Federico Fuentes
When Evo Morales was elected president of
Bolivia in 2005, he promised to “govern by obeying the people.” The recent approval
by the Plurinational Assembly of laws dealing with mining and children’s rights
are two examples of the challenges and benefits of this radical approach to
governing.
Breaking with the conception that
legislating should be confined to the four walls of parliament, the Bolivian
government has made repeated efforts to involve broad sections of society in
rewriting the rules of the country.
The first, and most important step taken in
this regard was the convocation of a Constituent Assembly in which elected
delegates, together with representatives of the country’s powerful social
movements and other civil society groups, drew up a new constitution.
The new charter was subsequently approved
by a large majority in the 2009 referendum, despite the often-violent
resistance campaign waged by right-wing opposition groups.
Since then, the government has sought to
convert some of the novel ideas in the constitution – such as granting rights
to Mother Earth, indigenous autonomy, and the nationalization of natural
resources – into enforceable laws.
Seeking to legislate both with the people
and for the people, the government has paid particular attention to debating
new laws with those sectors that would be most directly affected by them.
The presence of highly combative social
movements steeped in the knowledge that what has previously been taken away
from them in parliament can and has been won back on the streets, has made this
process somewhat volatile at times.
Yet, rather than fear street mobilizations,
the current Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) government has come to view them
as “creative tensions” within the revolutionary process
underway in this small Andean nation.
Vice-president Alvaro Garcia Linera explains
that tensions between those sectors leading the process of change are
inevitable, but adds they can be “creative because they have the
potential to help drive forward the course of the revolution itself.”
Mining
law
After three years of
intense debate Bolivia’s parliament approved a new mining law in late May.
Under neoliberalism,
tumbling global mineral prices were used to justify the privatization of
Bolivia’s entire mining sector.
Through this process the
state mining company COMIBOL was dismembered, close to thirty thousand miners
where left without a job, and the cooperative miners sector (of which today
there are some 110,000, representing 85% of the mining workforce) gradual
became a powerful political force
The new law seeks to bring legislation in line
with the new constitution, according to which minerals are property of the
Bolivian people and to be administered by the state, “in the interest of the
collective”.
The new law
also builds upon the series of actions taken to date by the government in the
mining sector. These include the nationalization of mineral deposits and tin
smelters, the renegotiation of contracts to ensure increased state control and revenues,
and steps towards metal processing
and industrialization.
John Crabtree and Ann
Chaplin write that the government’s
policies have helped resuscitate COMIBOL, the state mining company, “as a key
planner in the sector, as the owner of important subsoil resources, as a
partner with a number of private sector concerns, as promoter of
industrialization, and as a producer in its own right”
Most
importantly, the new law has been heavily shaped by debate – at times violent –
between different sectors within the mining workforce and indigenous
communities affected by mining operations.
While
discussions may have started at meetings inside the Ministry of Mining, the
more conflictive issues were generally resolved in the mines or on the streets.
In response, the
government has largely sought to facilitate dialogue among and between miners
and affected indigenous communities, as a necessary precondition for overcoming
tension and advancing their mutual aims.
Overall, the MAS
government has sought to favor nationalization and industrialization, while acknowledging
that some concessions have had to be made to the powerful cooperative sector.
An example
of this was the Colquiri mine dispute in May-June 2012. What began as a mine
occupation by a local mining cooperative quickly took on a national dimension when the Trade Union Federation of Mineworkers of Bolivia (FSTMB)
and the National Federation of Cooperative Miners (FENCOMIN)
took up the cause of their respective local affiliates (the former demanded the
expulsion of the occupiers, who were affiliated to the latter).
In an attempt to reconcile the warring factions,
the government offered to nationalize the mine as a way to secure the jobs of
the existing mineworkers and offer employment to the occupiers. The government
also stated it was willing to grant the cooperative access to certain mineral
veins.
While trade unions representing private
mineworkers initially opposed the deal, believing it could threaten the jobs of
its members elsewhere, they soon came onboard.
On the other hand, the local cooperative
refused the offer, and instead signed a deal with the private mine owner,
Glencore, that would see them work part of the mine in return for handing over
what they extracted back to the company.
With support for nationalization growing
among the mineworkers, local communities and even some cooperative miners, the government
finally ordered COMIBOL to take complete control over operations at Colquiri,
while granting the 26 de Febrero cooperative access to the Rosario vein. In
return, the cooperative had to sell what it extracted to COMIBOL and was barred
from associating with transnationals.
This same issue of mining cooperatives partnering with private companies was also
the spark behind violent protests that rocked the country just as the law was
reaching the final stages of approval.
Under the
new law, private companies can no longer register minerals as they property,
and those with pre-existing contracts have to sign new ones in line with the
new tax regime which will see the state collect most of the sector’s profits.
The initial draft
also allowed cooperatives to freely sign contracts with the private sector
Once the
government presented its draft version of the law, agreed to by all sections of
the mining workforce, parliamentarians sought to remove this right from
cooperatives.
MAS deputy Jaime Medrano explained that allowing this would have been
“unconstitutional,” as “the state cannot turn over mineral-rich areas for
companies to commercialize as private property.” While the constitution allowed
for the cooperative sector to sign mixed contracts with private companies, he
noted that this required approval from the state.
In response,
cooperative miners organized large demonstrations that saw most of the
country’s main roadways blockaded and 43 police officers taken hostage.
The ensuing public
debate led to the revelation that over 40 cooperative-company joint contracts were already in
existence, which according to Kirsten Francescone, once
again brought into sharp relief the negative role played by mining companies in
the looting of the country’s natural wealth.
Through
this process, the government was able to win support, including from
cooperative miners, for the now amended version of the law (which denys
cooperatives the right to sign contracts with private companies without prior
approval from the state).
This
ensured that the final draft was in line with the constitution’s mandate of
maintaining sovereignty over the country’s mineral wealth.
Child labor
Debate over the recently approved law
regarding the rights of children and adolescents has gone well beyond Bolivia’s
borders, with the International Labor Organization (ILO) criticizing it for legalizing
child labor from the age of 10.
Despite
previous legislation banning all work for those under 14, an estimated 850,000
children and adolescents currently work in Bolivia. Given the high levels of
poverty, many have to work, mainly for themselves on the streets as shoe
shiners or with their parents on street stalls or farms, to help their families
survive.
Much of
the media has ignored the fact that the new law initially proposed increasing
the legal working age from 14 to 16 years of age.
It was
only after sustained protests (that gained media attention and public sympathy
after they were repressed by police), that a new draft was developed between
parliamentarians and child worker organizations.
MAS
deputy Javier Zavaleta acknowledged
that it was “a very difficult debate” because these groups “strive for ideals
that are sometimes difficult to achieve.”
“We met
with them and they are intelligent children that understood our reasons and
knew that if they could choose, they would not be working,” he added.
The final
version allows children under the age of 14 to work, but only in “exceptional
circumstances”.
From
the age of 10, children can work for themselves, but not be employed by another
person. From 12 onwards, children who have the written permission of the
parents can work for others, although they are not allowed to work certain
jobs, particularly those requiring a lot of physical strength.
In an
important step forward, the law states child workers must have the same rights and
protections as other workers, including receiving at least the minimum wage and
ensuring time is set aside for all child and adolescent workers to have their
educational needs met.
In
general, the new law seeks to ensure that their rights are protected, rather
than criminalize or force underground those that need to work to help their
families.
“We are happy with the new approval of the
new law” said
Edwin Roman Davalos, a representative of UNATSBO, the Bolivian Union of Child
and Adolescent Workers, “because they listened to us, the authorities, and the
parliamentarians saw our reality.”
He added that the new law had been
approved “thanks to the struggles that we have waged for some time now on the
streets, and to our president, Evo Morales, who listened to us.”
In response to questions raised
about the new law and its contravention of the ILO
convention on child labor, Rodrigo
Medrano, also from UNATSBO said: “Those are conventions that are drawn up in
the UN or the ILO, but I believe that those conventions are signed without
having spent much time here in Bolivia.”
“This
is a law that represents a just equilibrium between reality and rights, rights
and international conventions,” said
Garcia Linera.
It
could have been “easy to pass a law that corresponded to international
conventions,” he added “but which would not have been complied with, it would
not have been implemented”.
Instead,
Garcia Linera explains, we chose to draft “a law that takes as its starting
point what we have today and that charts out a realistic and viable path for
changing the working situation of children, that goes beyond international
conventions.”
Challenges
and benefits
Both new laws, and the process of their
approval, reveal the challenges and benefits of legislating with the people.
In both case, the practice of “governing by
obeying” facilitated societal-wide discussions that helped both the government
and social movements learn from each other and find common ground for advancing
change.
In terms of the mining, a consensus was
only possible after all those sectors directly affected by the new law had
faced off against each other and revealed to the wider public what was at
stake.
Throughout the process, the government was
able to consistently explain its position in defense of nationalization,
thereby win the necessary support to enact the new law.
At the same time, the law on children and
adolescent rights showed how without direct and regular contact with the
reality on the ground, even parliamentarians with the best intentions can get
it wrong.
Without doubt a law banning work for those
under the age of 14 (or even 16 as initially proposed) would have gained
accolades from institutions such as the ILO. However, it would have done little
to improve the situation of those hundreds of thousands of children already
working illegally.
Instead, by listening to those most
directly affected, parliament was ultimately able to pass a law that both attempted
to deal with this reality while seeking to change it for the better.
Both examples also show that no matter how
progressive a government maybe, only pressure and support from below can ensure
it says on track. By directly involving those most affected in the process of
legislating, the government can also ensure the best legislative outcome.
This has meant at times that the government
has had to contend with competing social movements mobilizing against the
government and each other.
For Garcia Linera, this is more a benefit
than a challenge. He said, “The
struggle is our nourishment, our peace, not our nightmare. Absolute tranquility
scares us. The opposition thinks that the struggle will tire us out; instead,
it nourishes us.”
Similarly, a Bolivian vice-minister once
commented that having the people protesting on the streets makes it so much
harder to govern, but that at the same time he hoped they never leave the
streets.
No comments:
Post a Comment