Yesterday I read an article from the July 1965 edition of El Diario entitled, "Tierras expropiados" (Lands expropriated specifically from indigenous people.) The article discussed land reform and mentioned the controversy at the time of whether or not the state should give indigenous people back private control of their land. Basically, the government was reluctant to return land in fear that campesinos would gain political power. It was decided that land would not be redistributed, but instead indigenas must pay for their land.
I've realized that indigenous people still don't have autonomous control over sus tierras. Recently, Evo Morales gave the green light for natural gas extraction and the construction of a highway in the previously untouchable TIPNIS (Indigenous Territory and National Park--Isiboro Secure). Morales undermined the sanctity of TIPNIS, which was dedicated to the indigenous community, by overriding its national protection laws. Fifty years later, indigenous Bolivians are still denied basic civil rights from a government with a proud Aymaran president. Morales justified his decision on the basis of economic growth. But he still took advantage of a reserved indigenous park.
In 1965, the Bolivian indigenous community fought for redistribution of land. In 2016, they're still fighting for land rights. Evo Morales rose to prominence as the leader of the cocaleros union and has built his presidency on the inclusion of indigenous people into society. Why would he contradict that? Although indigenous rights have bettered the past 50 years, there is still more progress to be made.
I think you hit on an interesting problem in Bolivia: land reform. Technically, the 1952 Revolution initiated a series of land reform (because the MNR government was mostly forced to). But it happened slowly, gradually, and with a lot of inconsistency. It would be interesting to think about the problems that make land reform so difficult ...
ReplyDelete