From Revolution to Revolution: Bolivia's National Revolution and the “Re-founding” Revolution of Evo Morales

Abstract

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.

Transforming hydrosocial territories and changing languages of water rights legitimation: Irrigation development in Bolivia’s Pucara watershed

“…This process was deepened by Evo Morales Government (2006), which institutionalized and consolidated the local and regional governance on the basis of indigenous/peasant communities. Through a new Constitution (2009), the Bolivian government restructured democratic representation and governance around indigenous autonomy and communitarian values, empowering indigenous/peasant communities and giving them the right to make decisions about their territories and their resources (Morales, 2011).…”

Hydrosocio-territorial struggles : Shifting of water rights frameworks in Bolivia

“…This process was reinforced by Evo Morales Government (2006), which institutionalized and consolidated local and regional governance benefiting indigenous/peasant communities. Through a new Constitution (2009), the Bolivian government restructured democratic representation and governance around indigenous autonomy and communitarian values, empowering indigenous/peasant communities and giving them the right to make decisions about their territories and their resources (Morales 2011).…”

“…Unswerving participation by Punata and Tiraque irrigators in the movement that made Evo Morales President (the first indigenous president in Bolivia, from January 2006) and later the support of the communities in the impeachment of the opposing-party Prefect of Cochabamba (in 2007), had positioned the irrigation sector in close relationship to the national and departmental governments. Through the new Constitution (2009) the Morales government restructured democratic representation and governance around indigenous autonomy and communitarian values, empowering indigenous/peasant communities and giving them the right to make decisions about their territories and their resources (Morales 2011). In this context, several irrigator leaders held key government positions (Parliament, Vice-Ministry of Irrigation, National Irrigation Service, and others).…”

“…During the design of the interbasin transfer canal, communities located in the upper basin region became relatively successful in demanding water rights, although they were initially not included in the project (Saravia et al 2006). They formed political alliances with other power groups, including the state, in a sociopolitical context that was favoured by national policies put in place to recognise and support rural and indigenous communities (Morales 2011;Perreault 2008). The project's different stages and corresponding design proposals reflect interest groups' divergent territorial imaginaries and the corresponding disputes over legitimacy of each group's territorial claims and arguments.…”