Evo Morales and the MST in Bolivia: Continuities and Discontinuities in Agrarian Reform

Abstract

There is a widespread understanding in critical scholarly literature that the government of Evo Morales is fundamentally challenging the neoliberal order in Bolivia. The empirical record of Morales' first five years in office, however, illustrates significant neoliberal continuities in the country's political economy. At the same time, the most important social movements that resisted neoliberalism prior to Morales' election have been considerably demobilized in its wake. This gives rise to the critique that the Morales government has merely implemented a more politically stable version of the model of accumulation it inherited. This paper draws on recent field research in Bolivia to make a contribution to this broader research agenda on reconstituted neoliberalism. Our focus is twofold. On the one hand, the paper examines the continuities of agrarian class relations from the INRA law at the height of neoliberalism in 1996 to the various agrarian reform initiatives introduced since Morales assumed office in 2006. On the other hand, the paper traces the mobilization of the Bolivian Landless Peasants' Movement (MST) in response to the failure of the 1996 neoliberal agrarian reform, followed by the movement's demobilization after Morales' 2006 agrarian reform initiative. The paper explores this demobilization in the context of agrarian relations that have remained largely unchanged in the same period. Finally, the paper draws on recent reflections by MST members who, to varying degrees, seem to be growing critical of Morales' failure to fundamentally alter rural class relations, and the difficulties of remobilizing their movement at the present time.

Bolivia's soy complex: the development of ‘productive exclusion’

“…The many contradictions that exist regarding Bolivia's agricultural development model in the context of state rhetoric for an 'agrarian revolution', a law of mother nature and commitment to food sovereignty (see McKay, Nehring, and Walsh-Dilley 2014) reflect the broader process of what some describe as 'reconstituted neoliberalism' taking place throughout the country (Webber 2011). This process is characterized by social and economic policy changes at the margins without major structural changes of the political economy (Brabazon and Webber 2014). State rhetoric has become more of a 'legitimating discourse' (Kerssen 2015) than a structural transformation, while key social movements have been co-opted by the state, resulting in a loss of autonomy and lack of empowerment among those in the movements (McKay, Nehring, and Walsh-Dilley 2014).…”

Fulfilling Promises of More Substantive Democracy? Post‐neoliberalism and Natural Resource Governance in South America

“…Many of the South American leftist presidents have their roots in, and have come to power with the support of, social movements (Prevost et al., : 12–14) and on explicitly anti‐neoliberal platforms (Panizza, : 182–3). Reacting against the neoliberal reform agenda and its elitist decision‐making practices, a commitment to democratic innovation and new possibilities of engaging civil society in decision making is therefore an important element in the approach of progressive governments (Brabazon and Webber, : 436; Cannon and Kirby, ; Riggirozzi, ).…”

La politización de la etnicidad en la región andina: Apuntes sobre un debate inconcluso

“…De ahí la contribución esencial de los gobiernos del MAS (Movimiento al Socialismo), que con todas sus contradicciones han tratado de incluir a importantes segmentos subalternos en la vida política del país, expandiendo los derechos a ámbitos culturales previamente opacados y renovando, en cierto sentido, la visión de las relaciones entre libertad y bienestar (Postero, 2010, p. 75). Ello no es óbice, sin embargo, para que puedan constatarse continuidades en ámbitos tan sensibles como las políticas agrarias, permitiendo hablar de la articulación de un cierto neoliberalismo reconstituido (Brabazon & Webber, 2014) que, a su vez, ha contribuido a polarizar a los actores sujetos de dichas políticas alrededor de categorías identitarias binarias tipo 'campesinos' versus 'pueblos indígenas' (Bottazzi & Rist, 2012).…”