Bolivia has long been characterized as an unstable and revolutionary country. Its 1952 National Revolution sought to emulate the 1910 Mexican Revolution but without the protracted internal war, banditry and indigenous uprising of Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata. In many respects Bolivia's "first" twentieth century revolution succeeded, and although it enfranchised its indigenous peoples it did not devolve power and governance or socioeconomic influence and control to multicultural ethnic groups. This accomplishment has been the goal of the Morales government and Bolivia's New Political Constitution of State. The purpose of this paper is to compare the achievements (and failures) of the first 1952 revolution with the goals and achievements (and failures) to date of the Morales revolution of 2005. The paper will seek to draw conclusions from current Bolivian events, especially the 2005 and 2009 elections, for indigenous empowerment in the Andean region and Latin America generally. Bolivia has been selected as a case study of indigenous politicization and empowerment because it not only experienced the first political and social revolution in South America but because it also elected into office-not once but twice-the continent's first indigenous president. Theoretically, the paper will also seek to explore further the meanings and applications of state territoriality and sovereignty in light of the Morales revolution.

Bolivia's current TIPNIS (Territorio Indígena Parque Nacional IsiboroSécure) crisis has highlighted the diverse and often conflicting interpretations and applications of indigenous rights and environmental rights and how these have impacted the goals and structures of governance of the MAS party and the indigenous-based presidency of Evo Morales. Special attention will be given to environmental concerns as a core, but clearly contested, element of national development and the defense of Bolivian sovereignty. In the struggle over the construction of the road through the Isiboro Secure Indigenous Territory and National Park, which sought to link Bolivia and Brazil and ultimately provide land-locked Bolivia more ready access to the Pacific, social movements have been marshaled and mobilized both for and against the government's project. What has this meant for Bolivia's populist and social-movement-based democracy? Has this rainforest crisis been another example of an "overdose of democracy," a condition that appears to have dogged the Morales presidencies? This paper seeks to explore these, and related issues.

Since the beginning of human history people have moved. They have left ancestral homelands, entered new spaces, explored new frontiers and returned to former abodes. Ours is a history of emigrating and immigrating, of crossing borders (territorial, social and political), of trying to establish ourselves in new domains, or of arguing for our right to be where we are. The contemporary concern about immigration is thus a manifestation of an age-old and chronic problem that is not unique to the 21 st century or to the United States. 1 Yet the present debate over human movement appears to have intensified as a result of the relentless advance of globalization and the rise in "illegal" or "undocumented" workers. 2 Questions concerning States' responsibilities toward migrant workers-especially marginalized and undocumented workers who typically experience labor and human rights abuses-have become especially prominent.This article explores the question of human movement from multiple perspectives-theory, foreign policy and international doctrine-in order to contextualize the current immigration debate in the United States. It explains how migration challenges human-State relations, influences political discourse and foreign policy directives, and presents many migrantsparticularly the undocumented-with very real human security dilemmas. It ends by demonstrating the discord between political practice and international human rights rhetoric with regard to freedom of movement, and alludes to the fact that the debate on human movement is far from over. Theoretical OverviewIn order to address the question of human movement (migration), a brief overview of several key theories that explain migratory movements is instructive. Generally, it has been assumed that "if you build it, they will come;" that is, migration responds to the push-pull factors of economic development, and like water pooling at the lowest level, immigrants are drawn to countries and regions of growth and opportunity, seeking out employment and better life prospects. In other words, the majority of foreign migrants are economic immigrants and/or economic refugees. 3 Thus a central question for any theory of migration to address is why migrants leave their homes in the first place. To what extent do economic development and growth, and conversely economic hardship and breakdown, in regions or countries stimulate migration C

No abstract

No abstract