So here’s the situation: TIPNIS supporters have been marching from Beni to La Paz, a 350-mile trip, to plead their case against a planned highway through a national park and protected indigenous territory. Over the last few days, however, the march has come to a standstill. Hundreds of police are blocking the road. The administration says it’s for the marchers’ own protection, as citizens in a nearby town have declared their intent to halt the march’s progress. The threat could be serious, as there are a lot of “colonist” coca-growers in the area who, according to many, stand to profit big-time by the freeway’s construction. Of course, halting the march also serves the government’s interests. But even if the safety threat is serious, are the police making the right move? Shouldn’t they be holding back the would-be interlopers, ensuring safe passage for the (generally) peaceful demonstrators?
I’m going to assume–perhaps dangerously–that most of my readers would rather see the police protect the marchers while allowing them to progress. Nevertheless, there are many government decisions that I find unwise yet would concede violate no human or civil rights. My question then: Is this one of them? Do people have a right to march on public roads, potentially disrupting traffic along the way? I find this a genuinely difficult question.
-NF
P.S. For purposes of this question, ignore the accusations that the police have denied the marchers access to nearby water. I think we can all agree that, if true, that would rise to the level of a human-rights violation.
I would certainly rather see the police protect the protesters rather than stop their march. But I too am not sure that they commit a crime against humanity if they fail to do so. The free speech protections envisioned by this post come from US law, but there are few other countries whose free speech protections are as robust. Even in the US, the government (legally or not…) doesn’t let you protest in various places and in various peaceful ways. To the extent that the protesters were simply halted — not arrested, or beaten, or otherwise mistreated — this is hardly the ideal outcome, but far less fascist than a lot that probably goes on every day.
If only people would heed the advice often given to infants as they learn to talk: “Use your words.” Wouldn’t it be nice if people used their words to resolve disputes, instead of resorting to violence or invoking the police?
Yeah, I’m definitely not prepared to call it a crime against humanity (putting to the side the water-access allegations, which I think could raise the stakes quite a bit). We need to save that label for cases that really deserve it. What makes it especially troubling to me, though, is the fact that this administration rose to power through marches and demonstrations. I guess power tends to make us forget our roots.
For as far as I know, in Bolivia you have the right to march, if the march is peaceful. Which, in the TIPNIS march, was the case. In any case, there are marches and blocades all of the time, and normally this is accepted. Only in this case it wasn’t. Coincidence ? I don’t think so, unfortunately.
Government wants this road, for several reasons, and is doing what is necessary to get it. Over the last 4 weeks, the strategy has been working through media, accusing the marchers and supporting organisations of just about everything you could possibly think of. Never, not even once, government mentioned the fact that it hadn’t respected the constitution, which imposes “consulta previa, informada y libre”. While this is the core problem. The road is illegal according to the new constitution and to OIT 169, which has been signed by the current Bolivian government.
Even Evo’s speech of this evening doesn’t go in the right direction. Very sad but true.
Soren,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree with your read of the situation — in its rise to power, MAS used marches and blockades all the time, so it’s pretty darn ironic that the government is calling foul at this point. Of course, the irony in this case is several layers deep.
I also tend to agree with you that the road is illegal under the new constitution — I definitely think it’s bad policy –but I have one question on that score. Perhaps you know the answer. When the constitution speaks of “consulta previa, informada y libre,” does that mean consultation alone suffices, or is there also a requirement of consent? As it literally translates, I would think the former, but I have heard many folks down here suggesting that it means the latter (i.e., that the TIPNIS population has the right to veto the project). My current research focuses on this very distinction–consultation vs. consent–in which I take the position that the better policy is a requirement of informed consent. Most nations, including the U.S., require only consultation. Any thoughts?
Thanks again for your input!
-Nick
Important question. I’m not a 100% sure about it, I’ll see if I can check that so I’ll get back to you later on that. But briefly, my impression at a first glance is that there is no clear answer to this question. That part of the Constitution hasn’t yet been translated into laws, for as far as I know. And in the Constitution it is rather vague. We could check how it’s put in ILO 169 as well, since Bolivia subscribed that Convention. If I find a clear answer to the question I’ll let you know.
Yeah, that’s my basic impression too. Please do let me know if you find out–or locate any good info on this topic–and I’ll be sure to do the same. Cheers!
Pingback: Consultation or Consent? | South American Law & Policy