As I stated in my piece in Foreign Affairs, the Morales administration antagonized much of its political base when it tried to force the construction of a road through a national park and protected indigenous territory (known as TIPNIS). In protest, residents of the park launched a grueling march, taking them hundreds of miles from the lowlands of the Amazon basin to the cold heights of La Paz. For every step they took, popular support for their position kept pace, building in magnitude as the marchers approached their destination.
Still, the movement wasn’t a full-on crisis for the government until September 25, when someone from La Paz–exactly who remains a debate–ordered a crackdown. Scores of marchers were arrested, and acts of police brutality were caught on tape. The crackdown solidified opposition to the TIPNIS freeway and the Morales government in general. Three weeks later, widespread pressure forced the government to scrap the plan to build through TIPNIS. A few days after that, Morales signed a law proclaiming TIPNIS “untouchable.” The marchers had won.
Or had they? The decision to scrap the road was never accepted by the cocaleros and many other important sectors of Bolivian society. When I traveled to Villa Tunari a few weeks ago, cocaleros had blocked the road to Santa Cruz. Hundreds of trucks were backed up for two days. The cocaleros and their allies wanted the road through TIPNIS, and they were willing to go to the mat for it.
But all that was probably to be expected. Though the reasons are manifold, instability is undeniably a fixture of Bolivian politics. The latest turn of events, however, has even the old-timers scratching their heads. Another indigenous group–not from TIPNIS, but from the southeastern part of the country–has launched a march of its own. Its goal: the repeal of the law officially cancelling construction through TIPNIS. These marchers, some 1,000 strong, are also aiming for La Paz, and they are expected to arrive in Cochabamba this coming Wednesday. If I can, I’ll try to capture some images.
What to make of all this? What, if anything, does it say about the stability of law in Bolivia? Even if the government holds firm, many seem to have the perception (and perhaps they are right) that laws in Bolivia are easily changed. Is this perception by itself dangerous to a democratic society? Is it beneficial?
-NF