PROYECTO 70781: APOYO AL MEJORAMIENTO DE LA GOVERNABILIDAD DEMOCRATICA Y DESARROLLO LOCAL A

NIVEL MUNICIPAL Y COMUNITARIOCURAHUARA DE CARANGAS

ANALYSIS REPORT

By Pierre Rousseau, LL.L., MA, VoluntarioCentro Canadiense de Estudio y de Cooperación Internacional (CECI)

La Paz, BoliviaMarzo 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 31. Context 42. Methodology 53. Background 64. Analysis 84.1. Age 84.2. Ayllus 84.3. Year of service 94.4. Representation 94.5. Involvement with the other authority 104.6. Issues 104.7. Importance of issues 114.8. Issues that were not discussed or that were rejected by the other authority

11

4.9. Willingness to discuss all issues raised by the municipal government 124.10. Comité de Vigilancia 134.11. Involvement in municipal powers 144.12. Evaluation of a text 164.12.1. The first text 164.12.2. The second text 174.13. Involvement of the Aymara culture in governance: 194.14. The PDMO 204.15. How were the relationships between Indigenous authorities and the

municipality?22

4.16. Comments 234.17. Public Meeting 245. Gender analysis 255.1. Statistics 255.2. Analysis 256. Final analysis 287. The future 31Bibliography 32Appendix I – Questionnaire 33

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The project wants to document the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipal government of Curahuara de Carangas in the period 2005 - 2009. It is estimated that this positive experience can be systematized so that other communities can look at it as a model. It was decided to use a qualitative approach and interview a sample of Indigenous authorities and councilors in order to collect data in support of the project. The timing of the project was difficult as it occurred while a referendum on Indigenous autonomy, creating tensions in the community, took place in Curahuara on December 6, 2009.

The Ley de Participación Popular sets the legal environment through the establishment of OTBs and Comités de Vigilancia. It provides for the involvement of Indigenous authorities with municipal governments in an effort of decentralization. The research included respondents from all years and most ayllus as well as a good sample of ages and it is obvious that the vast majority have had close contacts with the other authority. Major important issues as mentioned by respondents were roads, micro-irrigation and schools while many respondents declared that they were not involved nor consulted by the municipality about those issues. Moreover, the vast majority of respondents stated that there were a number of issues that they could not discuss with or were rejected by the municipal government. The perception of the municipal authorities was opposite.

Culture was also an element that is important for both Indigenous and municipal authorities but the assumption that there was an intercultural situation in Curahuara was off mark while the issue could be the gap between a western style of government (municipal) and an Indigenous type of government (Aymara). Many comments stressed that there were some years when the relationship was not good and that depended either on conflict of personalities (2007) or perceived opposition by the municipal government for Indigenous autonomy (2009) while others were excellent. Remote and / or small ayllus expressed their frustration that they were not taken into account and were ignored by the municipal government that they perceived was discriminating against them and was centralizing all resources in the capital, Curahuara, or for larger ayllus that were closer.

In a gender analysis, we found that while most elected councilors were women, the vast majority of Indigenous authorities were men and despite the fact that they must be married and have a Mama Tamani with them, it was not addressing the imbalance between men and women among Indigenous authorities. There is a conflict of fundamental rights that needs to be addressed.

Given the discrepancies between years and regions in terms of the relationship between the two authorities, it is not possible to systemize that relationship or to use it as a model since there is no consistency between years and much depends on personalities, specific issues or location. The future is likely to involve one type of autonomy and that relationship is likely to change in the next years to adapt to those circumstances.

3

4

1. CONTEXT:

In May of 2009, a project was elaborated between the Municipal Government of Curahuara de Carangas and the Centro Canadiense de Estudio y de Cooperación Internacional (CECI). The general description of the mandate states:

Bolivia cuenta con una estructura de gestión administrativa establecida desde 1995 con la Ley de Participación Popular, que estableció a los gobiernos municipales como los encargados de este proceso. En aquella oportunidad, no se consideró a las autoridades autóctonas en el esquema de gestión, pese a que éstas tenían una vigencia desde hacen muchos años. Los cambios que vive Bolivia en el orden político, social y económico con el nuevo gobierno han permitido que las etnias originarias sean revalorizadas.

Este encuentro ha sido asumido mayoritariamente como un espacio de confrontación por parte de estas dos estructuras sociales. Sin embargo, algunos municipios lo asumieron como una oportunidad de participación de la sociedad civil para el ejercicio de su rol de fiscalización sobre el desarrollo y mejora de vida de su población.

En este contexto, el Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas, ha sido uno de lo primeros municipios que a través de su gobierno municipal ha facilitado la participación de las autoridades originarias en los procesos de planificación, control, y seguimiento de los planes, programas, y proyectos como representantes de la sociedad civil rural bajo sus propias formas de ejercer su rol en el desarrollo del municipio, comúnmente denominadas “usos y costumbres”.

Desde la perspectiva del programa esta experiencia requieren ser sistematizada, como una demostración de la capacidad de gobernabilidad futura donde la participación de la sociedad civil se ve reflejada por las corrientes municipales como también las autóctonas1.

When the CECI volunteer arrived in Curahuara in November of 2009, a referendum campaign for indigenous autonomy was under way, along with the presidential election as well as general election and another referendum on departmental autonomy. Therefore, the project had to be put on hold until after the referendum, as the crucial question was whether the people of Curahuara de Carangas agreed to an autonomous indigenous government. If they agreed, there was no real purpose for the project, as the Indigenous authorities would be rather focusing on preparing their new government as opposed to looking back at the relationship between them and the municipal government. Moreover, under the autonomy process, the Indigenous autonomous government would replace the municipal government2.

The ‘No’ side won the referendum and the issue of the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipal government is still very much alive since the municipal government remains in place. At a meeting between the municipal government, the

1 Doc. 201 – Descripción del Puesto de Voluntario – Asesor en gobernabilidad de pueblos indígenas; fecha: 22 de junio del 2009.2 Art. 294. II. Constitución Política del Estado (2009)

5

Indigenous authorities and CECI that took place in La Paz on December 10, 2009 the mandate was confirmed and the agreement stated:

Sistematización de la gestión de trabajo 2005-2009, en el municipio, enfatizando en la buena relación que ha existido entre autoridades municipales y originarias, aspecto que ha permitido una buena gobernabilidad en el período transcurrido.3

The participants to that meeting appear to have made the assumption that the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipality had been good but, nonetheless, the volunteer did not take any particular position in respect of that relationship and undertook the project with an open mind and, most importantly, with the utmost neutrality. Yet, the context for this project was affected by the referendum campaign as it created tensions among people, which transpired during the interviews.

2. METHODOLOGY:

A support group was created at the end of December 2009 and it was agreed that the methodology to collect information at the foundation of this project would be mostly qualitative as former and present Indigenous authorities, municipal councilors and members of the public would be interviewed. A questionnaire was prepared (the questionnaire for Indigenous authorities (Autoridades originarias) is attached as Appendix I) and discussed among the members of the support group as well as reviewed by the new Indigenous authorities for 2010 but no changes were suggested nor recommended. Interviews started on January 27 and were concluded on February 9, 2010 and nineteen Indigenous authorities (but only eighteen fully documented) plus three councilors (concejalas) were interviewed as well as a public meeting with approximately eight participants was held. Those results are analyzed in the light of the project’s purpose and the historical context was also considered, particularly the Ley de Participación Popular No 15514 (LPP) and amendments.

Since this is a mostly qualitative research, it is important to note that the information provided by the respondents reflects their perception of reality and they are NOT facts. The research is to determine the quality of the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipality and that is based on each other’s perceptions of events and situations. When we report their views, this is what it is, that is, only their views and not a statement of facts. Yet, again, relationships are most of the time based on perceptions and not on facts.

We also promised to protect the anonymity of each respondent so that this report does not interfere with the relationships that it is exploring. Thus, we interviewed each respondent and I took notes of their responses and the citations in this report reflect my notes and are NOT direct quotes from respondents. We expect that this would ensure that no respondent could be identified and avoid embarrassment.

3 Resoluciones adoptadas sobre el trabajo del voluntario Pierre Rousseau en Curahuara de Carangas, 10 de diciembre del 2009.4 20 de abril del 1994.

6

3. BACKGROUND:

Indigenous peoples over the world had their own systems of government prior to contact with Europeans. In a desire to “civilize” and Europeanize Indigenous peoples, those systems of government were the subject of attack by those new powers. Yet, those methods of social control survived and are still present in the XXIst century. In Bolivia, such systems survived colonialism and Indigenous authorities remained part of their social control processes.

In a desire of decentralization, the LPP was passed as it was thought that “By increasing local participation in decision-making, including ethnic minorities, decentralization [had] the potential to diminish problems arising from ethnic diversity, as it takes their demands into account”. (Seeman, 2004, p. 7) Further, “[The LPP] initiated the territorial municipal process and incorporated civil society in the administration of public funds at a municipal level.” (Idem, p. 11)

Pérez describes the purpose of the reform brought by the LPP as:

En primer lugar, sus objetivos principales son: a) articular a las comunidades indígenas, campesinas y urbanas en la vida jurídica, política y económica del país; b) procurar un mejoramiento de la calidad de vida de los bolivianos, con una más justa distribución y mejor administración de los recursos públicos; y c) fortalecer los instrumentos políticos y económicos necesarios para perfeccionar la democracia representativa, facilitando la participación ciudadana y garantizando la igualdad de oportunidades. (Pérez, p. 265)

Indigenous peoples were specifically included in Organizaciones Territoriales de Base (OTB)5 and to stress the desire to include Indigenous authorities in the municipal process, Ley 1702 of July 1996, amended the LPP6:

ARTÍCULO 1° Las Organizaciones Territoriales de Base a que se refiere la ley 1551 son las “Comunidades Indígenas, los Pueblos Indígenas, las Comunidades Campesinas y Juntas Vecinales”.

ARTÍCULO 2° El texto del artículo 1 de la Ley 1551, queda modificado en los siguientes términos: “ARTÍCULO 1o (Objetos)

5 LPP, art. 3: I. Se define como sujetos de la Participación Popular a las Organizaciones Territoriales de Base, expresadas en las comunidades campesinas, pueblos indígenas y juntas vecinales, organizadas según sus usos, costumbres o disposiciones estatutarias. II. Se reconoce como representantes de las Organizaciones Territoriales de Base a los hombres y mujeres, Capitanes, Jilacatas, Curacas, Mallcus, Secretarios (as) Generales y otros (as), designados (as) según sus usos, costumbres y disposiciones estatutarias.6 Ley Nº 1702 de 17 de Julio de 1996 / Ley de Modificaciones a la Ley Nº 1551 (Participación Popular)

7

La presente Ley reconoce, promueve y consolida el proceso de Participación Popular, articulando a las Comunidades Indígenas, Pueblos Indígenas, Comunidades Campesinas y Juntas Vecinales, respectivamente, en la vida jurídica, política y económica del país. Procura mejorar la calidad de vida de la mujer y el hombre boliviano, con una más juntas distribución y mejor administración de los recursos públicos, Fortalece los instrumentos políticos y económicos necesarios para perfeccionar la democracia representativa, incorporando la participación ciudadana en un proceso, perfeccionar la democracia representativa, incorporando la participación ciudadana en un proceso de democracia participativa y garantizando la igualdad de oportunidades en los niveles de representación a mujeres y hombres”.

The LPP also stated very clearly the rights and duties of those OTBs at sections 7 and 8. Of particular interest are the following rights:

a) Proponer, pedir, controlar y supervisar la realización de obras y la prestación de servicios públicos de acuerdo a las necesidades comunitarias, en materias de educación, salud, deporte, saneamiento básico, micro-riego, caminos vecinales y desarrollo urbano y rural.c) Representar y obtener la modificación de acciones, decisiones, obras o servicios brindados por los órganos públicos, cuando sean contrarios al interés comunitario.

In terms of duties, those of particular interest are:

a) Identificar, priorizar, participar y cooperar en la ejecución y administración de obras para el bienestar colectivo…b) Participar y cooperar con el trabajo solidario de los servicios públicos.d) Informar y rendir cuentas a la comunidad de las acciones que desarrollen en su representación.f) Promover el acceso equitativo de mujeres y hombres a niveles de representación.

It also important to look at the Regulations7, particularly sections 4 and 5 that strengthen those rights and duties:

ARTICULO 4.- Supervisión y vigilancia.- En aplicación del artículo 4 de la Ley 1702, las Organizaciones Territoriales de Base, tienen derecho a supervisar los servicios públicos del municipio transferidos por la Ley de Participación Popular.

ARTICULO 5.- Equidad de género.- En la conformación de sus directivas, las Organizaciones Territoriales de Base, deberán promover la participación de ciudadanos de ambos sexos.

Thus, unlike what is mentioned in the mandate8, it was not in a vacuum that the Indigenous authorities were working with the municipal government during the period under review, 2005 – 2009 but was certainly in part because of legal requirements

7 Decreto Reglamentario a la Ley de Participación Popular Y DescentralizaciónDecreto Supremo Nº 24447 de 20 de Diciembre de 1996.

8 “En aquella oportunidad, no se consideró a las autoridades autóctonas en el esquema de gestión, pese a que éstas tenían una vigencia desde hacen muchos años.”

8

imposed by laws and regulations. Yet that reform may not have been as complete as it was thought. Pérez writes:

En tal sentido, la transferencia de competencias y responsabilidades a ese nuevo poder municipal que establece la Participación Popular no afecta en absoluto al poder monopólico estatal, sino que se refiere a aspectos esencialmente funcionales a las necesidades materiales de los indígenas. Las potestades y derechos de participación y fiscalización que ellos tendrían en cada municipio se limitan a estos aspectos meramente administrativos y de ningún modo políticos. (p. 276)

That helps explaining the interest around the referendum on Indigenous autonomy and an apparent lack of satisfaction of the status quo expressed by some Indigenous authorities.

4. ANALYSIS:

The mandate is to analyze the relationship between the Indigenous authorities and the municipal government. Yet, that mandate9 suggested that there is an “intercultural experience” or a cultural gap between the two groups, which is not the case. According to Colque (2009), in 2001, the percentage of indigenous population in Curahuara de Carangas was 92,73%, with 88,23% Aymara. That entails it is highly likely that all those who were interviewed were Indigenous, whether they were Indigenous authorities, councilors or members of the public and, therefore, this is clearly not an intercultural situation. Yet, there might be a conflict of cultures between the political structure that is the municipal government, emanation from a state that is designed according to western standards, and Indigenous authorities whose governance system comes from a very different culture (see 4.12.).

4.1. Age:

Each respondent was asked his or her age so that we could assess whether there was a difference between Indigenous authorities and councilors. We found that the average age for Indigenous authorities was 51 and for councilors, 41. There is no real difference between the two groups in terms of minimum age (30 for Indigenous authorities and 31 for councilors) but the maximum age is higher for Indigenous authorities. This likely reflects the fact that for Indigenous authorities, one must climb the ladder step by step and cannot reach the top of the hierarchy without going from Sullka Tamani to Mallku. On the other hand, councilors can be elected directly without going through any 9 The poster in French from Uniterra in Canada stated very clearly that the volunteer was to “analyze an intercultural governance experience as lived in the municipality of Curahuara de Carangas.” The poster in Spanish mentions “una experiencia de gobernabilidad intercultural en el Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas”.

9

step by step process.

Edad Autoridades originarias

Concejalas

Mediana 51 41Mínima 30 31

4.2. Ayllus:

The following Ayllus were represented in the responses we collected:Aransaya: Sullka Uta Salla Collana Taypi Uta Collana Jila Uta Taypi Uta Colla Jila Uta Collana Taypi Collana

Urinsaya: Sullka Uta Manasaya Jila Uta Choquemarca Sullka Uta Choquemarca Suni Papel Pampa Suni Uta Choquemarca

As well, two ex Presidents, Junta de Vecinos, were interviewed; we will recall that under section 3. I. LPP, juntas vecinales are also part of the OTBs.

4.3. Year of service:

For Indigenous authorities that serve for one year, we had representatives for each year, 2005 to 2010 as follows:2005: 32006: 22007: 32008: 42009: 52010: 1Thus, there was a fair balance between years and not surprisingly, the year 2009 had the best representation given that it was the most recent. Councilors serve for five years and the last election was in 2005 and the next in April 2010.

4.4. Representation:

10

This question10 was to determine what constituency the respondent thought he or she was representing, their ayllu, community or a larger constituency. The responses are: La comunidad: 9 Caripe: 2 El Pueblo: 1 El pueblo y la comunidad: 1 Comunidad como servidor público: 1 Pueblo de Curahuara: 1 7 ayllus: 1 Ambos la comunidad y Curahuara: 1 Ayllu: 1

There is a strong sense that Indigenous authorities represent their own community as we find that mentioned 14 times (including those 2 responses that identify Caripe and one ayllu) while two mention Curahuara, one seven ayllus and two, the people. Thus, they perceive their authority as being rather localized to their own community and not a larger constituency.

For municipal authorities, it is broader and they identify Curahuara as their constituency.

4.5. Involvement with the other authority:

This question11 was asked to determine the level of involvement respondents had with the other level of authority. It was necessary in order to get a sense of whether or not there was such involvement and, if so, to determine its extent. The results are clear that there is significant involvement by Indigenous authorities with the municipal government.

Autoridades originariasNunca: 2En ocasiones: 2A menudo: 1Muy a menudo: 13

MunicipioA menudo: 2Muy a menudo: 1

10 Pregunta 2: ¿A quién usted representó?11 Pregunta 3: Como autoridad originaria, ¿cuántas veces ha estado involucrado en el gobierno municipal? ¿Nunca, en ocasiones, a menudo, muy a menudo?

11

It is therefore obvious that the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipal government is narrow and constant save for few exceptions. It appears though that those who are farther from Curahuara tend to have less involvement than those who are closer or who live from time to time in Curahuara. For those who answered the additional question “Why” for those who had few or no involvement, their response was: Because they don’t tell me anything. The municipality was very autonomous. There were not many projects that year.Two respondents felt that they were left out of the decision process while the third felt that they did not have much to do that year and there was no need for many meetings.

4.6. Issues:

Question 412 seemed to be difficult for most respondents. Ten mentioned that their issues revolved around “projects” but could barely be more specific. The other issues mentioned were:Caminos: 3Micro-riegos: 3Escuela: 3Ganadería: 2Deportes, salud, ducha solar, bombas, hospital, micro empresa, manejos económicos, desarrollo comunal, agua potable, alumbrados. Others stated that there were no issues because either, all projects had been frozen or because there was no relation between that person and the municipal government. For municipal authorities, the issues were more for information purposes and meetings to discuss municipal affairs.

We can conclude that most respondents were more interested in projects in their communities than in anything else. In terms of specific issues, those that were more cited were roads, irrigation, school and livestock. It is obvious that those issues are mostly of local interest and are the subject of competing demands between communities.

4.7. Importance of issues:

Two questions13 were dealing with the importance of those issues, the first for the respondent him or herself and the second for the community. Except for one, the indigenous authorities and all municipal authorities were in agreement that those issues they had reported were important for them, personally, as well as for their community. One respondent stated that while the issues were important for him, he did not know about the community for lack of coordination with them. All but for one, believed that

12 Pregunta 4: ¿Qué temas le fue involucrado con el gobierno municipal?13 Pregunta 5: ¿Eran estos temas importantes para usted? Pregunta 6: ¿Eran estos temas importantes para su comunidad?

12

issues that were important for them were also important for the community. Therefore, all those issues were important and we will see later that there are inconsistencies between this and the issues that they were actually involved with the municipality.

4.8. Issues that were not discussed or that were rejected by the other authority:

We wanted to know if there were issues that were not discussed with the other authorities (and the reasons why they were not discussed) and the issues that were discussed but were rejected by the other authorities. Unfortunately, those two questions14 seemed confusing for respondents and there was some overlap between the respective responses. The following table shows the number of respondents from each authority stating whether the answer was “no” to the question or “yes”, that is there were indeed issues that were either not discussed or rejected:

Aut. originaria No discutidos RechazadosNo 4 3Si 15 15MunicipioNo 1 3Si 2 0

This issue shows that for indigenous authorities, there were many of them that faced either the lack of possible discussion about issues that were important for them and / or rejection by the municipal council of important issues for them and their communities. Only four Indigenous authorities stated that all their issues were discussed and three that said none of their issues was rejected. From the municipal authorities, two stated that there were issues that were not discussed because, as they explained, they were strictly municipal responsibilities while all three agreed that no issue proposed by Indigenous authorities were rejected. Obviously there is a discrepancy between the perceptions of municipal authorities that state that no matter was rejected while the vast majority of Indigenous authorities stated that some issues were rejected by the council.

Here are samples of comments made by Indigenous authorities in respect of those issues:Issues not discussed: No dinero por el proyecto No informe económico – consejo falta experiencia. No recursos suficiente por mejoramiento de camelides. Demasiado corto tiempo (1 año) para trabajar sobre micro-riegos y servidores de

agua. No transparencia. No reformulación del POA15 – no eran prioridades por las autoridades municipal. Falta de coordinación. En ganadería, el municipio no ayudó nada.

14 Pregunta 7: ¿ Hay temas muy importantes para usted o su comunidad que no han sido discutidos con el gobierno municipal? Pregunta 8: ¿Hay temas que importaba a usted, pero que fueron rechazados por el gobierno municipal?15 Plan Operativo Anual.

13

Falta de tiempo. No había recursos para turismo y no presupuesto. En algunas partes, los micro-riegos / agua para el ganado no eran importante por el

municipio. Baños antiparásitos para ganadería: No recursos y no era una prioridad del gobierno

municipal.

Issues that were rejected by the municipal council: Muchos proyectos fueron rechazados por qué no fueron en el POA. Eran rechazados algunos proyectos que fueron importante para la comunidad. Presupuesto para un proyecto de terreno fue rechazado. Camino inviable – demasiado de recursos. Proyecto de camino no era adecuado para la comunidad. Informe no transparente. Camino no era importante por los honorables. No apoyo del municipio. Falta de coordinación con autoridades locales. Proyecto de agua no era en el POA. No recursos por comunidades que son más lejos de la capital (Curahuara) y sus

proyectos no son incluidos en el POA.

From those comments, it appears that many projects are not included into the POA and therefore there are no resources to initiate them and the perception of the majority of Indigenous authorities is that the municipal council prepares the POA in isolation. That is not the perception of the councilors. Thus, taken in isolation each may reflect the fact that there are many competing interests that the municipal government must address and weed out but, taken collectively, it shows a level of tension between the respective authorities; the number of negative comments and their nature show that there is a problem of relationship between the two authorities.

4.9. Willingness to discuss all issues raised by the municipal government.

Unanimously, all respondents, whether Indigenous or municipal authorities, are willing to discuss any issue raised by the other authority. There was only one negative comment to the effect that the respondent was willing to discuss any issue in order to find solutions but he felt the municipal government never came with a solution to those issues. This comment seems extreme and inconsistent with the other responses. In conclusion, it appears that both the Indigenous and municipal authorities are indeed willing to discuss any issues and this is a positive note in terms of relationship.

4.10 Comité de Vigilancia:

The Comité de Vigilancia is an integral part of the LPP (section 10) and plays a vital role, according to the legislation. Seeman (2004) describes the Comité:

Additionally, a Comité de Vigilancia in each municipality was established. The committee’s principal function was to promote an effective relationship between the

14

municipal governments and OTBs, by controlling the use of municipal financial resources, municipal administration costs as well as consulting and formulating proposals for the municipal budget. Furthermore, they could notify national and/or departmental authorities of cases of abuse or mismanagement of municipal financial resources.” (p. 14)

According to section 15 of the regulations16, the Comité exercises “social control” over “los recursos del Gobierno Municipal que corresponden a la Participación Popular, cuidando que su utilización sea conforme a las normas que rigen la materia, y a los convenios y contratos suscritos por el Gobierno Municipal”.

Given the importance of the Comité’s role, we needed to examine the perception by the authorities of its role and determine its relevance to their relationship, if at all. Thus the question was: “¿Cuál es su opinión sobre el papel del Comité de Vigilancia?”

For 13 Indigenous authorities, the Comité’s role was important but 6 qualified their responses, while 5 were of the opinion that the role of the Comité was not important or irrelevant. All 3 municipal authorities found the Comité to be important.

Important Important but… Not importantIndigenous authorities 7 6 5Municipal auth. 3 0 0

For the 6 Indigenous authorities that found the Comité to be important but qualified their responses, they mentioned: Control social es importante pero esta muy incomodo por el gobierno municipal. No trabajan formal. No funcionó. No terminó su tarea bien. Demasiado político – no funcionó bien. No eficiente – son en Curahuara y no es justo para las otras comunidades. Hay problemas si no funciona.

Those who found the comité not important said: No mucha autoridad para su vigilancia. Mucha problema – autonomía originaria esta el ideal. No movilización. Demasiado lejos de su comunidad – sería necesario de ser de la misma comunidad. No formalizado y no cumplen. El representante de la comunidad fue rechazado – no sabemos nada del Comité. Muy malo – demasiado individualistas – no les conocemos.

Other interesting comments from those who find the Comité important: Vigilar los proyectos.

16 Decreto Reglamentario a la Ley de Participación Popular Y Descentralización. Decreto Supremo Nº 24447 de 20 de Diciembre de 1996.

15

Importante control a municipio. Controlar / supervisar todos los proyectos y el gobierno municipal. Control social - otro nivel de control originario. No tan contactos con el municipio - muy importante por el control social - si no hay

control, no sabemos como se maneja - no cumplió su función - no tiene capacidad. Representantes de los organizaciones sociales - control pero no funciona como se

deberá de funcionar - muchos intereses personales – políticos.

Assuming all respondents are aware of its role, there are lots of various views about the Comité and enough criticisms to come to the conclusion that its role is quite contentious and there is far from unanimous support for that municipal government watchdog. Many mentioned that they did not know who were the members of the Comité or that they were too remote from their communities – it transpired from a number of interviews that those institutions were in the capital (Curahuara) and were too far from their communities not only in terms of distance but also in terms of priorities and concerns. It is also important to keep in mind that the Comité supervises the municipal government and not the Indigenous authorities, but many of the latter find that it lacks teeth to effectively supervise the municipality. Given the number of Indigenous authorities that have concerns about the Comité (11 out of 18), it is fair to say that its role and effectiveness are problematic.

4.11. Involvement in municipal powers: We needed to know to what extent Indigenous authorities were involved in dealing with concrete municipal powers and we divided the question in two parts. The first part involved municipal powers that were actually exercised by the municipality and were funded in the POA. The second part were a number of important powers that were not mentioned in the POA but might have been discussed at a council meeting. We could determine by that question whether the respondents were aware of those powers and it could help them remember issues that they may have forgotten when answering question 4 (4.6. herein).

Competencia Aut. originaria17 Aut. municipalPromoción y fomento a la producción agropecuaria

10/1718 3/3

Saneamiento básico 14/17 3/3Construcción y mantenimiento de micro-riegos

9/17 3/3

Desarrollo y preservación del medio ambiente

1219/17 3/3

Limpieza urbana y rural 13/17 2/3

17 Two respondents did not answer that question.18 Number of people saying yes, they were involved / out of a total of respondents: here 10 out of 17 respondents were involved in that matter.19 Two qualified their answer to the effect that they were consulted “poco” and the other “only once”.

16

Electrificación rural 13/17 3/3Alumbrado público 1220/17 3/3Infraestructura urbana y rural 1121/17 2/3Construcción y mantenimiento de caminos vecinales

922/17 3/3

Servicios de salud 1623/17 3/3Servicios de educación y fomento al deporte

1724/17 3/3

Desarrollo de la cultura 12/17 3/3Desarrollo y fomento del turismo 1325/17 2/3Promoción y políticas de genero 13/17 3/3Defensa y protección de la niñez y la mujer.

15/17 3/3

Part 2 – powers not listed in POAConvocatoria de consultas y referéndum

16/17 1/3

Promoción del empleo y condiciones laborales

9/17 1/3

Áreas protegidas 13/17 2/3Control alimenticio 11/17 2/3Espectáculos públicos y juegos recreativos.

8/17 2/3

Defensa de los consumidores 6/17 2/3

When examining those data, we note that the powers that involved the most Indigenous authorities are: Education & sports Health Referendum Defense & protection of girls and women.

While those powers that involved less Indigenous authorities are: Consumers’ defense Public shows and recreation Micro-irrigation systems Construction and maintenance of roads Employment and labour conditions.

20 One respondent qualified by saying “only in Curahuara”. Another mentioned that they did not have the time to come to his community.21 One respondent qualified by saying “only in Curahuara”.22 One mentioned that he was consulted but the project was never constructed.23 Three respondents mentioned it was not for their community but for Curahuara and one added that there were no resources to pay for transport to Curahuara.24 Two respondents made comments; one said “poco” and the other mentioned “only in Curahuara”.25 According to one respondent, the municipal government was not involved in tourism as for him it meant the Parque Nacional Sajama and they were not involved in it (only SERNAP).

17

It is surprising to see micro-irrigation and public roads in the lower category as those issues were often mentioned in the discussion as important but as sources of concerns.

Municipal authorities though had a very different view of the involvement of Indigenous authorities and it is worth noting that they reported less involvement in powers listed under Part 2 (those that were not mentioned in the POA) while Indigenous authorities felt that they had been consulted / involved in many of them, the most notorious being about referendums. It might be because the majority of Indigenous authorities were involved in campaigning for the ‘yes’ side during the autonomy referendum that took place prior to December 6, 2009, this being a municipal power. In any event and for obvious reasons, the referendum was very important for Indigenous authorities and the tension that resulted comes with no surprise, given these data.

4.12. Evaluation of a text:

In the course of the research, I came upon a document (Ajuste26) that expressed a strong relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipal government. Two excerpts of this document were shown and read to all respondents and they were asked whether they agreed with each one, or not, and to provide reasons. The purpose was to confront each respondent with a document of the municipal government that boasted its relationship with Indigenous authorities in order to determine if it reflected the reality as perceived by the respondents.

4.12.1. The first text:

The first text states:

“Entre las conductas que favorecieron y favorecen a la gestión municipal esta el rol que ejercen las Autoridades Tradicionales en la gestión municipal, al ser participes en la toma de decisiones para la ejecución de actividades y proyectos, en un esquema de participación de la sociedad civil que sale de los marcos comunes, mostrando a una población que no sólo espera recibir obras, actividades o servicios del gobierno municipal, sino también actúa como promotora, organizadora, e incluso sancionadora a través de sus a Autoridades Originarias, un poder legítimo y natural que ya está establecido como un patrón cultural.”27

All respondents were in agreement with this statement but for one, who qualified his agreement by saying that he was 50% in agreement. When asked why they were in agreement, they mentioned: Muy importante - deben trabajar juntos Son temas muy importantes Somos todos elaborando el plan del gobierno municipal. Representamos a la base de la comunidad. Muy conveniente de participar a todas las actividades - sino, no se puede manejar.

26 Ajuste del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal del Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas, Proyecto, 2006.27 Ajuste, p. 6.

18

Todos debemos le conseguir. La comunidad esta de acuerdo. Es bueno - es la realidad y el futuro. Somos de acuerdos sino no vamos recibir proyectos. Refleja la realidad. Como la realidad. La realidad. Necesita que las autoridades participan - No pueden decidir sin autoridades

originarias. Será el futuro. No refleja la realidad – pero el futuro - represente mas o menos 50% de las obras. Podría ser autónomos por qué el municipio no puede ayudarnos.

Some feel that this text does not reflect the immediate reality but that it should be something to be aimed at in the future (3) while others think it does reflect today’s reality (5). Three say that this is necessary for the government to be able to function efficiently while one commented that the municipality was not really able to help their community and the autonomy would work better.

The municipal authorities also agreed with that text and made the following comments: Todos los proyectos tenían que estar consensuó. Para mejorar la relación entre las autoridades originarias y el municipio. Más coordinación - la realidad.

This may suggest that there is room for improvement for better coordination with Indigenous authorities.

4.12.2. The second text:

The second text is somewhat more relevant to the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipality:

“… el proceso de toma de decisiones para la formulación, ejecución y seguimiento de programas y proyectos o de cualquier otra actividad relacionada con el municipio, es compartida y participativa entre “ambos gobiernos”, es decir entre el Gobierno Municipal y las autoridades originarias… que a su vez consultan con las comunidades antes de emitir su decisión.”28

Interestingly, two respondents were in complete disagreement with this text while another was in agreement at “50%”. The others (14) were in agreement with it. The comments in response to the other question “why” are: Deben de tener relación por proyecto sino no funciona. Realidad – actualmente. Esta la realidad - debemos consultar con la comunidad - decisión de todos. Representamos a la base de la comunidad. Trabajar juntamente esta importante sino no hay trabajo. Soy de acuerdo por qué sino, nosotros no pueden hacer nada.28 Ajuste p. 9.

19

Para el futuro. Por el futuro también. La base esta de acuerda. Compartir - participativa entre todos. Debemos dialogar. El gobierno no podría hacer nada sin esta participación. No están conformes a la realidad en 50% de los asuntos. Soy de acuerdo con duda - no revisión de ejecución de proyectos – no somos

involucrados en ejecución de proyectos. No se cumple ahora - Debería se cumplir. No soy de acuerdo por qué no convenía a las autoridades municipales. Soy en desacuerdo porque es la decisión del municipio solamente. En desacuerdo: No hay colaboración - no coordinación con el gobierno municipal.

We seem to find more hesitation with this text than the previous and it is interesting to note that this text deals with the fact that both the Indigenous authorities and the municipality are “governments” that must work together. Six respondents expressed concerns about that relationship but nonetheless the majority agrees with it. Dissatisfaction about the lack of compliance, of consultation or the lack of involvement in the supervision of projects seemed to emerge from a number of responses.

Municipal respondents agreed unanimously with this text and made the following comments: Siempre hay coordinación entre el gobierno municipal y las autoridades originarias. Realidad de la situación actual. Realidad - reuniones juntas – participación de las autoridades originarias.

It is therefore obvious that the municipal authorities believe firmly that the text reflects the reality of the actual relationship between Indigenous authorities and them.

When analyzing those two questions, there are discrepancies between the perception of the municipal and the Indigenous authorities on their relationship. As well, when interviewing Indigenous respondents, they gave me the sense that they were not too sure how to answer that question and I could see some hesitation in the responses. In my view, it reflects tensions between the two authorities and a relationship that could be improved along the lines of those two texts.

4.13. Involvement of the Aymara culture in governance:

It is important to determine whether the Aymara culture is actually an integral part of decision-making for the municipal government and, if so, how. The rationale stems from the fact that if Indigenous authorities are involved in governance, it should be based on the fact that Indigenous peoples have a different approach to government and to governance and that difference must be reflected in the decision-making process. In fact, culture is the foundation of the “difference” between Indigenous peoples and what used to be the dominant, colonial society. Mamani (2005) writes about culture:

20

El valor cultural como discurso pero también como una visibilidad posible y real es una fuerza que tiene la capacidad de mover sentidos e imaginaciones culturales. Es decir, el ser indígena como presencia discusiva y demográfica tiene una condición histórica. Y su condición histórica es el fundamento que sostiene la memoria sobre sus territorios, o lo que se llama la memoria de los territorios. Esta referencia histórica además es un recurso de las memorias de lucha y vivencias culturales, muy fuerte en relación con los contextos neocoloniales de los Estados y sus poblaciones. (p. 17)

There is also the issue of Indigenous peoples not having full opportunity to govern themselves and this may play a role in the quality of relationship between Indigenous authorities and a government created by the national government. The context is quite bleak in that respect but is certainly improving at the national level with the indigenization of the Plurinational State:

La vida social y política de hoy está estructurada sobre una infinidad de relaciones de poder donde una inmensa masa indígena es gobernada por pequeños grupos no indígenas con una lógica política clientelar, corrupta y prebendal. (Mamani, 2005, p. 18)

This means that we must be clever in examining this issue and not assume that because the municipal government in Curahuara is also composed of Indigenous people, there is no danger of acculturation stemming from the very fact that this is a legal creation of the national government reflecting a western type of governance. Mamani (2005) adds on this subject:

Por eso muchos indios nos imaginamos como similares y diferentes al mismo tiempo, pero profundamente contenidos en hermandades emotivas y culturales o materiales frente a la opresión cultural y política de las sociedades neocoloniales y estatales dominantes. (p. 18)

The question was:

En su papel como autoridad indígena, ¿como la concepción (buena vida) de la población culturalmente aymara fue considerada en la toma de decisiones?

The concept of “Buena vida” came from a quote in the Ajuste (p. 11):

Desarrollo bajo la concepción (buen vida) de la población culturalmente aymara del Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas como base de la planificación estratégica de desarrollo, el análisis, la reflexión y las propuestas estarán conectadas a la concepción de desarrollo lo que implica considerar de manera integral las dimensiones de crecimiento material, crecimiento biológico, crecimiento espiritual y gobierno territorial.

For sixteen Indigenous authorities respondents, the Aymara culture was important while for two it was not. For the three municipal authorities it was indeed important. A sample of comments made follows: Si claro, mucha influencia. La cultura es parte de las decisiones.

21

Importante para pedir proyectos. Muy importante – la cultura es una autoridad mas alta que los sindicatos. Bueno de discutir de la cultura. Si - trabajamos de las bases - con la comunidad - ella ayuda con la cultura. La cultura – costumbres - es la base de la toma de decisiones. Son las costumbres ancestrales – debemos recuperar nuestra cultura aymara. Pienso a la cultura todo el tiempo. En toma de decisiones - casi todo el tiempo pienso en Aymara. Siempre impulsando las valores culturales. Necesario para la coordinación con las comunidades y actividades. Siempre en coordinación con las autoridades originarias – ellas son responsables de la

cultura.

Thus for both municipal and Indigenous authorities the overwhelming majority find that the Aymara culture (including its worldview) is important and is being taken into consideration when making decisions. For one who found the culture was not important, he said it was not much taken into consideration and this respondent also found that the municipal government was in general not responsive to the concerns of Indigenous authorities and therefore his answer should be taken to mean that he believes the municipality is not taking culture seriously. The other respondent who said it was not important did not comment.

4.14. The PDMO:

In the Ajuste (2006) it is recommended to create a “Plan de Desarrollo Municipal Originario” (PDMO) that contains:

Un Diagnóstico Integral de la situación actual del municipio en cuanto a su desarrollo, a la gestión del territorio (concepción originaria), la gestión del área protegida, incorporando demandas y criterios de ordenamiento territorial adecuados al contexto cultural y político – administrativo vigente.

Un Marco Estratégico para el desarrollo integral (Visión, Objetivos, Líneas y acciones estratégicas, de largo plazo) con la zonificación óptima.

Un Marco Operativo zonificado para la implementación de la estrategia integral (programas y proyectos de mediano y largo plazo). (pp. 13 – 14)

This process would, among other things, contribute to ensure:

El Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas, cuenta con el principal insumo para impulsar su condición de municipio originario. (p. 14)

Given the importance of such an initiative in our context, we thought that all respondents should be asked if they knew about this initiative, so important for Indigenous people, and, if so, what they knew about it29. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that this is a project that dates back to 2006 (the covering letter is dated February 9, 2006) and was

29 ¿Qué sabe del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal Originario (PDMO)?

22

probably discussed in 2005 and early 2006. Since our timeframe was 2005 – 2009 we wanted to know to what extent this project had reached Indigenous authorities.

Out of 18 Indigenous authorities, 4 did not know about the PDMO while 8 knew a little and 6 answered ‘yes’, that they knew about it.

Si No PocoAut. Originarias 6 4 8Municipio 2 1 0

Those results can be analyzed two ways: first, it shows that the vast majority of Indigenous authorities know about it, even if it’s minimal, as their total is 14. However, on the other hand, if we add those who did not know with those who knew only a little, the total is 12 that were not much aware of this very important project. The comments can help see how broad was the knowledge of those authorities in terms of the PDMO:

Recuerdo que estaba un plan que hay en la comunidad. No se cumple con este plan – El Alcalde activa a su gusto. Somos legítimos - Queremos gobernar – es un proceso originario - fui involucrado. Sabe mucho - no se dado énfasis de este - es lo que quiere la base pero el Alcalde no

apoyó - son mis responsabilidades - mis cosas - colaboración con las autoridades originarias o mucho pelea.

Estaríamos de acuerdo pero no había proyecto. Si, fui involucrado pero es para el futuro: ¡2015!

There appear to be a significant level of skepticism in those comments and all of them come from people who said they knew about the PDMO. There is a perception that, while it was extremely valuable, it was not fully supported by the municipality and in the context of this analysis, this must be taken into account. Coupled with the answers of those who knew a little or not at all, it gives a somewhat negative picture of how this project was managed, according to Indigenous authorities.

The municipal authorities had those comments: Si, consenso - elaborado por la gestión 2006. No intención de separar nos - alíanos con los originarias - buena adición.

From those comments, it can be inferred that it is considered as a good project that was embraced by those who were involved in 2006 with a caveat that it was meant to unify and not to separate those authorities. At the end, according to the interviews, it seems that this project was never completed and no PDMO was eventually drafted, which added to the skepticism of Indigenous authorities.

4.15. How were the relationships between Indigenous authorities and the municipality?

23

With this question we reached the gist of the issue: the perception people have of the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipal government. This is a purely qualitative question and we need to review all the responses in order to draw some inferences and conclusions.

Autoridades originarias: Más relacionadas - como unos - casi todo funcionó bien. Compartimos - todo bien. Bien - ahora (2010) esta bien pero en el pasado fue más o menos. Bien - todo funcionó. Siempre estuvimos juntos - Estaba bien, no problemas. Las reuniones funcionaron

bien. De acuerdo a un convenio. Hemos trabajado bien - ningún problema - todo funcionó bien - todo normal (los

problemas estaban en 2007). Bueno - participativo - estrictamente. Funcionó: casi todo Educación y salud / No

funcionó: Ganadería Muy bien - personal - pero con el Mallku un poco difícil - acusación de malversación

de fondos por el Mallku – Funcionó: reuniones / No funcionó: 2007 con autoridades originarios.

Coordinados - casi bien. Como uno - toda bien. Un poco - 50% - algunos acuerdos no funcionó, otros si. Regular - no tan bueno o malo. Las reuniones no fueran tan importantes. No

funcionó: No mucha relación con el municipio - eran aparte - no tanto compartimiento.

Regular - No funcionó: Funcionarios públicos en las reuniones públicas - no ayudaron.

Mucha discusión - no había entendimiento - ¡como otra idioma! No había coordinación - de los ambos partes. El Mallku y el Alcalde se confrontaron por interés personales de ambos - Funcionó: nada, solamente costumbres originarias / No funcionó: la relación entre el Alcalde y el Mallku - 2 meses sin reuniones - no se hablaron - no supo que hacer.

Poco relación - Funcionó: vías de comunicación de acceso - cualquier proyectos / No funcionó: No quieren aprobar proyectos.

Casi no relación. Muy mal - Falta de coordinación - Concejales son aislados - hay separación. Bastante débil - el municipio acta a su gusto - No funcionó por qué no se cumple con

las autoridades originarias.

Autoridades municipales: Bien - más que 3 años que funcionó bien - Funcionó: coordinación / No funcionó:

Control social. Buenas relaciones - coordinación y discusiones. Todo funcionó bien. Algunos años buenos - otros enfrentamientos – desacuerdos. Funcionó: Consenso

POA / No funcionó: PDMO = división.

24

Analyzing those answers with the years the respondents were in function, we can say that years 2007 and 2009 were the most difficult for Indigenous authorities with one negative answer for year 2008. The comments show that year 2007 was fraught with conflicts and appeared to be quite dysfunctional while 2009 was characterized by comments to the effect that there were few if any relations with the municipal government. It must be kept in mind that 2009 was the year of the autonomy referendum, which created tensions between Indigenous authorities and the municipality as was mentioned earlier. Thus years 2005 and 2006 seemed to have been years where the relationship was excellent while year 2008 was good but to a lesser extent.

4.16. Comments:

The last question30 was intended for the respondents who wished to provide further comments. Most respondents took advantage of this opportunity and made comments. Some of them stressed the fact that both “governments” must in fact be one and the need for both to work together. One commented that he thought management of the municipality could be improved as he was convinced it could be done better and was hopeful for the future. Another thought that it would be beneficial for the community to be more engaged in politics so that the people have more control over their affairs. It was also stressed that it was important to know how to express oneself so that the needs are known and acknowledged that most services were located in Curahuara and there was a need for decentralization to the ayllus and even having council meetings out of Curahuara. Few were satisfied with the way things were going and with the fact that they felt they could work jointly with the municipality, as one.

Of course the issue of autonomy or self-government came up and some hoped that the community eventually accept Indigenous autonomy. There were concerns for lack of coordination by the municipality with Indigenous authorities. It was pointed out that the relation depended very much on personalities, particularly the Alcalde and the Mallku and if they got along well, then the relationship was good but if not, it did not function well. One respondent wished that with the next municipal government, they could work as “brothers” (hermanos) and not be isolated anymore. Some commented that important issues for those ayllus that were more remote from Curahuara were not addressed and were not included in the POA and they have the impression that people in Curahuara are not interested in their issues and ignore them.

Others preferred to make no comments as they thought they would not be listened to.

For the municipal authorities, they wished to continue working in coordination with Indigenous authorities as well as plan according to cultural values. It was also mentioned that they shared responsibilities with Indigenous authorities that changed every year. It was also mentioned that there were generally speaking, good relationships but on occasion there were internal conflicts. This will be analyzed later in the paper, with the general analysis.

30 ¿Hay otros comentarios que le gustaría hacer acerca de la relación entre usted y el gobierno municipal cuando estaba Mallku o Tamani?

25

4.17. Public Meeting:

We held a public meeting in one ayllu outside of Curahuara. There were approximately eight participants and the discussions were fairly emotional for them. They stated that their ayllu was not considered by the municipality as it was too far and that all the attention was focused on the capital (Curahuara) and a few large ayllus close by. They stated they have an urgent need of a better access road to their community but the municipality rejected their demands for lack of resources. Yet, according to them, municipal authorities use lots of money to travel while they don’t have any for them.

They also stated there was no relationship with the municipal government in 2009 and they would rather be autonomous than deal with the municipal authorities. They also mentioned they were aware resources had been provided to the municipality by Venezuela but none of that money was used in the outlying communities. Quite the contrary, they believe all the resources were used for a new “coliseo, universidad y colegio” in Curahuara. As well, they believe that there were not enough Venezuelan resources for those projects and that the municipal government even used their own money to complete those projects, meaning that less money was available for the ayllus. They trust that those investments were made in Curahuara in 2009 to “buy” votes for the “no” at the December 6 referendum on autonomy. They claimed the Alcalde wanted to look good (Trad.: buena cara) for the referendum and win votes for the “no”.

They added they had water problems and work needed to be done in their ayllu but for lack of money this could not be done and saw it as an example of discrimination against smaller ayllus. They feel they are not listened to and some of them hope for a change in municipal authorities in the next elections (April 2010).

Again, it is important to keep in mind those are the perceptions of the people participating in the meeting and not proof of facts. It is nonetheless necessary to take them into account when assessing the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipal government. In this case, it reflects the mood in smaller ayllus that claim the municipality neglects them. It is not an assessment of the relationship in general but of a situation that seems to have been exacerbated in 2009 in the context of the referendum. Yet, it provides a snapshot of the perception of those people about the relationship with the municipal government and we have to rate it as poor at this time.

5. Gender analysis:

While this was not stated in the Spanish version of the mandate, the poster in French from Uniterra Canada clearly stated that the volunteer would have to consider gender issues in the analysis31.

5.1. Statistics:

31 The text stated: [translation] “Facilitate gender inclusion and women’s participation within those groups.”

26

The municipal council is composed of four women and no man but for the Alcalde. I reviewed the list of Indigenous authorities provided by them for the period 2005 – 2010, inclusive:

Autoridades originarias32:Año Hombres Mujeres2005 14 12006 15 12007 15 12008 15 12009 16 0Total 5 años 75 4

From those data, we see that the world of Indigenous authorities is male and few women play a role. Yet, this is not completely accurate as each Tamani has also a Mama Tamani and they must be married to be Tamani and their wives play an important role in the communities. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that the authorities listed are overwhelmingly males and that there is a prima facie gender imbalance.

5.2. Analysis:

When we examine together the municipal and the Indigenous authorities, we can extrapolate that they balance genders, as the municipal authorities are mostly women while the Indigenous authorities are mostly men. Yet, there are far less councilors than Indigenous authorities because they are elected for five years while Indigenous authorities are in function for only one year and while there are five municipal authorities, there are 15 or 16 (depending on the year) different Indigenous authorities each year. Thus in five years, you may have 5 municipal authorities and 75 Indigenous authorities. In that context there would be approximately 8 women and 76 men.

During one of the meetings, women expressed concerns that they were not listened to and had no real role to play in the context of Indigenous authorities and they thought it may have been a factor that contributed to the defeat of the “yes” at the referendum, people being concerned that women may not have a real role to play as part of Indigenous autonomy. This is an appreciation of situation and not a statement of fact but it shows that women have concerns about the patriarchal nature of Indigenous authorities. The Constitution (2009) guarantees equality of gender33 while at the same time guaranteeing the traditional mode of selection of Indigenous authorities34 but seemingly through elections35. However, I don’t know whether the imbalance in favor of men is purely coincidental or if it is because of the governance culture of the Aymara. If it is coincidental and / or not part of the culture, then the Constitution supersedes this process but if not, it is not clear what the outcome of balancing those rights would be but this

32 It includes the Presidente, Junta de Vecinos. 33 Constitución Política del Estado (CPE), art. 8. II.34 Art. 26. II. 3. y 4. CPE.35 Anteproyecto de Ley Marco de Autonomía y Descentralización, art. 94. II.

27

issue is likely to have to be addressed by Indigenous authorities in order to try and balance those rights before going to another referendum or before creating their own statute (Estatuto).

It must be reaffirmed that “equality of opportunity is a fundamental but insufficient principle. Equity in results requires specific measures to eliminate legal, economic, political, social and cultural barriers which women still face today.”36 One of the commitments of CECI is to “promote democracy, respect for human rights, and the right of women and men to independent decision-making in all development activities implemented by CECI.”37 Therefore, the fact that Tamani must be married and have a Mama Tamani to assist them may not meet basic women’s human rights as they still seem to face a barrier in being themselves a Tamani and it also prevents them from independent decision-making as their role depends on their husband’s role. Being aware of this situation, Indigenous authorities would have a clear advantage in confronting the situation and addressing this imbalance.

If we look for hints in the international community, we can consider the Canadian experience of balancing two conflicting rights. The issue came up when negotiating self-government agreements and amendments to the Canadian constitution. Women were concerned that Indigenous rights would be inconsistent with and infringe their right to equality. Franks (in Cook and Lindau, 2000) describes a situation that could very well apply to Indigenous peoples in Bolivia:

Aboriginal38 communities face difficult choices in balancing the desires of traditionalists with those of modernists, in allocating scarce resources among competing demands, in coming to terms with the greater society in ensuring economic development while at the same time preserving their culture and important traditions. Human rights [laws] do not tell governments how they should solve these problems and issues, any more than they tell individual citizens how they should run their private lives and businesses. What [Human Rights laws do] is set the ground rules for these discussions and procedures, so that basic standards of equality and fairness are recognized and met by all parties. (p. 134)

He also cites a decision of the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal stating that:

There is ample evidence that… [Indigenous] women as a class remain doubly disadvantaged in at least some Aboriginal societies by reason of sex. The uncontradicted evidence is that they are also seriously disadvantaged by reason of sex within the segment of Aboriginal society residing in or claiming the right to reside on [Indigenous lands]. (p. 133)

It seems that gender equality may have a priority over Indigenous rights if the opinion of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples39 prevails:

36 CECI Policy on Equality between Women and Men, Principles.37 Idem, “Our Commitment”.38 Indigenous peoples in Canada are called generically ‘Aboriginal’ in English.

28

On the other hand, the Commission observed that it was clear in the Charter40 that Aboriginal self-governments41, like other Canadian governments, should recognize and accept legal equality of the two sexes. (p. 123)

Another factor that can play is the fact that rights may change over the years and, for instance, a matriarchal society may change into a patriarchal society through external influences, for example religious influences. Franks writes:

[T]he meaning and practical interpretation of rights, as well as the emphasis given to one right over others, alters over the years. The rights themselves, in a very abstract sense, remain as constant ideals and symbols. For rights in Aboriginal societies also, whether formally articulated or embedded in practices, their meaning, the trade-offs between them, and their limits will change over the years. So also will the way they are expressed in practice and the means established to ensure they are recognized. (p. 128)

In other words, the importance of certain rights may shift during the years and one right that seemed to be more important than another may fall second to the other by virtue of changing circumstances. Indigenous peoples have seen those changes over the years and are exposed to more changes. Thus it is quite likely that gender equality will supersede any cultural right that men should be chosen or selected for office as Indigenous authority.

Finally, at this point, there is an apparent gender imbalance that can influence negatively the relationship between Indigenous and municipal authorities, adding another layer of possible conflict that would benefit from being addressed sooner rather than later.

6. Final Analysis:

According to the mandate, in addition to analyzing the situation, we are to systemize this experience of governance. Unfortunately, the experience as lived in Curahuara de Carangas could hardly be systemize as, primarily, it was structured by the LPP, like in any other municipality in Bolivia where there are Indigenous authorities and, secondly, because there are significant variations between years in terms of the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipality.

We should first proceed to a general analysis. If there is any systemization, it is the LPP and its regulations that provided the framework of the relationship between civil society and municipal governments. Through the OTB’s that had to include Indigenous authorities, the legislation provided for its rights and duties. As well, the Comités de Vigilancia were recognized by legislation and were assigned very specific roles of review, supervision and monitoring of municipal expenses. Yet its role is either not well understood, is contentious or is not effective in Curahuara as mentioned by a number of

39 This was a commission of inquiry on the conditions of Indigenous Canadians that took place between 1990 and 1996.40 Equivalent to the Bolivian Constitution.41 Similar to Indigenous autonomy.

29

respondents. It appears that the intent of the legislation that the Comité de Vigilancia be a watchdog of municipal expenses on behalf of the OTBs has not worked out in Curahuara.

The other element that prevents systemization is the fact that there are years when the relationship is excellent while others when it is poor. We identified years 2007 and 2009 as being at the lower end of the spectrum while 2008 was in the middle and years 2005 and 2006 were excellent, at the upper end. This was not caused by a distortion in the number of people interviewed, who had acted during those years as the representation was fairly even (5 for 2005 and 2006, 3 for 2007, 4 for 2008 and 5 for 2009). It is also of note that a number of respondents who served after 2007 did mention that 2007 was a difficult year. Thus, the relationship between Indigenous and municipal authorities fluctuated during the review period and seem to have deteriorated with time.

The causes of that deterioration can be identified to a number of factors: Personal conflicts between people who occupy important functions as part of either

the municipal or the Indigenous authorities in 2007; The referendum on Indigenous autonomy in 2009 and the perception by Indigenous

people that the municipality was against autonomy; Perceived centralization of projects and expenses in Curahuara42; The perception by remote ayllus that the “Capital” (Curahuara) was only looking after

itself and was not concerned by the situation in those ayllus and was perceived as ignoring them.

The last factor is confirmed, according to respondents from those communities, by a lower level of relationship with the municipal government for Indigenous authorities that come from smaller ayllus or those ayllus that are more remote.

The main interest for Indigenous authorities are the projects and that ties with the services a municipality can provide. Examining those particular issues that are at the top of the list when they are interviewed without suggestion, we find roads, micro-irrigation, school and livestock. In answer to the next questions they confirmed those issues were important for them and for their communities. This is inconsistent with the answers provided by the same respondents to the question that involved a list of municipal powers where the most important issues, that is the ones that got the most Indigenous authorities involved, were: Education & sports; Health; Referendum and Defense & protection of girls and women.

What is even stranger is that two of the issues that had been initially identified as most important were reported as having less involved Indigenous authorities: roads and micro-irrigation. This may suggest the municipal government sets the agenda and their priorities were not necessarily those of many Indigenous authorities. It is typical that

42 The POA shows that there were projects performed and expenses made outside of Curahuara, in rural areas.

30

road and irrigation issues are closer to rural communities than to urban ones and the gap already identified by smaller, rural, ayllus is again reflected here.

This is further confirmed by the perception of the vast majority (15/18) of Indigenous authorities that their issues were either not discussed or rejected. Many stressed that their issues were not included in the POA, or in the budget or were simply rejected because they were of no interest to the municipality or that the POA was prepared in isolation. The municipal authorities seem to have been oblivious to that situation as they thought that no issue proposed by Indigenous authorities had been rejected. What is also revealing is that they thought issues that were strictly of municipal responsibility did not have to be discussed with Indigenous authorities. This is a significant gap in perceptions between the two authorities suggesting that perhaps lines of communication are not working well and, of most concern, that the relationship between the two groups is perceived in a very different way.

This gap in perceptions is also illustrated by the reactions to the two texts read to the respondents. While almost everyone agreed with both texts, perceptions were quite different as a number of Indigenous authorities mentioned it would be an ideal in the future while municipal authorities saw it as an actual situation. Those two texts, endorsed by the municipal government as part of the Ajuste, if actually fully implemented, could improve significantly the relationships between the two groups. The question about the PDMO confirmed this. While the majority of Indigenous authorities knew about it, they did not believe it would materialize and some thought the municipality was not supportive, even though it was its own proposal. It seems they were correct as the PDMO did not materialize for a reason I don’t know, perhaps for lack of funding, as this was part of a proposal for funding. Yet, while the attempt was very honorable and in the spirit of involving more Indigenous authorities in the municipal process through a new PDMO, it did raise skepticism and because it was not eventually acted upon, it might have contributed to a certain frustration by Indigenous authorities about the perceived lack of willingness by the municipality to involve them more closely in governance.

The mandate suggested there was an intercultural issue in Curahuara between Indigenous and municipal authorities but, as mentioned before, this is not the case as both authorities are Indigenous. This is confirmed by the question about culture that showed most respondents stated that culture was important and was taken into consideration in the decision-making process. So, this does not appear to be a source of conflict unless the conflict is between two types of governments, one Indigenous the other based on western culture, that could impact on the decision-making process but the research did not disclose any such specific conflict. Though, culture may have had an impact on the results of the referendum on autonomy, given the respective governance models used by either group, forcing people to chose between a municipal or an Indigenous type of governance model.

For instance, the fact that women dominate the municipal council while men dominate the traditional Indigenous authorities is an issue to consider. That women now dominate the council is not of concern as they are elected by the people and women are generally at

31

a disadvantage, particularly in public life. However, we noticed a gender imbalance for Indigenous authorities that is preferable to address. There also appears to be a correlation between age and gender. We noticed that the average age for councilors was 41 while it was 51 for Indigenous authorities. This may reflect the fact that it takes longer for an Indigenous person to climb the ladder of Indigenous authority and that may also be an additional obstacle for women. Regardless of the causes, gender imbalance for Indigenous authorities is very likely to have consequences and would merit being addressed sooner rather than later. In terms of relationship with the municipal government, it may also have had an impact, particularly in the scope of the referendum. Indeed, it is possible that a number of voters decided to support the ‘no’ side for fear of endorsing a perceived gender inequality and prefer to vote for whomever they want at a municipal election rather than have to deal with Indigenous authorities.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that there is, at this time, no possibility to systematize the relationship between Indigenous authorities and the municipal government because the factors influencing whether the relationship is good or not, fluctuate year after year, depending on personalities and issues. I cannot say that the relationship is generally good or generally poor as it is neither. In fact, the relationship can be described as generally good with episodes of tensions based on punctual circumstances. I do not think it could be used as a model across Bolivia as those factors influencing the relationship may or may not occur in other communities and there is no real process that is being used here, in Curahuara, to formalize or demarcate those relationships, other than the LPP.

One way to formalize the relationship between two authorities would be to negotiate a protocol that would be specific as to how that relationship would work, for example: Expectations from each authority, Respective roles and responsibilities, Jurisdictions, Processes (for instance, meetings where, when or how often etc.), How decisions are made, What gets in the POA, How the budget is prepared, How smaller ayllus can be involved, How to share budgets between ayllus Etc.

Yet, this cannot prevent conflicts of personalities nor can it deal with an important event like a referendum.

7. The future:

As mentioned at the outset of this paper, “esta experiencia requieren (sic) ser sistematizada, como una demostración de la capacidad de gobernabilidad futura donde la participación de la sociedad civil se ve reflejada por las corrientes municipales como también las autóctonas.” In the present context, with the new constitution, the future is more likely to be a form of autonomy and it is not likely that the actual process of

32

governance in Curahuara can perpetuate itself in the present format. Undoubtedly, Indigenous authorities have embraced the autonomy process and the defeat of the ‘yes’ at the referendum had a significant impact on this research. Given the tensions and the accusations that are normal during a referendum campaign, the responses have most certainly been influenced by this important event. It was probably not the best time for the municipality to conduct this research but the timeframe was set in advance and it could not be changed. Therefore, it is important to keep that in mind when looking at the results of the survey and, in particular, at the many negative comments about the municipal government. Yet, Indigenous autonomy is now a reality in Bolivia and the Anteproyecto de Ley Marco de Autonomía y Descentralización states that another referendum on Indigenous autonomy can be held after another 3 years43. It is very likely therefore that further discussions will include the issue of Indigenous autonomous government.

43 Art. 35. II. b. LMAD - I do not know at this time if the final version of the LMAD will include that 3 year term but it is very likely that there will be an opportunity for another referendum.

33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ajuste del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal del Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas, Proyecto, 2006.

Anteproyecto de Ley Marco de Autonomía y Descentralización, 2009.

Bolivia, 1994, Ley de Participación Popular.

CECI, 2009, Doc. 201 – Descripción del Puesto de Voluntario – Asesor en gobernabilidad de pueblos indígenas; fecha: 22 de junio del 2009.

CECI, SF, Policy on Equality between Women and Men.

Colque, Gonzalo, 2009, Autonomías Indígenas en tierras altas – Breve mapeo para la implementación de la Autonomía Indígena Originaria Campesina, La Paz: Fundación Tierra, p. 123.

Decreto Reglamentario a la Ley de Participación Popular Y Descentralización Decreto Supremo Nº 24447 de 20 de Diciembre de 1996.

Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, 2009, Constitución Política del Estado, La Paz: Congreso nacional.

Franks, C.E.S., 2000, Rights and Self-Government for Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples, in Aboriginal Rights and Self-Government: The Canadian and Mexican Experience, Eds. Curtis Cook & Juan D. Lindau, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 101-134

Ley Nº 1702 de 17 de Julio de 1996 / Ley de Modificaciones a la Ley Nº 1551 (Participación Popular)

Mamani Ramírez, Pablo, 2005, Geopolíticas Indígenas, El Alto: Centro Andino de Estudios Estratégicos.

Pérez, Mamerto, SF, La Ley de Participación Popular en una perspectiva indígena Retrieved from internet 14 February 2010: bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/.../C10Perez.pdf

Seeman, Miriam, 2004, The Bolivian Decentralization Process and the Role of Municipal Associations, HWWA Discussion paper 271, Hamburg: Hamburg Institute of International Economics.

34

APPENDIX I

PROYECTO 70781: APOYO AL MEJORAMIENTO DE LA GOVERNABILIDAD DEMOCRATICA Y DESARROLLO LOCAL A NIVEL MUNICIPAL Y

COMUNITARIO

ENTREVISTAS – AUTORIDADES ORIGINARIAS

Nombre: _____________________________________________________Edad: ______________________________Comunidad: _____________________________Papel en el año ___________ (entre 2005 y 2009):

2. ¿A quién usted representó?

3. Como autoridad originaria, ¿cuántas veces ha estado involucrado en el gobierno municipal? ¿Nunca, en ocasiones, a menudo, muy a menudo?

Siguiente: si nunca o en ocasiones: ¿Por qué?

4. ¿Qué temas le fue involucrado con el gobierno municipal?

5. ¿Eran estos temas importantes para usted?

6. ¿Eran estos temas importantes para su comunidad?

7. ¿ Hay temas muy importantes para usted o su comunidad que no han sido discutidos con el gobierno municipal?

Si hay, ¿cuáles?

¿Por qué no fueron discutidos?

8. ¿Hay temas que importaba a usted, pero que fueron rechazados por el gobierno municipal?

Si hay, ¿cuáles?

¿Por qué fueron rechazados?

9. ¿Siempre ha estado dispuesto a debatir todas las cuestiones propuestas por el gobierno municipal?

Si no, ¿por qué?

35

10. ¿Cuál es su opinión sobre el papel del Comité de Vigilancia?

11. ¿Ha estado involucrado o consultado en las siguientes competencias del gobierno municipal? : Promoción y fomento a la producción agropecuaria Saneamiento básico Construcción y mantenimiento de microriegos Desarrollo y preservación del medio ambiente Limpieza urbana y rural Electrificación rural Alumbrado público Infraestructura urbana y rural Construcción y mantenimiento de caminos vecinales Servicios de salud Servicios de educación [y fomento al deporte] Desarrollo de la cultura Desarrollo y fomento del turismo Promoción y políticas de genero Defensa y protección de la niñez y la mujer. Comentarios:

12. [Otras competencias municipales que no están incluidas en la pregunta anterior.] ¿Ha estado involucrado o consultado en las siguientes competencias del gobierno municipal? : Convocatoria de consultas y referéndum. Promoción del empleo y condiciones laborales Áreas protegidas (P.N. Sajama) Control alimenticio. Espectáculos públicos y juegos recreativos. Defensa de los consumidores.Comentarios:

13. ¿Está usted de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con este texto?

“Entre las conductas que favorecieron y favorecen a la gestión municipal esta el rol que ejercen las Autoridades Tradicionales en la gestión municipal, al ser participes en la toma de decisiones para la ejecución de actividades y proyectos, en un esquema de participación de la sociedad civil que sale de los marcos comunes, mostrando a una población que no sólo espera recibir obras, actividades o servicios del gobierno municipal, sino también actúa como promotora, organizadora, e incluso sancionadora a

36

través de sus a Autoridades Originarias, un poder legítimo y natural que ya está establecido como un patrón cultural.”44

14. ¿Puede explicar por qué?

15. ¿Está usted de acuerdo o en desacuerdo con este texto?

“… el proceso de toma de decisiones para la formulación, ejecución y seguimiento de programas y proyectos o de cualquier otra actividad relacionada con el municipio, es compartida y participativa entre “ambos gobiernos”, es decir entre el Gobierno Municipal y las autoridades originarias… que a su vez consultan con las comunidades antes de emitir su decisión.”45

16. ¿Puede explicar por qué?

17. En su papel como autoridad indígena, ¿como la concepción (buena vida) de la población culturalmente aymara fue considerada en la toma de decisiones?46

18. ¿Qué sabe del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal Originario (PDMO)47?

19. En general, cuando usted estaba Mallku o Tamani, ¿cómo eran las relaciones entre el gobierno municipal y las autoridades originarias?

¿Qué funcionó y qué no funcionó?

20. ¿Hay otros comentarios que le gustaría hacer acerca de la relación entre usted y el gobierno municipal cuando estaba Mallku o Tamani?

44 Ajuste del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal del Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas, Proyecto, 2006, p. 6.45 Ajuste del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal del Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas, Proyecto, 2006, p. 9.46 Ajuste del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal del Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas, Proyecto, 2006, p. 11: “Desarrollo bajo la concepción (buen vida) de la población culturalmente aymara del Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas como base de la planificación estratégica de desarrollo, el análisis, la reflexión y las propuestas estarán conectadas a la concepción de desarrollo lo que implica considerar de manera integral las dimensiones de crecimiento material, crecimiento biológico, crecimiento espiritual y gobierno territorial.”

47 Ajuste del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal del Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas, Proyecto, 2006, p. 13.

37