Nolan 1
Standing up for Change:
The Mobilization of Indigenous Movements in Bolivia
Allison M. Nolan
November 27, 2011
I would like to thank Professor Walter Hatch, Professor Ben Fallaw, Professor Karin Frederic,
Professor Saul Sandoval Perea, and Research Librarian Jocelyn Karlan for their guidance in
directing me to research sources, and inspiring ideas with which to write this paper.
Nolan 2
There are an estimated 370 million indigenous people living in more than seventy
countries all across the globe (United Nations, 2009). Throughout history, indigenous people
have been marginalized, violated and neglected by other dominant groups. So with an entire
globe filled with marginalized indigenous people, why focus on the indigenous in Bolivia?
Bolivia is a very interesting case study for several reasons. Bolivia is the poorest nation in South
America, with sixty percent of the population living below the poverty line (“Bolivia”). Bolivia
also has the highest population of indigenous people in all of Latin America (“Indigenous
People, Democracy”). Like many other Latin American nations that suffered under Spanish
colonialism, Bolivia’s indigenous people have been marginalized by the dominant elite class for
five hundred years. These facts make Bolivia an especially interesting case study as the majority
group, in this case the indigenous people, is being marginalized by a dominant minority group,
white, Spanish-speakers of European descent who have Western ideals (Rance, 1991). In most
instances of marginalization, minority groups within society are dominated and oppressed by the
majority group, yet in Bolivia, it is the other way around (Schaefer, 2). These different elements
that make up Bolivian society create an atmosphere that is brimming with tension. Yet, there had
been few attempts at mobilization by indigenous people, and those few attempts never resulted in
substantial change. Was this lack of rebellion against the white minority a sign of indigenous
complacency with their social status? Or have there been other factors at work in keeping
indigenous people at the bottom of society?
Before these questions are answered, it is important to note that things are changing in
Bolivia. Several political, economic, and social factors occurred simultaneously at the right
moment to create an opportunity for Bolivia’s indigenous people to take a stand. Indigenous
people have come together despite regional differences to fight for a common cause, protesting
Nolan 3
their marginalization and demanding recognition. Within the past twelve years, indigenous
movements led mass uprisings in Bolivia and forced the resignation of two presidents. Most
significantly, these indigenous movements helped elect the first indigenous president of Bolivia,
Evo Morales. With an agenda that favors indigenous rights and aims to reverse the damaging
consequences of five hundred years of racism and social exclusion, Evo Morales and the
indigenous population that supports him is changing the structure of Bolivian society. Now that
Bolivia has witnessed, firsthand, the power these indigenous movements hold, there is no going
back.
In order to understand the potential that these indigenous movements carry, it is
necessary to examine the factors that sparked this change, or more specifically, the factors that
led to this transition from a stagnant, immobile indigenous population, to the mobilized
population that it has become in the past few decades. This paper will examine the factors that
have caused the marginalization suffered by the indigenous population in Bolivia, but more
importantly, this paper will analyze the indigenous rights movements and the factors that aligned
to create the necessary atmosphere for a national mobilization of Bolivia’s indigenous people.
First and foremost, it is important to understand the social fabric of Bolivian society and
the conditions that have created this society. Bolivia is the most indigenous country in all of
Latin America, but just how many indigenous people are there? There is much dispute about the
actual percentage of indigenous people living in Bolivia because of differing opinions on what
makes one indigenous or not. As Nancy Postero questions, is being indigenous an ethnic
identity? Or rather, is it a common relationship to colonialism? (Now we are Citizens, 19). For
example, in El Alto, a city in the greater La Paz area, seventy-four percent of its residents define
themselves as Aymara, one of the indigenous groups in Bolivia, yet only forty-eight percent of
Nolan 4
them speak the language (Albó, 2011). Is it necessary to speak an indigenous language to be
indigenous? There are many different definitions of what constitutes an indigenous person, and
so, in order to avoid complicated false percentages, it is sufficient to say that the majority of the
population in Bolivia are indigenous people, approximately between sixty and seventy percent
(O’Toole, 227). In addition, there are over thirty indigenous groups. Within these groups, the
most populous are the Quechua, Aymara, Chiquitano, and Guaraní (“Background Note”). In
order to avoid further excluding specific indigenous groups by failing to address them, this paper
will refrain from mentioning specific groups as much as possible and refer to all the groups
under the umbrella term “indigenous.”
To better illustrate the racial tensions and marginalization within Bolivian society, it is
necessary to examine the quality of life for Bolivia’s indigenous population. As stated on the
U.S. Department of State website, living conditions for Bolivia’s indigenous people are
“deplorable” (“Background Note”) This strong description can be interpreted by the fact that
two-thirds of Bolivia’s indigenous population live below the poverty line (Bomberry, 1797). Yet,
it is nearly impossible for Bolivia’s indigenous people to climb out of poverty. Indigenous
people have extremely limited access to basic schooling, and access to higher education is even
more difficult to obtain (Economist, 2004). In addition, the health care system in Bolivia is
failing its indigenous populations; infant and maternal mortality in Bolivia is the highest in Latin
America. Efficient health care services are available to the wealthy, but poor, rural, indigenous
populations are disproportionately denied access to these services (Johnson, 144). Even when
indigenous people do have access to health care services, these services are unsuccessful in
providing the proper support to bridge cultural and ethnic differences, such as providing
translation services (Johnson, 144; Bomberry, 1797). Indigenous farmers and their families are
Nolan 5
especially affected by a lack of state involvement. They have little access to credit and
technology, as well as a lack of traversable roads and transportation. This means that farmers
cannot produce as much, which makes earning a living even more difficult (Rance, 1991).
Clearly, there is something amiss in indigenous people’s status in society. Why are so many of
Bolivia’s indigenous people living in poverty? Why are they being denied access to basic
services? The answers to these questions require one to travel back five hundred years into
history.
However, before delving into Spanish colonialism, it is important to realize that
colonialism existed within pre-Columbian—before the arrival of Spaniards in Latin America—
indigenous groups. The Inca, which were the ancestors to the modern-day Quechua, and various
Aymara groups, the two largest indigenous populations in the Andean region of South America,
colonized several smaller, weaker ethnic groups and incorporated them into their societies
(Matos, 55; Pape, 105). The dominant pre-Columbian groups allowed these colonized ethnic
groups to keep their land and maintain their culture and customs (Pape, 105). Conversely, when
the Spaniards arrived in Andean South America in 1532, there was no attempt to peacefully
allow the indigenous people to keep their land or their way of life. Social, political, and most
importantly, economic subordination and domination of the indigenous people were the only
imagined options. The Spaniards used the already established pre-Columbian institutions to their
advantage and shaped them into colonial institutions that dictated society and all human
interaction within society (Pape, 103). The Spaniards’ calculated manipulation of pre-existing
institutions meant that they could claim that the indigenous people still lived in “free”
communities (Pape, 103). This claim could be made due to the fact that these indigenous
communities had existed within pre-Columbian institutions, and the Spaniards were able act as if
Nolan 6
their presence was merely a continuation of these earlier institutions. However, the Spaniards
were only interested in advancing their own economic interests with no concern for the rights or
well-being of the indigenous people (Now we are Citizens, 25).
The key to understanding the marginalization of the indigenous population in Bolivia is
to first understand Spanish colonialism and its far-reaching effects, many of which still persist in
Bolivia today. The Spaniards first became interested in Bolivia after the discovery of a rich
supply of silver in 1545 (Healey, 87). In order to reap the benefits and wealth from these silver
deposits, the Spaniards needed cheap labor (Now we are Citizens, 25). The Spaniards set up a
system of tribute where, as Susan Healey says, indigenous communities were required to give
goods and services as “tribute directly to the Spanish crown” (87). Some of the required service
was forced labor at the mines (Healey, 87). This system of exploiting indigenous labor and
tribute is what maintained the economic bases of the Spanish colonies. Essentially, this economic
exploitation of the indigenous population meant that Bolivia’s indigenous people were “part of
the economy, but not part of the nation” (Smith, 253).
Although the Spaniards discovered the best way to economically exploit the indigenous
population through systems of tribute, they needed more in order to fully dominate the
indigenous people. This required creating racial categories that served to normalize the idea of
European dominance and indigenous subordinance. In order to establish a reinforced social
hierarchy based upon race, the Spaniards used methods of humiliation. This included using the
threat of physical punishment, segregating indigenous people from Europeans through the
separation of living and working areas, and establishing the idea that education was not an
indigenous right, but rather a European privilege. This social hierarchy based on race naturalized
Spanish domination and created an “imagined inherited right to dominate” (Now we are Citizens,
Nolan 7
29). But the question remains, how could the Spaniards set up this type of hierarchy and have the
ability to subordinate the indigenous people without inciting an indigenous rebellion or uprising?
Nancy Postero describes the pervasive manner in which the colonial institutions established by
the Spaniards led to complete hegemonic control of the indigenous population:
Hegemony is carried out not just through coercion, but through a whole
lived social process as practically organized by specific and dominant
meanings and values, and thus, domination and subordination are
experienced through a saturation of the whole process of living—all the
lived identities and relationships—and ultimately, this hegemonic
control feels as if it were normal life and common sense (Now we are
Citizens, 9).
Thus, these colonial institutions permeated every aspect of society, every relationship within
society, and essentially, there was no escaping this idea of “racialized Eurocentrism” (Johnson,
140). Despite the fact that Spanish dominance began to seem normal in Bolivian society, Spanish
colonial institutions had very negative consequences for Bolivia’s indigenous people. The
indigenous population suffered from “social injustice, economic inequality, and political
disempowerment” (Howard, 179).
Unfortunately, these colonial institutions and their detrimental consequences for Bolivia’s
indigenous people did not disappear with Bolivian Independence from Spain in 1825 (“Bolivia
History Timeline”). There continued to be a “continuum of discrimination, exploitation, and
exclusion embedded in the societal structure” (Pape, 104). But if Bolivia was now independent
from Spain, why did the indigenous population remain stuck at the bottom of society?
Nolan 8
Decolonization for the creole elites, white individuals of Spanish descent who were born in the
Americas, was very different from decolonization for the indigenous people (Ewen, 36). For the
creoles, independence from Spain meant political, economic, and social liberation; yet, these new
freedoms did not apply to Bolivia’s indigenous population (Howard, 177). Although Bolivia was
technically now free from colonialism, a new type of colonialism emerged and continued to
dominate the indigenous population. Linda Farthing interviewed Vice President Álvaro García
Linera, a man of European descent who, as the vice president of Bolivia, fights alongside
President Evo Morales to build an equal Bolivian society for all indigenous and non-indigenous
alike. This interview illustrates this new type of colonialism in Bolivia.
Could you address the challenges of decolonizing a state after 500 years of
colonial processes?
We live a deeply colonial and racist society. These historical
relationships shape and define all the interactions that take place on a
daily level, from the way you address people, the use of public space,
even who gets precedence in public transportation. Every one of these
interactions reflects a deeply stratified society. None of us has any doubt
that it will take decades to get rid of these deeply etched internalized
colonial relations (Farthing, 31).
Thus, independence freed Bolivia from Spanish colonialism, but not from internal colonialism.
This phrase, “internal colonialism” is the key to understanding the marginalization of Bolivia’s
indigenous population. As Brian B. Johnson states, “Internal colonialism is a form of
Nolan 9
socioeconomic-cultural domination based in capitalist hegemony and racism, and historically
exercised by local and regional governing elites over subaltern groups” (140). Internal colonial
structures are the reason Bolivia’s indigenous people continue to suffer from racism,
discrimination, and marginalization.
One of the continuing ideas of internal colonialism is the belief that all that is European is
superior while anything else is inferior. This mentality particularly applies to language. In
Bolivia, there is a sense of validity and legitimacy of the Spanish language (Howard, 180). To
illustrate, during a congressional meeting, one woman objected to an issue that was brought up.
As she spoke, she switched from Spanish to her native language Quechua. Immediately there
was a reaction from the right-wing members of the congress, and one member yelled out, “Let
her speak when she learns Spanish!” Despite the fact that almost sixty percent of the delegates at
the meeting identified themselves as being indigenous, and that almost sixty-five percent of them
could speak an indigenous language, it was still viewed as inappropriate to speak anything other
than Spanish in formal settings (Howard, 183). Indeed, any setting that is perceived as being
“official” immediately rejects all indigenous presence or influence with the Eurocentric belief
that the only things that are civilized are from European culture. Richard Patch defines this well:
“there is a deep sense of ridiculousness of a person wearing a necktie, when that person is unable
to speak Spanish” (130). This emphasis that Spanish is the “official” language in Bolivia can be
viewed as a type of linguistic exclusion because indigenous-language speakers are then isolated
from the dominant discourse in Bolivian society (Howard, 183). This idea that the leading
culture and discourse is European is bred from internal colonialism, and only serves to make all
speakers of indigenous languages feel stigmatized and further excluded from society (Howard,
Nolan 10
179). Thus, the pervasiveness of internal colonialism and how it affects every aspect of everyday
life distinctly sets apart indigenous people as second-class citizens (Bomberry, 1796).
Internal colonialism is a common thread throughout Bolivia’s recent history as a newly
independent state, and it is through internal colonialism that the social exclusion of indigenous
people can be explained. The elite class, the dominant group that embraces Western ideals, is the
group that has defined the Bolivian nation and came to the conclusion that the indigenous people
did not fit into this definition of the Bolivian nation (Bomberry, 1793). A complaining bank
cashier, of non-indigenous background, illustrates Bolivian society’s insensitive dismissal of the
features of indigenous cultures: “if these [indigenous] people are really so poor, why do they
waste time and money getting drunk and dancing around? It’s no wonder they can’t get ahead.
What this country needs is hard work and initiative” (Rance, 1991). The “getting drunk and
dancing around” that the cashier is referring to is the indigenous cultural ritual of making a plea
to the natural forces for a good harvest, which is necessary for survival (Rance, 1991). The
characteristics of Bolivia’s indigenous cultures have been spurned by the minority group in
power, which refuses to see the important values of “solidarity, reciprocity, and the sharing of
available resources” which define indigenous culture (Rance, 1991). As part of this refusal to
recognize the central values of indigenous culture, the elite classes began to argue that in order to
advance Bolivian society, the indigenous people needed to be “civilized”—assimilated to
resemble the white, Spanish-speakers that made up the elite class in power—or that they would
have to be encouraged to “disappear” (Now we are Citizens, 35). The elite class truly believed
that “the cause of backwardness in Bolivian civilization is the indigenous race, which is
particularly unresponsive to innovation and progress.” However, due to the fact that indigenous
people were the majority of the population, it would not be possible for assimilation to be a
Nolan 11
short-term solution. Thus, the other imagined option was to make the indigenous people
“disappear,” which was accomplished by completely excluding the indigenous from Bolivia’s
political, economic, and social spheres.
An example of this exclusion that connects back with the idea of linguistic exclusion is
the lack of media and informational sources in indigenous languages in Bolivia. As Luis Rojas
Velarde says, despite the majority population of indigenous people, there are barely any
indigenous language newspapers or TV stations (1). In fact, attempts to create indigenous
language media have not been successful due to lack of commercial support. Thus, the main
source of information and communication for Bolivia’s indigenous people is through broadcast
radio (Rojas, Velarde, 1). Yet even with over three hundred radio stations throughout Bolivia,
only thirty-five of these stations broadcast in Aymara, and even less than that broadcast in other
indigenous languages (Rojas Velarde, 1). By failing to provide sources of information and
communication in indigenous languages, Bolivia’s indigenous population is excluded from
society and even from one another. This linguistic exclusion serves the group of Bolivian elite
well because it is very easy to silence a group by purposefully failing to provide the proper
services in which they can communicate. Through purposeful neglect, Bolivian elites could
imagine that the indigenous population merely did not exist, or at least lived an existence that
was quite easy to ignore.
In addition to understanding the role that the Bolivian minority group in power has had in
the complete exclusion of indigenous people from society, it is also very important to understand
the influence that foreign powers have had, as well as their role in indigenous exclusion, in
particular, the role of the United States and its coca eradication campaign. The coca plant is
sacred to many indigenous people in Bolivia for its important role in religion and traditional
Nolan 12
medicine that has been practiced among indigenous people for thousands of years (Paltto, 1).
Despite being very sacred to Bolivia’s indigenous people, large amounts of coca leaves are made
into coca paste, and from the paste, cocaine is produced (Healey, 91). During the 1980s and early
1990s, in efforts to reduce drug trafficking as part of the United States’ War on Drugs, the U.S.
began promoting coca eradication campaigns in Bolivia (Rance, 1991). In 1983, Bolivia signed
an agreement with the U.S. that stated that four thousand hectares of coca would be eradicated by
1985 as well as implementing stricter control and monitoring on the transport, purchase, and sale
of coca plants (Healey, 91). However, for many of Bolivia’s indigenous people, growing and
selling coca plants were their only means of income. As stated by an indigenous woman in the
film Cocalero, “If we don’t have coca, then we don’t have anything” (Cocalero, 2007). As an
incentive for farmers to pull up their coca crops, the U.S. promised compensation and funding
for development (Rance, 1991). Yet, when farmers agreed to eradicate their crops, the promised
compensation was slow to arrive, and oftentimes the development projects were never
implemented either. With no source of income, indigenous farmers were trapped in severe
poverty with no alternative options without the development programs. As one farmer said,
“we’ve heard so many promises that have never been fulfilled. For us, coca eradication without
development means hunger and misery” (Rance, 1991). Thus, the United States’ coca eradication
campaign only served to increase the suffering and further marginalize the indigenous people of
Bolivia.
With all these instances of marginalization and exclusion of the Bolivian indigenous
population, the question remains, have the indigenous been “complacent” in their position in
society? Bolivia’s indigenous people have been suffering for centuries, yet there have not been
substantial changes to better their status as second class citizens. Is it possible that indigenous
Nolan 13
people have accepted their position and have perpetuated it themselves? For example, in an
interview with Economist magazine, an indigenous man described memories from his childhood
when his mother would drag him into the street to let a mestizo—a person of mixed white and
indigenous descent—pass on the paved sidewalk (“Mestizo”). He also spoke of how when
indigenous people came into town to go to the market, town officials would confiscate their
ponchos and hats—traditional indigenous clothing—and force them to clean the streets
(Economist, 2004). As Victoria Bomberry illustrates, a common “joke” among mestizo Bolivians
is that negative individual characteristics are always justified by saying “that must be in the
Indian in me” (1794). This type of “joke” is not a joke at all, as it only serves to perpetuate
discrimination against indigenous people. Why did that man’s mother put herself in the
submissive position to the mestizo? Why didn’t the indigenous people fight against the town
officials? Why are Bolivians of indigenous descent renouncing their indigenous heritage? Again,
the answers to these questions go back to the concept of internal colonialism and the deeply
seeded idea that indigenous people are second-class citizens, an idea that the indigenous people
themselves believe. However, it is incorrect to assume that Bolivia’s indigenous people have
always simply accepted their position in society, as there have been indigenous uprisings in the
past.
For example, from 1910 to 1930, there was a series of rebellions by indigenous people
living in the highland areas of Bolivia (Now we are Citizens, 37). The indigenous people were
protesting the political and economic domination of the Bolivian elite, and the leaders of these
uprisings demanded more political representation and return of indigenous lands that had been
taken away. The military, as ordered by the state, eventually put these rebellions down (Now we
are Citizens, 37). In the 1970s, the Katarista movement became the major indigenous rights
Nolan 14
movement in Bolivia. The Katarista movement was based on an ideology that aimed to promote
indigenous rights; this ideology was the same as the one in the rebellion led in 1781 by Túpac
Katari against the Spaniards (“Bolivia: A Country Study”). During the Katarista movement, there
was violent conflict between the Bolivian army and the Quechua, who had been protesting
against the severe decrease in agricultural prices. The military regime at the time ended up using
violence as a way to repress the indigenous mobilization (O’Toole, 227). These movements
demonstrate that Bolivia’s indigenous population has not been complacent in its position in
society, yet these rebellions against the elite in power never resulted in substantial change to
better the situation for indigenous people. Why were these uprisings unsuccessful? Why haven’t
the indigenous people had more influence in creating change?
As stated by Jeffery R. Webber, “The indigenous people of Bolivia have always been
exploited and oppressed, but only occasionally have they been able to organize and mobilize
themselves” (Webber, 37). In the first place, the indigenous population has had very limited
political influence and capability. However, the principal reason that indigenous uprisings and
rebellions have not had much success is due to the divisions among Bolivia’s indigenous people
(Webber, 43). As stated before, there are over thirty distinct indigenous groups in Bolivia.
Despite the fact that this paper has referred to Bolivia’s indigenous groups under a single
unifying term, each group has its own unique values, interests, and cultural practices. The
indigenous groups of Bolivia have strong cultural differences and interests that lead to deep
divisions among them. In particular, there is a strong divide between highland indigenous
populations and lowland indigenous populations (Kirshner, 110). For example, within the
nationwide indigenous population, the Quechua and Aymara are the dominant groups that live in
the Bolivian highlands. These two groups make up around eighty-five percent of Bolivia’s
Nolan 15
indigenous population (Strom, 2011). Many lowland indigenous groups, like the Guarayo, a
small group with a population around 20,000, feel underrepresented at the national level.
This divide between the highland indigenous groups and the lowland groups goes back to
the days of Spanish colonialism. The Spaniards focused on the highlands and used the large,
organized indigenous population for manual labor; the Spaniards ignored the small, isolated
populations of the lowlands, leaving the lowlands to missionaries (Now we are Citizens, 25). In
1938, the Bolivian government removed the missionaries and their control over the lowlands and
gave control of the lowlands to the white, landowning elite. The lowland indigenous population,
like highland population, was forced to work at the haciendas—large estates owned by white
landowners—through systems of debt-peonage: laborers had to pay off their debt to hacienda
owners through labor, all the while gathering more debt that would eventually become too much
to pay off, guaranteeing a lifetime of labor to the hacienda owner and effectively creating a
system of slavery (Cross, 473). With the Bolivian Revolution in 1952, the hacienda system was
dismantled, but the reforms only reached the indigenous populations in the highlands (Strom,
2011). Thus, Bolivia’s highland and lowland indigenous groups had already been divided due to
cultural and ethnic differences, but colonial institutions established by the Spaniards only
exacerbated the relations between the two groups, and served to create even deeper divisions.
When it comes to rallying around a national call for indigenous unification against the
minority in power, the cultural and ethnic differences between indigenous groups have proven to
be too much to overcome; each indigenous group has differing interests and concerns, so finding
a common goal to work collectively towards as a nation of indigenous people has been extremely
difficult. Although divisions among Bolivia’s indigenous groups have contributed to the struggle
in creating a national indigenous mobilization, the main reason these indigenous uprisings have
Nolan 16
not been successful is due to the level of hegemonic control that the elites have over Bolivia and
its people. As mentioned earlier, an important part of hegemonic control is the dominant
minority’s control over media in Bolivia. Elite classes have been able to shape the opinions of
Bolivians through its control over the national media networks, which includes excluding the
indigenous people by failing to provide news and information sources in indigenous languages
(Vanden, 18). The hegemony of the ruling class is the greatest reason why indigenous uprisings
have been few, and those that have materialized did not generate significant societal change.
However, indigenous peoples were finally recognized in Bolivian society for the first
time after the Bolivian Revolution of 1952. After losing the Chaco War to Paraguay in 1936 due
to poor leadership by the elite class in power, middle and working classes, which included the
indigenous population, began to question the elite class and the reasons why this group had been
in power for so long (Blasier, 35). These new ideas challenging the ruling group festered and
discontent grew among the Bolivian proletariat. This social upheaval combined with a
disorganized national economy which eventually led to rebellion and the Bolivian Revolution of
1952 (Blasier, 35). The Revolution was the first time in Bolivian history where the oligarchic
state was dismantled and a new political regime led by the workers’ movement was installed. As
René Antonio Mayorga said, “The Revolution of 1952…had produced an unusual and entirely
original political phenomenon in Latin American history: the destruction of the oligarchic
bourgeois state by an armed proletariat” (Mayorga, 89). With the Revolution came serious
economic consequences that served to level Bolivian society (Patch, 130). Within four years of
the revolution, inflation rose 6,000 percent and economic productivity nearly came to a halt
(Patch, 123-125). The upper class vanished as the severe inflation took out all of their savings,
and the bottom classes moved upwards, creating a large middle class (Patch, 130). Yet, the most
Nolan 17
significant accomplishment of the Bolivian Revolution was the recognition of the indigenous
people and the integration of the indigenous population into social and political spheres of the
nation (Patch, 123). The Bolivian Revolution brought about universal suffrage and redistribution
of land from the hands of the elite back to indigenous people (Weston, 85). So now indigenous
people were finally being recognized, but what did that actually mean for Bolivia’s indigenous
population?
For the first time, indigenous people were now freed from institutions of debt-peonage,
were now recognized in society, and were now a force in the political and social sphere within
the Bolivian state through organized indigenous syndicates (Patch, 124,128). The Bolivian
Revolution paved the way for new opportunities at social mobility for indigenous people,
something that had never been offered before. However, as Mayorga states, “the nature of the
state did not change” (Mayorga, 91). No substantial transformation of the state took place; the
state remained a capitalist one that was not interested in preserving and respecting indigenous
culture (Mayorga, 91). The Revolution of 1952 aimed to create a unified national Bolivian
identity, however, indigenous people were not part of this imagined identity (Bomberry, 1795).
The desire was to create a nation under “mestizaje”: a culturally and ethnically mixed middle
class that spoke Spanish, desired capitalism, and believed in Western ideals (Albro, 392). In
order to promote this idea of mestizaje, the state encouraged the indigenous population, most
specifically the highland indigenous people, to rename themselves campesinos, which means
peasant (Healey, 89). By asking the indigenous population to reject its identity as “indigenous”
and adopt an identity of “peasant”, there was a hope that the indigenous people would embrace
an identity of being farmers, accepting a role of agricultural production (Smith, 253). These
efforts of assimilation showed that efforts to include the indigenous population in Bolivian
Nolan 18
society were not a signs of societal change to finally respect indigenous culture and tradition, but
rather an attempt to assimilate the indigenous population as mestizos.
Before moving on, it is important to note the corporatist structures that developed in the
aftermath of the Revolution. The governing party that led the Revolution was the MNR, or the
Revolutionary Nationalist Movement, and after the Revolution, the MNR party mobilized
several organizations, giving power to the workers’ unions and the indigenous syndicates in
particular (Weston, 85). However, the MNR eventually lost control over the many organizations
it had mobilized, and in order to ensure the political support of these organizations, the MNR
began buying their support (Now we are Citizens, 38). This is a form of corporatism, where large
autonomous groups, like the indigenous syndicates, are given political and economic privileges
in exchange for the political support of the groups’ members (O’Toole, 38). As will be explained
later, the corporatist political system unintentionally gave indigenous communities a sense of
autonomy. Eventually, diminishing autonomy with democratization would be one of the reasons
indigenous rights movements mobilized forty years later.
The most important point to take away from the Bolivian Revolution of 1952 was
that although it was a momentous change for the recognition of indigenous people in Bolivian
society, and that the indigenous population was technically given equal rights as white and
mestizo Bolivians, there continued to be intense racial discrimination in Bolivian society
(Bridges, 2009). Therefore, there were small gains for indigenous rights with the Bolivian
Revolution, yet, as made clear by the assimilation movements that followed, these gains did not
equate to true societal change. As a result, the quality of life for indigenous people did not
improve. Despite the fact that the Bolivian Revolution did not provide significant improvements
in combating racism and marginalization against the indigenous population, it did empower the
Nolan 19
indigenous population to start questioning the societal structure that had previously been viewed
as simply “the way things were”, due to the pervasive influence of internal colonialism. The
early questions that first emerged within the proletariat against the ruling elite, which eventually
led to the Bolivian Revolution, are the same questions that continued among the indigenous
population after the Revolution. Bolivia’s indigenous people really began questioning as
unhappiness grew with the failure of the assimilation movements. The attempt to create a
national mestizo identity did not change the structural inequalities against the indigenous
population. Instead, indigenous people started realizing that the state had merely wanted to
incorporate indigenous people as “docile neoliberal subjects” (“Morales’ MAS Government”,
22). The 1970s marked a period of higher political self-consciousness among indigenous people
that began to question Bolivia’s political system (O’Toole, 227; Erica Smith, 110).
An example of this rise in consciousness and questioning occurred in 1981, during the
repressive military dictatorship of Luis García Meza Tejada. After witnessing a brutal public
punishment, an indigenous man began to question the regime in power:
“During the dictatorship, I saw a Quechua man burned alive by the
government. They doused him with gasoline and then lit the match. Up
until that day, I thought the president was the father of all Bolivians. I
had little education and no ideology but we began to question why the
president would burn someone alive” (Cocalero, 2007).
This questioning marked the “rise of indigenous consciousness,” and with it came growing doubt
concerning the Bolivian political system and the hegemonic control still maintained by dominant
Nolan 20
classes (O’Toole, 227; Vanden, 21). In addition, encroachment on indigenous land by loggers
and cattle ranchers caused major discontent among indigenous people as well as a heightened
sense of consciousness (Healey, 85; “Morales’ MAS Government”, 22). This heightened sense
of consciousness among Bolivia’s indigenous people combined with multiple political,
economic, and social factors to lead to a result never before witnessed in Bolivia’s history: the
rise of enduring indigenous rights movements.
Within the past forty years, four major factors have aligned with an increased level of
Bolivian indigenous consciousness to create the perfect atmosphere to foster significant societal
change. These factors are: the emergence of international development and aid organizations
during the 1970s, the transition to democratic rule that occurred simultaneously during the 1980s
with the implementation of neoliberal economic policies, as well as the recent impact of
globalization and technological advances. Together, these factors all paved the way for a national
mobilization of Bolivia’s indigenous people (O’Toole, 227; Vanden, 20).
Before delving into the first factor, Bolivia’s transition to democracy, it is important to
return to the idea of corporatism, and the impact corporatist structures had on the rise of
indigenous rights movements. After the Bolivian Revolution, the state established policies that
demonstrated the state’s attempt at nation building. Besides renaming the indigenous people to
“peasants,” the policies also included land reforms that ended exploitative labor systems, such as
the debt-peonage system on haciendas, and it also redistributed land to the indigenous people. In
addition, these policies formed “peasant associations,” like the indigenous syndicates, that aimed
to incorporate the indigenous population into Bolivian society (Yashar, 81). This creation of
peasant associations was part of a larger organization of the state along corporatist lines. This
idea of corporatism is crucially important to understanding the consequences of democratization
Nolan 21
on Bolivia’s indigenous people. Howard J. Wiarda defines corporatism as “a system of social
and political organization in which major societal groups or interests are integrated into the
government system, often…under state guidance, tutelage, and control, to achieve coordinated
national development” (Wiarda, ix). Therefore, after the Bolivian Revolution, the Bolivian state,
in an effort to develop a unified nation, organized itself along corporatist lines, incorporating
various groups such as the workers’ unions and the peasant associations. The indigenous people
were very eager to organize themselves into peasant communities as part of larger peasant
federations in order to have greater access to the state and the land reforms the state was offering
(Yashar, 82). As Deborah Yashar states, peasant communities were given “inviolable communal
lands” that gave the indigenous population land for farming as well as the independence to
govern themselves through traditional indigenous governance (82). Thus, the corporatist policies
of the pre-democratization period in Bolivia meant autonomy within local indigenous
communities, and this local autonomy was highly desired after centuries of exploitation under
repressive labor systems of the elite landowning classes. This meant that the oppressive military
regimes that followed during the 1960s and 1970s did not have much impact on the locally
autonomous indigenous communities who were able to continue their traditional forms of
indigenous governance.
As Bolivia began undergoing a transition to democracy in the 1980s, there was an
unexpected reaction from indigenous communities. A slow transition from military regimes to
semi-democratic governments occurred in the 1980s. Although there were elections, there was
not a candidate who received a clear majority of the votes, so the Bolivian Congress elected
several presidents. It was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that true democratization
occurred (Isbester, 284). From a surface perspective, it appears that the transition to democracy
Nolan 22
was a positive change for the indigenous people of Bolivia. After all, democracy “empowers
previously excluded social groups, such as indigenous people” by opening up new spaces for
social groups to organize and participate in politics (Centellas, 171; O’Toole, 228). Now that the
repressive military regimes were no longer in power, preventing political mobilization, activism
in the political sphere, even by indigenous groups, was now possible (Smith, 254). So as
democratization opened up new spaces for political contestation, it also opened up new planes
for indigenous movements to mobilize and protest their marginalization. However, Bolivia’s
transition to democracy also brought severe consequences for the indigenous population in
Bolivia.
Before democratization, the corporatist regimes had emphasized federations and
associations of the various interest groups in society as a way to organize the state. This meant
that Bolivia’s corporatist structure promoted local autonomy for indigenous communities. Yet,
with the transition to democracy, the emphasis shifted from societal organizations to the
promotion of individual rights. The peasant federations that acted as liaisons between the
indigenous communities and the state lost their political and social power, and therefore, the
indigenous population lost their connection to the state. This meant that indigenous communities
no longer had “inviolable communal lands” or local autonomy, a very negative consequence of
Bolivia’s democratization (Yashar, 86). In addition, indigenous communities believe that they
deserve the “right to determine their own democratic ideals” (Bomberry, 1792). For example, an
Aymara intellectual, Marta Gonzalez, speaks for many of Bolivia’s indigenous people when she
says that “democracy displaces indigenous forms of governing that rely on intimate and intensive
participation of the people, in contrast to Western-style democracies that ensure that few people
have power” (Bomberry, 1792). In traditional Aymara government, power is shared by every
Nolan 23
member of the community, quite a change from the representative democracies of Western
nations (Bomberry, 1792). Thus, the indigenous population did not view Bolivia’s
democratization as an opening up of civil society and an opportunity for indigenous people to
finally have a voice in the political sphere. Instead, indigenous people viewed democracy as an
infringement on their “local autonomy and communal rights” (Yashar, 91).
Bolivia’s transition to democracy opened up new spaces for indigenous people to
mobilize, but it also created high levels of discontent among indigenous people. However, the
discontent only rose as Bolivia underwent simultaneous political and economic changes; at the
same time Bolivia was transitioning to democracy, neoliberalism in Bolivia began. In 1985, the
newly elected government that followed the military dictatorship, received loans from the IMF
and the World Bank (“Morales’ MAS Government”, 21).The conditions of these loans were to
implement neoliberal economic reforms, and, as an added incentive to accept these conditions,
the United States offered Bolivia substantial aid (Patch, 131). After accepting these conditions,
this meant that Bolivia privatized the tin mines and land markets, deregulated the agricultural
sector, diminished credit programs, and implemented structural adjustment policies that left no
funding for social services, like healthcare or education (“Morales’ MAS Government”, 21;
Yashar, 84-85). The neoliberal economic reforms coupled with new democratic politics
completely eliminated Bolivia’s corporatist structures, meaning the indigenous people’
communal land was no longer theirs, and indigenous communities became destabilized when
their local autonomy was taken away (Smith, 253-254).
Neoliberalism was pushed onto the people of Bolivia by “national and international
economic elites,” which meant the elite business classes within Bolivia, international financial
institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, and the United States all pressured the Bolivian
Nolan 24
state to adopt neoliberal economic policies (Vanden, 18). Clearly, to those in power, the
consequences of neoliberal policies upon the people, especially the indigenous people, was of no
concern. The United States has been a powerful force in Bolivia, as illustrated by its efforts in
the coca eradication campaigns, and the U.S. was the first to take advantage of the neoliberal
economic policies that opened up Bolivian markets to foreign competitors. The influence of the
United States could especially be felt in the agricultural sector. Despite the fact that Bolivian
indigenous farmers produced around two-thirds of the food in Bolivia, indigenous farmers found
themselves unable to compete with food imports from the United States; as one indigenous
farmer said, “the mills are full of U.S. wheat” (Rance, 1991). Indigenous farmers eventually
backed out of the market, losing their income due to this unfair competition (Rance, 1991).
Clearly, neoliberal economic policies have benefited international and elite interests
instead of indigenous people, but this created a strong counter reaction from indigenous people
(Kohl, 155). In the 1990s, neoliberal economic policies became more widespread and Bolivia’s
indigenous people had growing realization that the neoliberal economic model was not meeting
their needs; rather, these policies were detrimental: perpetuating economic inequality, further
marginalizing indigenous groups, and contributing to poverty by not encouraging growth to help
combat it (Vanden, 20). Increased indigenous consciousness of the consequences of Bolivia’s
democratization combined with its adoption of neoliberal economics created high levels of
tension and discontent among Bolivia’s indigenous people. Indigenous people began mobilizing,
as they had done in the past, but these mobilizations of recent history were different than the
mobilizations of the past. In combination with international sources of aid and funding,
globalization and technology aligned with the factors that caused the intense indigenous
Nolan 25
discontent. Together, all these factors created indigenous movements that were more powerful
and organized than any that had been seen before.
Unlike previous movements, new indigenous movements had the support and funding
from nongovernmental organizations. NGOs began making their presence known in Bolivia in
the late 1970s. For example, in 1979, a local union of indigenous people in Mizque, Bolivia
resented the local elite who were dominating the politics of the city. However, it was not until
the union began working with a Bolivian NGO did alternatives to the elite rule become a
possibility. With the support of the NGO, traditional institutions of indigenous governance were
installed (Cameron, 69). An important reason NGOs had such success in supporting indigenous
developments was that NGOs provided the financial resources that these indigenous movements
normally would not have (Cameron, 73). Many nongovernmental agencies had access to foreign
funding, thus increasing the amount of financial resources indigenous movements could have
(Antonio Morales, 2011). In 1980, there were 100 estimated NGOs in Bolivia, but by the end of
the 1990s, there were more than 1,000 (Kohl, 157). Essentially, NGOs played a crucial part in
the mobilization of Bolivia’s indigenous population as they allowed indigenous communities to
develop the skills to organize themselves as well as provided access to the stronger financial and
technical support of NGOs (Cameron, 72). However, the complete mobilization of Bolivia’s
indigenous people could not have been achieved without the final factor: the impact of
globalization and the increase in accessibility of the internet.
Within the past few decades, the world has undergone a technological revolution, which
has opened the doors to a stronger influence of globalization and allowing people from all over
the world to communicate in an easy, effective, and rapid manner. These global connections
have not been available in the past. Historically, indigenous uprisings “have been characterized
Nolan 26
by their local nature and lack of linkages to national movements and international conditions
(Vanden, 23). But one critical factor that has led to the rise in the mobilization of Bolivia’s
indigenous population is the ease and availability of mass communication. Harry E. Vanden
describes the effects that technological advances have had on the rise of indigenous rights
movements:
These movements are different than movements that preceded them due
to the systems of mass communication and related communication
technology and easy, low-cost access to the Internet have combined with
higher levels of literacy, widened access to higher education and much
greater political freedom under the democratization process (Vanden, 21).
For example, the indigenous movement that ended up forcing President Gonzalo Sanchez de
Lozada to resign was very different from previous movements, as this movement was on a
national level. The movement started gaining more national support as it became more widely
known throughout Bolivia as protestors spread the word through the internet. In addition,
representatives of the movement were sent to international meetings where the movement
became more recognized and also gained support from people around the world who were facing
similar struggles. The ability to connect with people throughout Bolivia and the world through
the internet allowed this movement against President Lozada to gain more supporters inside and
outside of Bolivia to lead a movement that created enough pressure to force President Lozada’s
resignation (Vanden, 22).
After centuries of social exclusion perpetuated by internal colonialist structures, the
indigenous people in Bolivia finally had a voice. A heightened indigenous consciousness led
Nolan 27
Bolivia’s indigenous population to begin questioning the hegemonic control held by the elite
groups in power. Bolivia’s dual transition to a democratic and neoliberal state aggravated the
indigenous population and led to the realization that the indigenous had to fight for their land,
autonomy, and social rights. Financial and technical support from nongovernmental
organizations and the greater international community meant that indigenous movements now
had the resources to mobilize on a national level. In addition, technological advances in recent
decades opened up pathways for mass communication, meaning that the indigenous people now
had the sources of communication to make their local movements into national ones. All of this
meant that the indigenous people of Bolivia could now stand up for their social, political, and
economic rights and demand recognition from the minority group in power. Felipe Quispe, the
radical leader of an indigenous rights movement in Bolivia, el Movimiento Indígena Pachakuti,
was asked what motivates his work for indigenous rights. He responded, “So my daughter will
not be your servant” (Bomberry, 1795). Thus, Bolivia’s indigenous people were not simply
fighting for their own liberation, but they were fighting for a future free from centuries of
subordination and discrimination.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that the desire of the indigenous movements was not
to create civil war and overthrow the state, but rather, these movements wanted to reform
democracy (Yashar, 77). Thus, indigenous movements have not sought out tactics of guerilla
warfare or violence as a means to achieve change. Instead, these movements have used mass
mobilizations, roadblocks, marches, electoral campaigns, protests, and policy negotiations as a
way to have their voices heard in a peaceful manner (Yashar, 77). However, the fact that
indigenous movements have been peaceful does not mean that these movements have not
defended themselves and their rights. In fact, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, these
Nolan 28
successfully mobilized national indigenous movements led natiowide strikes, demonstrations,
and protests which eventually caused the resignation of two presidents (Vanden, 20).
In 1999, the Bolivian government, led by President Hugo Banzer at the time, wanted to
privatize the water industry in Cochabamba, Bolivia, a city that has an indigenous majority and
also happens to be the third largest city in Bolivia. The privatization of the water industry would
help finance the construction of a massive dam. However, in Cochabamba, the price of water
was already expensive, and the people knew that privatization would only drive the prices up
even higher (Globalization at a Crossroads, 2010). As one woman from the film, Globalization
at a Crossroads, said, “the poverty is so extreme here that not everyone can even buy a jug of
water.” After the privatization of water, it became illegal to dig a well, or even to collect
rainwater in a barrel. The people erupted in outrage and after 3 months of protests, the
government returned the water industry to the people’s control (Globalization at a Crossroads,
2010). This example of Cochabamba’s Water War demonstrates the power that indigenous
people now had. However, this particular movement was fairly restricted to the Cochabamba
region, as the people living in that area were the ones affected by the privatization of the water
industry. The Water War did demonstrate that when indigenous people mobilized on a
significant level, they had real political power.
In 2003 and 2005, Bolivia’s indigenous people were able to bring monumental change to
the Bolivian government by forcing two consecutive presidents to resign. President Gonzalo
Sanchez de Lozada’s first time as president of Bolivia was from 1993 to 1997, but it was not
until his second term starting in 2002 that the trouble started (O’Toole, 229). Lozada was a
strong believer in globalization and neoliberalism. He also represented the wealthy, white, elite
class with Western ideals that had ruled over Bolivia and its indigenous people for centuries
Nolan 29
(Vanden, 22). President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was the epitome of the oppressive forces
that had marginalized indigenous people for so long, and after the Cochabamba Water War, the
indigenous movements were not afraid to stand up for their rights. When Lozada proposed a plan
to transport natural gas out of Bolivia and to the United States, it sparked the Gas War of 2003.
This was a movement against neoliberal economic policies and against the person trying to
implement them. After six weeks of demonstrations and protests against the plan, Lozada
resigned (“Morales’ MAS Government”, 24). It seemed that indigenous movements achieved
success, but this was not the case when Lozada’s vice president, Carlos Mesa assumed the
presidency.
The first problem with President Carlos Mesa and his administration was that they were
viewed as being the same type of elite as the former president, who was representative of those
who had marginalized indigenous people since Spanish colonialism (Vanden, 24). The
administration of President Carlos Mesa passed the hydrocarbons law in 2005, which gave the
government control over Bolivia’s hydrocarbons and natural gas resources and also sharply
increased taxes. The indigenous communities believed that this opened Bolivia’s natural gas
sources open for foreign exploitation and instead, pushed for complete nationalization of natural
gas (Spronk, 31). By June 4th, 2005, all of Bolivia’s major highways were blockaded at 55 points
throughout the nation, effectively bringing it to an economic standstill as transportation of goods
became nearly impossible (Albro, 387). That same month, there were over half a million people
protesting in the streets of the capital city, La Paz, and Mesa felt he had no choice but to step
down (Erica Smith, 109). Thus, with the pressure from the mass mobilization of the indigenous
movements, two unsatisfactory presidents were forced to resign. It appears that indigenous
Nolan 30
movements finally had created substantial change within Bolivia, but how far could these
movements go to fight against their marginalization within Bolivian society?
January 2006 marked a momentous day for all indigenous people of Bolivia: the
inauguration of the first indigenous president in their country’s history (Healey, 83). Evo
Morales was born into an Aymara family and was a coca grower for many years before he
eventually headed a cocalero union and then went on to lead a political party, el Movimiento al
Socialismo, otherwise known as MAS. When he ran for president as party leader of MAS, it was
the first party to win absolute majority of the vote since Bolivia underwent democratization in
the 1980s. This reflected the great desire by Bolivia’s indigenous people to finally have a leader
that represented the country’s indigenous population, not only the elite minority group (Erica
Smith, 110; Bomberry, 1790). In Evo Morales’ inaugural address he stated: “We are here,
Bolivian and Latin American sisters and brothers; we are going to continue until we achieve
equality in this country” (Vanden, 25). With the implementation of a new Bolivian Constitution,
as well as the name change from the Republic of Bolivia to the Plurinational State of Bolivia,
Evo Morales has been making significant changes to break down the colonial structures that have
continued to marginalize Bolivia’s indigenous people. Sharing the new sentiment among
indigenous people, a female coca grower said, “the poor are finally going to come out on top”
(Cocalero, 2007).
President Morales is committed to improving the representation of the indigenous
population within the state as well as improving Bolivia’s extreme levels of social inequality
(O’Toole, 233). Since President Morales was elected to power, “an unprecedented series of
structural innovations has been implemented by the new government” (Johnson, 139). Soon after
being elected president, Evo Morales and the MAS party issued the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo,
Nolan 31
the first social development strategy. In Johnson’s description of the plan, he states that, “the
history of Bolivia has been marked by colonialism and neoliberalism” and that the country has
been dominated by “transnationals and international organizations of the powerful nations… and
the national bourgeoisie listened only to the orders of the foreign countries” (Johnson, 142). The
plan declares that due to the high levels of inequality, poverty, and dependency upon foreign
nations, the government “has initiated the process of dismantling colonialism and neoliberalism
and, at the same time, initiates the construction of a new society of a plurinational and
communitarian state” (Johnson, 142). Through this plan, the Morales administration
implemented several policies to redistribute income in Bolivia, promote decentralization,
nationalize several industries, and implement land reform (O’Toole, 233; Johnson, 139).
Most importantly, Evo Morales has brought the most significant change through a new
constitution, which was pushed by indigenous rights movements and passed by voters in 2009
(Bomberry, 1790). Some of the significant changes of the new constitution were as follows: it
decentralized state power as a way of including more citizens in political participation, it
nationalized Bolivia’s natural resources to both reduce Bolivia’s dependency on foreign
countries and use the profits from this nationalization to fund social programs , and it also
declared that indigenous people have the right to self-determination and self-government and
thus gave political and judicial autonomy to indigenous groups (O’Toole, 102; Laserna, 2010).
However, one of the most important accomplishments from the new Bolivian Constitution of
2009 was changing the official name of Bolivia. Although a name change may seem like a small,
fairly insignificant modification, this act solidified the recognition of indigenous people in the
country. In contrast with the Bolivian Revolution of 1952 that tried to assimilate indigenous
people, Evo Morales and his government aim to recognize and respect all of Bolivia’s distinct
Nolan 32
ethnic groups; they demonstrated this in their decision to change the name from the Republic of
Bolivia to the Plurinational State of Bolivia (Antonio Morales, 2011). The term “plurinational”
reflects the thirty-six different indigenous nations within the Bolivian state, and as O’Toole says,
this “establishes its status as a state encompassing various groups that can each claim a culturally
distinct status as separate nations” (235). By officially recognizing each of the indigenous groups
that make up Bolivia, the Morales government is doing something that has never been done
before in Bolivian history.
However, the Bolivian Constitution is not the only thing that Evo Morales and his
administration have accomplished for indigenous rights. Bolivia has been plagued by a
neoliberal health services sector that has excluded many people from proper health care, mainly
indigenous people. President Morales has put forward a plan that guarantees that the state will
provide access to health services for all Bolivians. This plan will be implemented by breaking
down colonial structures and replacing them with a national health system that also incorporates
traditional indigenous medicinal practices (Johnson, 144).The Morales administration has also
implemented programs to encourage growth of science and technology fields through increased
financial support, as the fields of science and technology are the best way to stimulate
development in Bolivia (McGurn Centellas, 160-163). President Morales has also dissolved a
government ministry that was dedicated to indigenous affairs. He said that because the majority
of Bolivia’s population is indigenous, the fact that there was a specific ministry was a form of
discrimination (O’Toole, 235). In addition, the Morales government has set forth the Bolivian
Education Law, which aims to “radically change the historically racist, hierarchical order of
Bolivian society” (Strom, 2011). The previous education system in Bolivia established
indigenous education programs only for indigenous people, thereby creating an exclusionary
Nolan 33
system. In addition, the previous system was one of “mental colonization” where the elites used
the “superior” Western models of schooling (Strom, 2011). The Bolivian Education Law
emphasizes development of productive skills, encourages community involvement, and requires
material to be taught about indigenous culture and language, including the requirement that every
child learns an indigenous language in addition to Spanish (Strom, 2011). The changes under the
Morales administration are radically changing the social fabric of Bolivian society by not only
recognizing indigenous people, but changing internal structures to create social equality and
prove that indigenous people are valued citizens of Bolivia. Considering the many centuries that
indigenous people have been forced to the bottom of society, it comes as no surprise that there
are many who are resisting these changes.
With the many changes that have granted Bolivia’s indigenous people new rights,
altering the colonial structures that have been in place for hundreds of years, the elite class who
have maintained those structures have been fiercely resisting these changes under Evo Morales.
As O’Toole says, “Latin America has had little experience of political structures that grant
autonomy to culturally distinct communities and states have tended to interpret demands for selfdetermination as a threat to sovereignty rather than a deepening of democratization” (O’Toole,
233). Thus, the elite class, white Spanish-speaking Bolivians who had been reigning at the top of
society, see the changes implemented by the Morales administration as threats to their own
sovereignty and grip on power. In a reaction to the new Bolivian Constitution of 2009, the
former President Carlos Mesa, who resigned as a result from weeks of protests by indigenous
movements, claimed that granting these new rights for indigenous people would only “generate
chaos and inequality” (Bridges, 2009). With Mesa’s past record of passing laws to support the
elite class with no regard to the adverse consequences of these laws on indigenous people,
Nolan 34
Mesa’s statement is clearly biased. In reactions to the land reforms that President Morales wants
to enact that would redistribute land to marginalized indigenous groups, agrarian elites who own
large landholdings are viciously resisting, claiming that these changes are “dangerous” (Valdivia,
67).
However, an interesting point to note is that it is not just the elite Bolivians who are
against the changes of the Morales government. One middle-class man spoke to Gabriela
Valdivia and told how he started with “only the clothes on his back,” labored for years in
sugarcane fields, and eventually became the owner of a medium-sized soy production business.
He believes that the Morales government is simply perpetuating a culture of poverty by “giving
money to their followers” (Valdivia, 77). He claims that the indigenous people of Bolivia are
poor because of their customs and traditions which make them lazy, disorganized, and
irresponsible. “They are used to herding llamas, not working seven days a week, under the hot
sun, with the diseases and mosquitoes you have here” (Valdivia, 77). This man is not alone is his
beliefs, as many white, middle to upper class Bolivians have similar opinions regarding
indigenous people. However, this reasoning that all indigenous people are lazy and that is why
they are poor is how, as Valdivia puts it, “the hegemonic class relies on these explanations in
order to interpret the difference between agrarian classes and their relationships to one another”
(77). They refuse to acknowledge the fact that many of the indigenous people in Bolivia are poor
because of societal structures that exist to repress the indigenous population (Valdivia, 76). With
the changing times, elite Bolivians can no longer refuse to see the colonial structures that have
exploited indigenous people for hundreds of years. Now that Bolivia’s indigenous movements
are steadfast in their mobilization and now that Bolivia has elected its first indigenous president,
the indigenous people can no longer be ignored.
Nolan 35
The election of Evo Morales as president of Bolivia is not only significant because he is
the first indigenous president in the history of the country, but because it shows that Bolivia’s
indigenous people finally have a voice. With the political, economic, and social factors that
aligned at the opportune moment, Bolivia’s indigenous population was able to come together as
a national movement, a strong force that was able to fight back against centuries of domination
by the minority elite class. As Evo Morales emphasizes the indigenous heritage of Bolivia and
fights to free Bolivia of its colonial chains and neoliberal prison, indigenous people are gaining
more rights than ever before (O’Toole, 235). As said by an indigenous worker participating in a
march in 2005, “the governments have been on the side of the transnationals, and the rich. We
want a government on the side of the people” (Webber, 43). Now that Bolivia’s indigenous
people finally have the government on their side, the situation for the indigenous population is
looking up. Nevertheless, the fight for indigenous rights is not over.
It is important to realize that there is a lot of opposition against the Morales government
and against the indigenous movements in general. There is much opposition from the elite
classes in Bolivia, foreign nations interested in exploiting Bolivia’s abundance of rich natural
resources, and from indigenous people themselves. Within Bolivia, the reaction of the elite class
formerly in power has been that “democracy is under siege” (Albro, 390). This claim is
supported by the belief that left-wing leaders of indigenous movements have manipulated groups
of the “uneducated, poor, indigenous, and disillusioned” into mobilizing against the hegemonic
elite (Albro, 390). In reference to the indigenous movements, former President Gonzalo Sanchez
de Lozada said that “mob rule has overwhelmed respect for Bolivia’s democratic process”
(Albro, 390). Opponents also claim that Evo Morales is “reproducing the tradition of
caudillismo” (Laserna, 2010). Caudillismo is the phenomenon that occurred in Latin America
Nolan 36
during the nineteenth century after the independence movements. Caudillos were military leaders
who took power, practicing authoritarian regimes that were supported by the common people
because of their populist politics (Beezley, 351). Those who claim that Morales is an
embodiment of caudillismo believe that the government institutions are meaningless because it is
Evo Morales who holds all of the power. They rationalize that the support that Morales has
enjoyed from the majority of Bolivia’s population is merely an indicator of the extreme level of
manipulation that Morales and the MAS party have achieved (Laserna, 2010). As Vice President
Álvaro García Linera said, “our real problems with the right began once we started attacking
their privileges, particularly those who have massive landholdings in the eastern part of the
country” (Farthing, 32). Thus, right-wing, mainly those who are part of or are in support of the
elite class, are in opposition to the indigenous movements and the Morales government because
they now are feeling the effects and do not want to lose their monopoly on wealth and power in
Bolivia.
Moreover, foreign powers have also developed strong opinions about the indigenous
movements and the Morales government. For many individuals in the international arena who
identify with the conservative right, Evo Morales’ emphasis on indigenous culture and Bolivia’s
indigenous people is seen as creating racial divisions among Bolivians (O’Toole, 228). What
these individuals fail to see is that racial divisions have existed long before the mobilization of
indigenous movements and the rise of Evo Morales as president. The difference is that to these
conservative individuals, it was unimportant that indigenous people were marginalized and
excluded from society for centuries, but as soon as the elite’s monopoly of wealth and power was
threatened, suddenly racial divisions became a problem in Bolivia. As another example of the
backlash against indigenous movements, Mario Vargas Llosa, a famous Peruvian writer, made a
Nolan 37
statement where he singled out current indigenous movements as a threat to democracy because
of “the political and social disorder they generate” (Albro, 391). He claimed that indigenous
movements are “incompatible with civilization and development” (Albro, 391). Again, this is yet
another example of an individual who refuses to acknowledge and actually perpetuates the
deeply entrenched colonial structures that have repressed indigenous people with the belief that
indigenous people are “uncivilized” and “primitive.”
Probably the most dramatic of all claims from the international sphere comes from the
United States, the nation that also holds one of the greatest economic interests in Bolivia. There
is a growing concern among US policy-makers that the indigenous movements in Bolivia could
potentially develop into a terrorist organization that should be dealt with through an expansion of
the War on Terror (Albro, 391). Due to the fact that the United States has economic interests in
Bolivia’s natural resources and the Morales administration is separating itself from all neoliberal
economic policies that would allow the United States to have easy access to these resources, it
makes sense that the United States feels threatened by the Morales government and views.
The most surprising opposition to the Morales administration has been among indigenous
people themselves. The new Bolivian Education Law states that all children need to learn an
indigenous language in addition to Spanish, but not all indigenous parents are in agreement with
this. In fact, some indigenous parents have been resistant to their children being taught in
indigenous languages. This is because in some cases, these parents would prefer that their
children are taught in English, rather than an indigenous language, in conjunction with Spanish.
Centuries of marginalization have taught many indigenous people that their culture and language
is inferior, and thus indigenous people have not yet realized the rights they have been granted
with the new changes under the Morales government. In addition, many indigenous parents are
Nolan 38
requesting their children are taught English so that the children would be able to sell items to
tourists (Economist, 2004). This idea brings up a very important point: just because Evo Morales
is championing for indigenous rights, it does not mean that indigenous people agree with all of
his policy changes. Despite the fact that President Morales and the MAS party have implemented
many changes in order to improve the quality of life as experienced by Bolivia’s indigenous
population, it does not mean that Morales and his party are protected from indigenous
mobilization against them.
In essence, the rise of indigenous movements has opened a door that cannot be closed.
Now that Bolivia’s indigenous population knows the amount of power they hold, there is no
going back. At the end of 2010, the Morales government passed a decree that raised gasoline
prices by seventy-three percent. This extreme rise of gas prices immediately set off increases in
food and transportations prices as well. Soon after, there was a mobilization of the indigenous
movements and huge mass protests erupted. Even those who had been extremely loyal to the
Morales government were protesting against the new decree. Due to the mass uprisings,
President Morales revoked the decree, saying that Bolivia needed to protect his ability of
“governing by obeying the people” (Albó, 2011). However, it took a long time before prices
were able to go back down, and President Morales lost a lot of support because of it. This set up
an interesting dynamic because now it was not only the elite class and its supporters who were
protesting against the Morales administration, but the indigenous movements who brought Evo
Morales to power were protesting as well. Juan Alanoca, a resident of El Alto, Bolivia, said of
the protests that caused President Morales to revoke the decree, “we sent him a message,
‘Remember those who put you in power in the first place’” (Romero, 2011). Another indigenous
man said, “At first we thought Evo was going to be a president of the poor and indigenous, but
Nolan 39
we don’t like what he’s doing. We don’t want him as president anymore”
(http://www.aljazeera.com/video/). This shows that it has not been only Evo Morales enacting
the changes for indigenous rights in Bolivia. Rather, President Morales has represented the
desires of the powerful indigenous majority in Bolivia, and as Juan Alanoca said, it was the
efforts of the indigenous movements that brought Morales to power in the first place.
Thus, the mobilization of indigenous movements in the past twenty years amounts to
more than just Bolivia’s indigenous people demanding to be included in society. Rather, the
indigenous movements represent their effort to “redefine statehood” (O’Toole, 223). It is not
enough for indigenous people to be recognized, or incorporated into society through assimilation,
such as the attempts after the Bolivian Revolution of 1952. It is also not enough to settle for one
indigenous president and happily comply with all decisions he makes; the indigenous movements
are independent entities that represent the interests of a large population of individuals. The main
issues that motivate indigenous movements today are fighting for self-determination and
autonomy, territorial rights, control over natural resources, and political reform for laws that
incorporate indigenous people into national politics and government (O’Toole, 228-229). Despite
the fact that there have been many positive changes that have improved the marginalization of
Bolivia’s indigenous population, the fact remains that internal colonialism is a pervasive
presence, and it will take much more effort from indigenous movements before indigenous
people will be considered equal members of Bolivian society.
Fifty years ago, the indigenous people of Bolivia would never have been able to imagine
land reforms that aim to redistribute land equally among Bolivians, or that the country would be
renamed the Plurinational State of Bolivia to represent the thirty-six indigenous groups that
comprise the Bolivian state, or even imagine that indigenous languages would be taught to their
Nolan 40
children in schools. Certainly, especially with the accomplishments of President Evo Morales
within the last ten years, there have been many improvements to the social exclusion of
indigenous people from Bolivian society. However, as Mr. Tituaña, an indigenous man, puts it,
“the mestizo has begun to see us with greater respect, but they still don’t see us as equal
partners” (Economist, 2004). In spite of the developments made to improve the living condition
of Bolivia’s indigenous people, there is more to improving the quality of life than recognizing
indigenous people by changing the name of the country or passing education laws. Although
these are all contributing factors, Javier Medina, a Latin American intellectual, explains what
else is missing:
“Quality of life is a deeper reflection upon the human condition. It considers
that cultural identity, the physical, mental, and spiritual ties to one’s people,
one’s land, is of equal importance to the raw materials of life. The loss of
common values, the disintegration of communal structures, and the
alienation from the spiritual world can affect the individual more than the
lack of physical items…the struggle against poverty is more than just
improving the economic base and access to public services” (Johnson, 143).
Unlike the assimilation movements after the Bolivian Revolution in 1952, which sought to
incorporate indigenous people by forcing them to adopt Western values and culture, today
Bolivia has been making strong efforts to incorporate indigenous people into society while
respecting their culture and autonomy. However, in order to enact real societal change, there
needs to be a “decolonization” of the mind. Internal colonial structures remain embedded in the
Nolan 41
minds of all Bolivians, indigenous and non-indigenous alike, and until these structures are
dismantled, a hegemonic domination of indigenous people by the white minority will continue.
In addition, to free Bolivia’s indigenous people of the centuries of marginalization they
have suffered, it is necessary to look beyond the confines of the Bolivian state and look into the
international sphere. Bolivia, a largely indigenous nation, is still viewed as a “traditional” nation
by foreign nations, most specifically the Western nations (McGurn Centellas, 161). The word
“traditional” is being used in the sense that Bolivia’s people “embody the practices, beliefs,
characteristics, and worldviews of an outdated way of life, one that the developed countries have
long since progressed through and surpassed” (McGurn Centellas, 161). Due to the fact that
Bolivia is an indigenous nation, it is viewed as inferior and backwards to the modernized,
progressive Western nations. However, in order to change international perspectives of Bolivia
and its people, change has to occur within Bolivia first.
There is a saying among Bolivians, “Everything is possible but nothing works”
(Bomberry, 1970). This saying is a reflection of the hundreds of years of corruption and
inequality that has plagued Bolivia. With Bolivia’s rich abundance of natural resources, it has the
potential to become one of the powerful economic players of Latin America. However, centuries
of discriminatory rule by a dominant elite class has repressed the majority of Bolivia’s
population and has stunted Bolivia’s true potential. The indigenous population of Bolivia has
been marginalized from the moment the Spaniards set foot upon Bolivian soil, and the colonial
institutions established by the Spaniards to justify Spanish domination have persisted through
internal colonialism, continuing to exclude indigenous people from society. However, within the
last thirty years, there have been enormous changes within Bolivia. The rise of indigenous rights
movements were incited by the alignment of political, economic, and social factors that allowed
Nolan 42
Bolivia’s indigenous people to mobilize on a national level. The combination of neoliberal
economic policies that had severe, negative effects on indigenous people and the dissolution of
local autonomy within indigenous communities when Bolivia underwent the process of
democratization infuriated indigenous people throughout Bolivia and was a cause that united
indigenous Bolivians to fight against. The mobilization of national indigenous movements had
been difficult in the past, but with increased funding and support from international
nongovernmental organizations as well as the ability of mass communication with the newfound
accessibility of the Internet meant that indigenous communities from all over Bolivia were able
to come together. The indigenous movements had immense power, and were able to force the
resignation of two presidents, as well as elect the first indigenous president in the history of the
country. With the goal of liberating Bolivia and its indigenous people from the colonial
structures that have been maintained by a small elite class, the government under President Evo
Morales has been advancing issues of indigenous rights and promoting policies to improve the
condition of Bolivia’s indigenous population. Despite the many positive changes that are
currently taking place, Bolivia still has a long way to go before indigenous people are fully
incorporated into all aspects of Bolivia’s political, economic and social society. It will take many
years before the internal colonial structures that have maintained the idea that indigenous people
are second class citizens will finally break down. Yet, there has been an irreversible change
among the indigenous people in Bolivia. Indigenous people are aware of the power their
movements carry. Now, there is no stopping Bolivia’s indigenous people from breaking the
bonds of marginalization that they have been locked under for so long, and finally achieving
status as equal members of Bolivian society.
Nolan 43
Works Cited
Albó, Xavier. "El Alto in Flux." ReVista: Harvard Review of Latin America XI.1 (2011): 18-20.
Bolivia:Revolutions and Beyond. David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies,
Fall 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/files/Bolivia%20%28Final%29.pdf>.
Albro, Robert. "The Culture of Democracy and Bolivia's Indigenous Movements." Critique of
Anthropology 26 (2006): 387-403. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications, 23 Nov.
2006. Web. 03 Nov. 2011.
<http://online.sagepub.com/search/results?submit=yes&src=hw&andorexactfulltext=and
&fulltext=robert+albro+the+culture+of+democracy&x=0&y=0>.
"Background Note: Bolivia." U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs,
1 Aug. 2011. Web. 02 Dec. 2011. <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35751.htm>.
Beezley, William H. "Caudillismo: An Interpretive Note." Journal of Inter-American Studies11.3
(1969): 345-52. JSTOR. Web. 24 Nov. 2011.
Blasier, Cole. "Studies of Social Revolution: Origins in Mexico, Bolivia, and Cuba." Latin
American Research Review 2.3 (1967): 28-64. JSTOR. Web. 01 Nov. 2011.
"Bolivia History Timeline." Timeline Help. Jonathan W. Nickolsen, 2008. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.timeline-help.com/bolivia-history-timeline.html>.
Nolan 44
"Bolivia." The New York Times: World. The New York Times Company, 07 Nov. 2011. Web. 10
Oct. 2011.
Bolivia: The Coca Leaf, Food of the Poor. Films Media Group, 1997. Films on Demand. Web.
27 November 2011. <http://0-digital.films.com.library.colby.edu/PortalPlaylists>
Bolivia: Partners, Not Masters. Films Media Group, 2008. Films on Demand. Web. 27
November 2011. <http://0-digital.films.com.library.colby.edu/PortalPlaylists>
Bomberry, Victoria. "Refounding the Nation: A Generation of Activism in Bolivia." American
Behavioral Scientist 51.12 (2008): 1790-800. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications,
16 July 2008. Web. 29 Sept. 2011.
<http://abs.sagepub.com/content/51/12/1790.full.pdf+html>.
Bridges, Tyler. "Bolivia's Native People Poised to Win New Rights." McClatchy Washington
Bureau. McClatchy Newspapers, 23 Jan. 2009. Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/01/23/60633/bolivias-native-peoplepoised.html#storylink=misearch>.
Cameron, John D. "Hacía La Alcadía: The Municipalization of Peasant Politics in the Andes."
Latin American Perspectives 36 (2009): 64-78. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications,
05 Aug. 2009. Web. 15 Oct. 2011.
<http://lap.sagepub.com/content/36/4/64.full.pdf+html>.
Centellas, Katherine McGurn. "The Localism of Bolivian Science: Tradition, Policy, and
Projects." Latin American Perspectives 37 (2010): 160-63. Sage Journals Online. Sage
Publications, 10 June 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2011.
<http://lap.sagepub.com/content/37/3/160.full.pdf+html>.
Nolan 45
Centellas, Miguel. "Beyond Caudillos: The Need to Create a Strong Multiparty System."
ReVista: Harvard Review of Latin America XI.1 (2011): 81-84. Bolivia: Revolutions and
Beyond. David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Fall 2011. Web. 14 Oct.
2011. <http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/files/Bolivia%20%28Final%29.pdf>.
Centellas, Miguel. "Savina Cuéllar and Bolivia's New Regionalism." Latin American
Perspectives 37 (2010): 161-73. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications, 4 Aug. 2010.
Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://lap.sagepub.com/content/37/4/161.full.pdf+html>.
Coca and the Congressman: Drugs, Farming, and Socialism in Bolivia. Films Media Group,
2003. Films on Demand. Web. 27 November 2011. <http://0digital.films.com.library.colby.edu/PortalPlaylists>
Cocalero. Dir. Alejandro Landes. First Run Features, 2007. DVD.
Cockcroft, James D. "Indigenous People Rising in Bolivia and Ecuador." International
Viewpoint. Fourth International, Dec. 2008. Web. 03 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1563>.
Cross, Harry E. "Debt Peonage Reconsidered: A Case Study in Nineteenth-Century Zacatecas,
Mexico." The Business History Review 53.4 (1979): 473-95. JSTOR. Web. 01 Nov. 2011.
Ewen, Charles R. "From Colonist to Creole: Archaeological Patterns of Spanish Colonization in
the New World." Historical Archaeology 34.3 (2000): 36-45. JSTOR. Web. 29 Nov.
2011.
Farthing, Linda. "Controlling State Power: An Interview with Vice President Álvaro García
Linera." Latin American Perspectives 37 (2010): 30-32. Sage Journals Online. Sage
Publications, 4 Aug. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2011.
<http://lap.sagepub.com/content/37/4/30.full.pdf+html>.
Nolan 46
Globalization at a Crossroads. Films Media Group, 2010. Films on Demand. Web. 27
November 2011. <http://0-digital.films.com.library.colby.edu/PortalPlaylists>
Goldstein, Daniel M. The Spectacular City: Violence and Performance in Urban Bolivia.
Durham: Duke UP, 2004. Print.
Gustafson, Bret. "When States Act Like Movements: Dismantling Local Power and Seating
Sovereignty in Post-Neoliberal Bolivia." Latin American Perspectives 37 (2010): 48-66.
Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications, 4 Aug. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2011.
<http://lap.sagepub.com/content/37/4/48.full.pdf+html>.
Healey, Susan. "Ethno-Ecological Identity and the Restructuring of Political Power in Bolivia."
Latin American Perspectives 36 (2009): 83-100. Sage Journals Online. Sage
Publications, 05 Aug. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.
<http://lap.sagepub.com/content/36/4/83.full.pdf+html>.
Howard, Rosaleen. "Language, Signs, and the Performance of Power: The Discursive Struggle
Over Decolonization in the Bolivia of Evo Morales." Latin American Perspectives 37
(2010): 176-86. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications, 10 June 2010. Web. 31 Oct.
2010. <http://lap.sagepub.com/content/37/3/176.full.pdf+html>.
"Indigenous People, Democracy and Political Participation." Political Database of the Americas.
Georgetown University, 13 Oct. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
<http://pdba.georgetown.edu/IndigenousPeople/demographics.html>.
"Indigenous People in South America: A Political Awakening." The Economist 19 Feb. 2004.
The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited, 19 Feb. 2004. Web. 31 Sept. 2011.
<http://www.economist.com/node/2446861>.
Nolan 47
Johnson, Brian B. "Decolonization and Its Paradoxes: The (Re)envisioning of Health Policy in
Bolivia." Latin American Perspectives 37 (2010): 139-52. Sage Journals Online. Sage
Publications, 10 June 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2011.
<http://lap.sagepub.com/content/37/3/139.full.pdf+html>.
King, Stuart. "Bolivian Revolution of 1952: Polemic with the POR." Permanent Revolution. 25
June 2007. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1447>.
Kirshner, Joshua. "Migrants' Voices: Negotiating Autonomy in Santa Cruz." Latin American
Perspectives 37 (2010): 108-16. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications, 04 Aug. 2010.
Web. 14 Oct. 2011. <http://lap.sagepub.com/content/37/4/108.full.pdf+html>.
Laserna, Roberto. "Bolivia's Populist Temptation." Project Syndicate: A World of Ideas. Project
Syndicate, 13 Nov. 2003. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/laserna1/English>.
Laserna, Roberto. "Evo Morales and the Populist Paradox." Project Syndicate: A World of Ideas.
Project Syndicate, 08 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2011. <http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/laserna5/English>.
Mainwaring, Scott. Transitions to Democracy and Democratic Consolidation: Theoretical and
Comparative Issues. Transitions to Democracy and Democratic Consolidation:
Theoretical and Comparative Issues. The Helen Kellogg Institute for International
Studies, Nov. 1989. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.
<http://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/130.pdf>.
Matos, Ramiro, and Jorge Flores Ochoa. "Quechua: The Persistence of the Inka World View."
Stories of the People: Native American Voices. Washington, D.C.: National Museum of
Nolan 48
the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution in Association with Universe, 1997. 54-65.
Print.
Mayorga, Fernando. "Political Effects of an Economic Measure." ReVista: Harvard Review of
Latin America XI.1 (2011): 76-78. Bolivia: Revolutions and Beyond. David Rockefeller
Center for Latin American Studies, Fall 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/files/Bolivia%20%28Final%29.pdf>.
Mayorga, René Antonio, and Stephen M. Gorman. "National-Popular State, State Capitalism and
Military Dictatorship in Bolivia: 1952-1975." Latin American Perspectives 5 (1978): 8995. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications, 1 Apr. 1978. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.
<http://lap.sagepub.com/content/5/2/89.full.pdf+html>.
“Mestizo.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia
Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
http://www.britanncia.com/EBchecked/topic/377246/mestizo.
Morales, Juan Antonio. "Post-Neoliberal Policies and the Populist Tradition." ReVista: Harvard
Review of Latin America XI.1 (2011): 34-37. Bolivia: Revolutions and Beyond. David
Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Fall 2011. Web. 14 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/files/Bolivia%20%28Final%29.pdf>.
Nash, June. "Modernity, Postmodernity, and Transformation of Revolutions." Latin American
Research Review 44.3 (2009): 212-23. Project Muse: Today's Research. Tomorrow's
Inspiration. Latin American Studies Association, 2009. Web. 14 Oct. 2011.
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/latin_american_research_review/v044/44.3.nash.html>.
O'Toole, Gavin. "Civil Society and Emergent Political Actors." Politics Latin America. Second
ed. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2011. 220-56. Print.
Nolan 49
Paltto, Aslak. "Coca Leaf Sacred to Bolivia Indigenous." Gáldu. Gáldu: Resource Centre for the
Rights of Indigenous People, 29 Sept. 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.galdu.org/web/index.php?odas=4781&giella1=eng>.
Pape, I.S.R. "Indigenous Movements and the Andean Dynamics of Ethnicity and Class:
Organization, Representation, and Political Practice in the Bolivian Highlands." Latin
American Perspectives 36 (2009): 101-19. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications, 05
Aug. 2009. Web. 23 Oct. 2011. <http://lap.sagepub.com/content/36/4/101.full.pdf+html>.
Patch, Richard W. "Bolivia: The Restrained Revolution." Latin American Perspectives 334.1
(1961): 123-32. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications, 1 Jan. 1961. Web. 12 Oct.
2011. <http://ann.sagepub.com/content/334/1/123.full.pdf+html>.
Postero, Nancy Grey. Now We Are Citizens: Indigenous Politics in Postmulticultural Bolivia.
Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2007. Print.
Postero, Nancy. "Morales' MAS Government: Building Indigenous Popular Hegemony in
Bolivia." Latin American Perspectives 37 (2010): 18-34. Sage Journals Online. Sage
Publications, 10 June 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2011.
<http://lap.sagepub.com/content/37/3/18.full.pdf+html>.
Protests Cause "Profound Wake-Up Call" for Bolivia. Al Jazeera. 29 Sept. 2011. Web. 28 Nov.
2011. <http://www.aljazeera.com/video/>.
Rance, Susanna. "The Hand That Feeds Us." Report on the Americas 25.1 (1991): 30-38.
NACLA Archives. NACLA, July 1991. Web. 04 Oct. 2011.
<http://search.opinionarchives.com/Nacla_Web/DigitalArchive.aspx?panes=1&aid=0250
1030_1>.
Nolan 50
"Recent History of Bolivia: Part 1: 1900 - 1950 A.D." Bolivia Bella. Bolivia Bella, 2007. Web.
23 Nov. 2011. <http://www.boliviabella.com/recent-history.html>.
Rojas Velarde, Luis. "Wake Up, Bolivia." Taylor & Francis Online 24.1 (1995): 193-94. Index
on Censorship. Taylor & Francis Group, 23 Oct. 2007. Web. 18 Sept. 2011.
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03064229508535874?journalCode=rioc20
#preview>.
Romero, Simon. "After Move to Cut Subsidies, Bolivian Ire Chastens Leader." New York
Times 31 Jan. 2011, New York ed.: A4. The New York Times. The New York Times
Company, 30 Jan. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.
Salman, Tom. "Bolivia and the Paradoxes of Democratic Consolidation." Latin American
Perspectives 34.6 (2007): 111-30. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2011.
Schaefer, Richard T. "Exploring Race and Ethnicity." Race and Ethnicity in the United States.
6th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010. 2-31. Pearson Custom Sociology. Race and Ethnicity
in the United States. Pearson Prentice Hall, 04 June 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/
0205800513.pdf>.
Smith, Amy Erica. "Legitimate Grievances Preferences for Democracy, System Support, and
Political Participation in Bolivia." Latin American Research Review 44.3 (2009): 102-26.
Project Muse: Today's Research. Tomorrow's Inspiration. Latin American Studies
Association, 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2011.
<http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/latin_american_research_review/v044/44.3.smith.html>.
Nolan 51
Spronk, Susan, and Jeffery R. Webber. "Struggles Against Accumulation by Dispossession in
Bolivia: The Political Economy of Natural Resource Contention." Latin American
Perspectives 34.2 (2007): 31-47. JSTOR. Web. 21 Nov. 2011.
Strom, Helen. "The New Bolivian Education Law." ReVista: Harvard Review of Latin America
XI.1 (2011): 70-73. Bolivia: Revolutions and Beyond. David Rockefeller Center for Latin
American Studies, Fall 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/publications/revistaonline/fall-2011/new-bolivianeducation-law>.
United States. The United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. State of the
World's Indigenous Peoples. By Joji Carino, Duane Champagne, Neva Collings, Myrna
Cunningham, Dalee Sambo Dorrough, Naomi Kipuri, and Mililani Trask. New York:
United Nations Publication, 2009. United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues. United Nations, 2009. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP_web.pdf>.
Valdivia, Gabriela. "Agrarian Capitalism and Struggles over Hegemony in the Bolivian
Lowlands." Latin American Perspectives 37 (2010): 67-77. Sage Journals Online. Sage
Publications, 4 Aug. 2010. Web. 31 Oct. 2011.
<http://lap.sagepub.com/content/37/4/67.full.pdf+html>.
Vanden, Harry E. "Social Movements, Hegemony, and New Forms of Resistance." Latin
American Perspectives 34.2 (2007): 17-30. JSTOR. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.
Vilas, Carlos M. "Lynchings and Political Conflict in the Andes." Latin American Perspectives
35 (2008): 103-18. Sage Journals Online. Sage Publications, 14 Aug. 2008. Web. 16 Oct.
2011. <http://lap.sagepub.com/content/35/5/103.full.pdf+html>.
Nolan 52
Webber, Jeffery R. "Left-Indigenous Struggles in Bolivia: Searching for Revolutionary
Democracy." Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 57.4 (2005): 34-48.
Monthly Review. Monthly Review Foundation, Sept. 2005. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
<http://monthlyreview.org/2005/09/01/left-indigenous-struggles-in-bolivia-searching-forrevolutionary-democracy>.
Weston Jr., Charles H. "An Ideology of Modernization: The Case of the Bolivian MNR."
Journal of Inter-American Studies 10.1 (1968): 85-101. JSTOR. Web. 01 Nov. 2011.
Wiarda, Howard J. Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great "ism" Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe, 1997. Print.
Yashar, Deborah J. "Democracy, Indigenous Movements, and the Post Liberal Challenge in
Latin America." World Politics 52.1 (1999): 76-104. JSTOR. Web. 09 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/25054101>.