhetoric. He was also able to mobilize various social groups, which led to him remaining popular for a variety of years. The MAS was a way for marginalized people to feel represented and gave hope to many. However, as the initial excitement wore off, people were less pleased with Morales. This sentiment is mainly because many of his policies are inclusive in theory, while in practice, they did not change much. Colonial structure does not change overnight, and neither does people's mentalities. The referendum of 2016 was an enormous turning point for Morales as his request to run for another term was denied. This tainted his image and people grew wary.
Furthermore, corruption rumors and the 2019 election harmed his image even further. Despite this, it is vital to acknowledge the change Morales has made and the symbolic importance of an indigenous president. While there is still work to be done, Morales moved the nation in the right direction. The 2020 election has created another shift and only time will tell the outcome. With all this said, another question arises, will Morales' legacy live on or will Bolivia return to a colonial system?
Works Cited
Bernstein, Alissa. “Personal and Political Histories in the Designing of Health Reform Policy in
Bolivia.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 177, Mar. 2017, pp. 231–238. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.028.
Boulding et. al “Indigenous Attitudes Toward The Political System In Bolivia” ResearchGate,
August 2019, pp. 41-81 Revista Latinoamericana de Opinión Pública 8(1), DOI: 10.14201/rlop.22342
Bueno, Rafael. “The politics of Evo Morales’ rise to power in Bolivia The role of social
movements and think tanks.” ODI, March 2011, pp. 1-18, available at: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7063.pdf
Buxton, Nick “The Law of Mother Earth: Behind Bolivia’s Historic Bill.” GARN, April 2018,
available at: https://therightsofnature.org/bolivia-law-of-mother-earth/.
Canessa, Andrew. “A Postcolonial Turn: Social And Political Change In The New Indigenous
Order Of Bolivia.” Urban Anthropology & Studies of Cultural Systems & World Economic Development, vol. 36, no. 3, Fall 2007, pp. 145–159. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=508006889&site=eds-live.
Centellas, Miguel. “Bolivia’s New Multicultural Constitution The 2009 Constitution in Historical
and Comparative Perspective.” ResearchGate, Chapter 4, March 2013, pp. 88-110. Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199936267.003.0028
Vogt, Anna. “Development in Equality: Bolivia and the Morales Administration.” Undercurrent,
vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2010, pp. 37–42. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=55608185&site=eds-live.