Re: [Marxism] The Battle over Bolivia's Constituent Assembly: Class, race and nation in Bolivia

["Richard Fidler" <rfidler_8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Federico Fuentes wrote (SV-Circle, Marxmail, GLW Discussion):

«. . . But this doesn't full[y] answer the question of what position
socialists should take [...] in regards to some calls for the reconstitution
of pre-colonial indigenous "nations", or the argument against the call for a
plurinational state which says that by establishing a plurinational state,
as opposed to a pluricultural state, you are opening the door to the break
up of Bolivia, as the acceptance of nations also means the acceptance of
their rights to form their own nation-state (one which Soliz Rada agrees
with) .

«It seems to me the position that MAS advocates ? indigenous autonomy,
within the framework of the unity of Bolivia ? is the correct one. It is
also true that this is the majority sentiment amongst Bolivians (both
indigenous and non-indigenous) who want to see the various national and
ethnic groups inserted into the international community through a diverse
but united Bolivia, and who above all else identify as Bolivians. There are
some trends who maintain a firmer indigenist vision of the return to
Qullasuyu and the reconstitution of the original indigenous territories
(which have been expressed in difference within MAS over certain positions
such as whether land and natural resources should be under state or
indigenous control) but they are a minority. Anyways, I would appreciate any
comments on this.»

Comment:

Given that the indigenous peoples inhabiting Bolivia have achieved their
greatest success politically within the existing Bolivian state, they would
be ill-advised to abandon that foothold in favour of some hypothetical, less
realizable state form that would have to be hewed in part out of one or more
other states.

As an indigenous majority within Bolivia, they have every interest in using
the control of the government they have gained through the MAS and its
allies to refashion the Bolivian state. And that appears to be what they are
now doing. 

The ?Vision of the country commission majority report?, posted by Federico
on his Bolivia Rising blog, is an extremely important statement which, if
incorporated in some form into the new Constitution, will mark an historic
advance not only for the indigenous peoples of Bolivia but for all ?original
[or aboriginal] nations?. For example, it will be very relevant to some
current debates in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, as I will indicate
below.

The preamble makes clear that the proposed constitution is to ?reconstruct
the identities of the indigenous nations?, which have suffered permanent
exclusion through a colonial and republican system that has overridden their
?ancestral territories, institutions, judicial systems, politics, languages
and culture?. 

The document redefines Bolivia as a ?united, plurinational, communitarian
state?. It recognizes some three dozen ?official languages?, all but Spanish
being languages of the indigenous peoples, and pledges state protection and
development of those languages ?in each of the regions where they are
spoken?.

It indicates clearly the meaning of each of the defining terms. 

?United? means a common territory of all Bolivians; the explicit rejection
of federalism is a constitutional check on the ?autonomist? aspirations of
the Spanish and mestizo elite in Santa Cruz, strengthened by the statement
that this state is ?indivisible and inviolable? while respecting ?economic,
political, social and cultural diversity?.

?Plurinational? means the state is ?diverse and not mono-cultural? and
?guarantees and promotes the identity, government, judicial pluralism and
intercultural integration of each of the nations? within Bolivia.

?Communitarian? means that the state ?promotes communitarian, cooperative
and associative forms and strategies of organization of society under the
principles of solidarity, reciprocity, democracy, complementarity and
equitable distribution of the social product in order to ?live well?.?

These provisions ? and there is much more in this statement, which should be
studied closely by all of us ? open the door wide for the adoption of
affirmative action measures and programs to enhance the status and
development of the indigenous majority in Bolivia. And they yield nothing to
regional separatism.

The argument (advanced by Soliz Rada, apparently) that a plurinational state
will lead to the break-up of Bolivia by giving the white-skinned,
pro-imperialist economic and commercial elite a constitutional pretext to
establish an ?autonomous? or independent national state of their own can
only be true if each ?nation? within this ?plurinational? state is seen as
an exclusive category with a right of national self-determination that
trumps the right of self-determination of every other nation sharing all or
part of the territory of Bolivia. It identifies nation with distinct
territory, and presumes that more than one nation cannot share a common
territory.

Historically, the concept of the right of national self-determination
originated in the epoch of the rising bourgeoisie, which had a class
interest in asserting its control over territory to the exclusion of the
feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchs. Nation became identified with
territory and, where possible, a common public language, to facilitate
transport, communications, a common tariff, and all the other attributes of
the bourgeois state. Marxists initially developed their thinking on the
national question on the basis of this reasoning, and early discussions
(even as late as Stalin?s in 1913) tend to remain within that framework of
viewing the national question as fundamentally a problem of completing the
bourgeois-democratic revolution in the advanced capitalist countries.

As Marxists began to study the phenomenon of imperialism, however, they soon
realized that in most of the world the national question was more complex
and took other forms than it did in Europe. The colonial structures rode
roughshod over the languages, cultures and traditions of the indigenous
peoples, whose anti-imperialist revolt in turn unfolded within the framework
of a struggle for national identity and national liberation that could, with
proletarian leadership, go beyond capitalism and move toward socialism while
attempting to preserve and enhance national identities rooted in
precapitalist conditions. In the colonies and semicolonies, local
capitalism, to the degree it developed at all, was integrally bound up with
the interests of imperialism and offered nothing to the indigenous peoples
but assimilation and further oppression.

And even within the advanced capitalist countries, indigenous and once
precapitalist peoples are now organizing themselves under the banner of
?nation? and cultural, linguistic and territorial expressions of national
sovereignty. This is true in the majority of European countries, including
Spain, Britain, and even France ? the classic countries of predatory
imperialism. Their struggles destabilize capitalist rule and can create
important openings for anticapitalist advance.

These new nations and nationalisms, unfolding within existing state
frameworks established by imperialism or the triumphant bourgeoisie, are
primarily concerned with achieving sovereignty over all matters of concern
to their national identity: language and culture, of course, but not
necessarily exclusive control of their own state. In some instances, they
may coexist within a given state with a particular minority nation or a
broader movement asserting its own national demands in the form of a
struggle for its own independent, territorial state. Most Bolivians, for
example, have a common interest in defending and promoting control and
development by Bolivians over their natural resources. Their success in
achieving this goal will help provide a basis for state promotion of the
national identities (language, culture, customs, etc.) of the indigenous
peoples within Bolivia.

In Quebec we have a further example of how indigenous struggles intersect
with the national struggle of the French-speaking Québécois, a minority
within Canada (24%) but the overwhelming majority (83%) of the population of
the province of Quebec. The Québécois national struggle is one for control
of the territory of that province, exclusive of control by the Canadian
state over jurisdictions integral to the national identity of the Québécois.
This is generally defined as a struggle for Quebec ?sovereignty?. For
decades now, polls and a referendum have shown that a majority of
Francophone Quebeckers support the formation of a sovereign state, although
opinions differ among them as to possible forms of association that might be
established with the rest of Canada following a declaration of sovereignty
or independence. (Only a minority support full independence without some
formal association.)

But the Quebec nationalist movement came up against a problem almost from
the time it began to develop its modern expressions, in the 1960s. Most of
the territory of the province of Quebec itself is inhabited primarily by
indigenous peoples, and these peoples have asserted their ?sovereign? rights
over the northern regions and territories they inhabit, in opposition to the
hydro-electric and other development projects that are crucial to the
economic prosperity of Quebec industries and cities in the south.


In Canada, the indigenous peoples now refer to themselves as ?First
Nations?; many assert their right to constitutional recognition and status
on a par with the English and French colonizers and their descendants. In
Quebec, this has resulted in conflicts of respective sovereignty aspirations
of native and non-native peoples.

In the mid-1970s, the pro-federalist Liberal government was forced by Cree
Indian opposition to hydro-electric dam development to sign a wide-ranging
agreement promising autonomous Indian and Inuit development of wide areas of
northern Quebec; this was the first of the modern ?treaties? signed by a
white government in Canada. It has been followed by other, similar treaty
agreements between the Quebec government and native nations. In the
mid-1980s, Quebec?s National Assembly, on the impetus of the pro-sovereignty
Parti Québécois government, formally recognized the existence within Quebec
of a dozen indigenous ?nations? with certain rights to the use of their
language, control of schools, exclusive hunting and fishing rights, the
formation of development corporations owned and controlled by natives, etc.
Quebec is the only province to have recognized the indigenous peoples as
nations in this way. In recent years, some native leaders have begun to
identify with the goal of a sovereign or independent Quebec, in the belief
that one will be created and it is best to participate in that development
in order to provide indigenous input in defining the respective rights and
obligations of the nations within the nation.

This is not to say that relations between First Nations and Quebec
nationalists are smooth; on the contrary. (At Oka, near Montreal, a struggle
in 1990 by a native community to prevent illegal development by whites of a
golf course on their land became a military-type standoff between native
militants and Quebec police supported by federal troops.) But to the degree
that Quebec nationalists manage to win the indigenous peoples as their
allies, through meaningful recognition of indigenous nationhood, they will
strengthen their struggle and weaken Ottawa?s attempts to use its
constitutional jurisdiction over ?Indians and Indian affairs? to further
divide the inhabitants of Quebec and use indigenous issues as a tool for
mobilizing public opinion against the Québécois national struggle.

Quebec?s indigenous peoples are oppressed by both the federal regime and
Quebec?s. Their struggle for self-determination is directed against both,
albeit in different ways. What is emerging, however, is a concept of
overlapping sovereignties, each respectful of the others? need for cultural
and linguistic, etc. expression. Depending on the situation of each
particular indigenous nation, this may or may not primarily take the form of
a struggle for territorial sovereignty, although where the indigenous
peoples have managed to retain some partial control over territory
(reserves, occupation, etc.) they naturally seek to enhance that control.
But probably half of Quebec?s indigenous population are now city-dwellers,
often far from their native communities. They are severely discriminated
against as non-whites, of course, and any recognition of indigenous nations
must find ways to encompass this urban and off-reserve population.

The parallels with the situation in Bolivia are obvious, notwithstanding
many differences. But it seems to me that indigenous militants in Quebec and
Canada, as elsewhere, can find much to ponder and to inspire them in current
developments in Evo Morales? Bolivia.

Richard


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism