I am tossing around an idea for a short (12-15 pg) paper. The class is International Development with Cross-Cultural Perspectives. The professor is an Anthropologist and focuses on the Andes (como yo!). In hopes of clarifying what I want to do, I'm testing it out in writing. Right here. For the first time. For you. Lucky you.
What's the deal? I want to write about incorporating culture into legal frameworks, national policy/procedure, and official government documents. For example, last year, Bolivia had a referendum to amend its constitution. A referendum is a direct electoral vote (one person, one vote) to determine whatever issues are brought up. In that election, the people voted to amend the definition of "property." Rejecting the old notion of property as a right held by an individual, Bolivia's constitution now defines property as a right to land held communal or by a collective group. Felicitaciones!
What does that mean for indigenous peoples of Bolivia? It means that indigenous people feel like their constitution represents them. Their government - finally - recognizes their way of living, their connection to the land, and the way they use the land as legitimate. Not only is there acknowledgment and understanding of the way indigenous peoples have lived for hundreds of years, there is an enforceable, legal mechanisms for indigenous people to continue living as they want in relation to their land. That is pretty darn cool.
What does that mean for Bolivia, the nation as a whole? It means good things and also opens up an unknown that could be potentially good or bad. The good is that there is democratic representation. It's good that by a democratic, majority vote, the people are getting what they want. It's good that there is greater unity in Bolivia - at least nominally - in that indigenous people feel included, acknowledged and represented by their government's guiding official document, legal mechanisms and official decree of the nation. It is also good that indigenous people can live the way that they want to and have lived previously for hundreds of years. Equally, just as people may exercise their right to hold property right individually, now people are also free to hold property rights collectively. Perhaps there is true unity in that each is allowed to live her life as she would like.
The unknown/bad: Perhaps unity is only a farce because the new definition inevitably affects more than just indigenous people. National policy and law affects a nation, even if some are affected on indirectly. Perhaps, in practice, collective property becomes an impossible mess. Look at what happened to American Indians who share parts/plots/the whole of reservations. Present possession and future interests get ridiculously difficult to determine and parse out. Even worse, the economic and material interests connected to land are quite complex when they are communally owned. Consider the added complication that much indigenous land is on natural resources like oil. Consider the added complication that oil and gas industries were seized by the Bolivian government -- nationalized -- in 2006. Opa. Problems abound or am I being too pessimistic?
What does it mean for other indigenous groups or people who want their culture to be reflected in the national definition of property? This decision may not much or set a precedent for other indigenous groups looking to get legal right and recognition to collective property. Here are some reasons I think this: Bolivia has indigenous president. The indigenous group (unlike most places) actually makes up the majority of the country, not the minority. In conjunction with the way the referendum was set up, this meant majority actually had the chance to put forth its agenda. But, not all democracies have constitutional amendment by referendum. In the U.S., for example, we don't hold a popular vote. The Constitution can only be amended in one of three ways:
- The new amendment may be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then sent to the states for approval.
- Two-thirds of the state legislatures may apply to Congress for a constitutional convention to consider amendments, which are then sent to the states for approval.
- Congress may require ratification by special convention
The larger point, though, is that in theory it sounds good to integrate the indigenous culture into the national constitution. But, I think we need to be wary. I only hope that in practice, the economic and social consequences are positive for both the indigenous groups and the non-indigenous Bolivians. I suppose only time will tell -- I'll be watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment