Changing Land Rights Means Changing Society: The Sociopolitical Effects of Agrarian Reforms under the Government of Evo Morales

Abstract

Agrarian reform cannot be limited to a linear process of land distribution. It involves a societal restructuration that affects power relations, multi-level governance structures, the (re)spatialization of juridical legitimacy and symbolic boundaries between sociocultural groups (ethnicity). This paper analyses the consequences of the major Bolivian agrarian reforms of 1953, 1996 and 2006 for the current process of setting up the 'plurinational' state under the government of Evo Morales. Using a historical and sociopolitical approach, we show that the ethnically differentiated devolution of individual and collective tenure rights has resulted in an institutional segmentation along ethnic boundaries that gives rise to a growing polarization between the two socially constructed categories of indigenous people and peasants.This institutional segmentation is not limited to agrarian questions but also affects other domains, such as political processes related to territorial autonomies. The current government is trying to maintain a neutral position by giving priority to large-scale national programmes of economic development.

Constitutionality: Conditions for Crafting Local Ownership of Institution-Building Processes

“…Internal legitimation of access to and distribution of collective land is based on fulfilling duties and obligations of the families toward the community as a whole, rather than just by claiming to be one of the individual holders of collective land rights (Ticona and Albó 1997;Izko 1986). The community is still a basic feature of social organization, although nowadays the focus is not on collective land titles, but on how to achieve higher territorial and political autonomy in and from the state (Bottazzi and Rist 2012). Despite collective land titles, land was not managed collectively, but based on individual usufruct rights granted by the communities to the families organized in the sindicatos.…”

Indigenous peoples vs peasant unions: land conflicts and rural movements in plurinational Bolivia

“…the village elites who traditionally played a role as intermediaries between central and local administrative levels (Calderón 2010). Ultimately, this first round of land reform was not successful in sustainably addressing inequality or in contributing to socio-economic development (Bottazzi and Rist 2012).…”

“…In Bolivia, agrarian struggles' imaginary was often catalyzed by the conflicts between indigenous communities or landless peasants and big landowners, especially in the lowlands (Villanueva 2004). However, more recently, land conflict has shifted to the western highlands and valleys and has confronted rural social organizations themselves, becoming predominantly intra-societal (Bottazzi and Rist 2012). As the chief of the Conciliation and Conflict Management Unit of the INRA explains:…”

“…For instance, these aspects are not included in purely economic approaches focused on the possession, distribution and management of land primarily intended as a productive good (Bottazzi and Rist 2012). Nor are they properly addressed through sociological theories that consider social movements (and their identities) as exogenous variables, i.e.…”

“…Land reforms are not purely technocratic processes; they remain 'intense political acts', not only for their redistributive element (Pellegrini and Dasgupta 2011), but also for their power to influence the way societies are shaped (Bretón 2008, McNeish 2002, Bottazzi and Rist 2012, Haarstad 2012. From a theoretical point of view, the study of the relationship between the agrarian issue and social movements has often focused on how the latter have led struggles and strategies to pressure the state to reform the legal system of ownership, access and exploitation of the national territory (Hylton and Thomson 2007).…”