PROYECTO 70781: APOYO AL MEJORAMIENTO DE LA

GOVERNABILIDAD DEMOCRATICA Y DESARROLLO LOCAL A

NIVEL MUNICIPAL Y COMUNITARIO
CURAHUARA DE CARANGAS

ANALYSIS REPORT

By Pierre Rousseau, LL.L., MA, Voluntario

Centro Canadiense de Estudio y de Cooperación Internacional (CECI)
La Paz, Bolivia
Marzo 2010
2
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 3
1. Context 4
2. Methodology 5
3. Background 6
4. Analysis 8
4.1. Age 8
4.2. Ayllus 8
4.3. Year of service 9
4.4. Representation 9
4.5. Involvement with the other authority 10
4.6. Issues 10
4.7. Importance of issues 11
4.8. Issues that were not discussed or that were rejected by the other 11
authority
4.9. Willingness to discuss all issues raised by the municipal government 12
4.10. Comité de Vigilancia 13
4.11. Involvement in municipal powers 14
4.12. Evaluation of a text 16
4.12.1. The first text 16
4.12.2. The second text 17
4.13. Involvement of the Aymara culture in governance: 19
4.14. The PDMO 20
4.15. How were the relationships between Indigenous authorities and the 22
municipality?
4.16. Comments 23
4.17. Public Meeting 24
5. Gender analysis 25
5.1. Statistics 25
5.2. Analysis 25
6. Final analysis 28
7. The future 31
Bibliography 32
Appendix I – Questionnaire 33
 4

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.
5
 6

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
Indigenous authorities and CECI that took place in La Paz on December 10, 2009 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)
 7

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. BACKGROUND:
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.
 8

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)
 9

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 Descentralización
Decreto 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.”
 10

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”.
 11

step by step process.

Edad Autoridades Concejalas

originarias
Mediana 51 41
Mínima 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: 3
2006: 2
2007: 3
2008: 4
2009: 5
2010: 1
Thus, 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:
 12

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 originarias
Nunca: 2
En ocasiones: 2
A menudo: 1
Muy a menudo: 13

Municipio
A menudo: 2
Muy 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?
 13

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: 3
Micro-riegos: 3
Escuela: 3
Ganadería: 2
Deportes, 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
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?
 14

about the community for lack of coordination with them. All but for one, believed that
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 Rechazados

No 4 3
Si 15 15
Municipio
No 1 3
Si 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.

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.
 15

• Falta de coordinación.
• En ganadería, el municipio no ayudó nada.
• 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,
 16

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
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 important

Indigenous authorities 7 6 5
Municipal 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.

16
Decreto Reglamentario a la Ley de Participación Popular Y Descentralización. Decreto Supremo Nº 24447 de 20 de
Diciembre de 1996.
 17

• 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.
• 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. municipal

Promoción y fomento a la producción 10/1718 3/3
agropecuaria

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.
 18

Saneamiento básico 14/17 3/3

Construcción y mantenimiento de 9/17 3/3
micro-riegos
Desarrollo y preservación del medio 1219/17 3/3
ambiente
Limpieza urbana y rural 13/17 2/3
Electrificación rural 13/17 3/3
Alumbrado público 1220/17 3/3
Infraestructura urbana y rural 1121/17 2/3
Construcción y mantenimiento de 922/17 3/3
caminos vecinales
Servicios de salud 1623/17 3/3
Servicios de educación y fomento al 1724/17 3/3
deporte
Desarrollo de la cultura 12/17 3/3
Desarrollo y fomento del turismo 1325/17 2/3
Promoción y políticas de genero 13/17 3/3
Defensa y protección de la niñez y la 15/17 3/3
mujer.
Part 2 – powers not listed in POA
Convocatoria de consultas y 16/17 1/3
referéndum
Promoción del empleo y condiciones 9/17 1/3
laborales
Áreas protegidas 13/17 2/3
Control alimenticio 11/17 2/3
Espectáculos públicos y juegos 8/17 2/3
recreativos.
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.
19
Two qualified their answer to the effect that they were consulted “poco” and the other “only once”.
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).
 19

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.

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

26
Ajuste del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal del Municipio de Curahuara de Carangas, Proyecto, 2006.
27
Ajuste, p. 6.
 20

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.
• 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
28
Ajuste p. 9.
 21

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.
• 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
 22

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:

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):
 23

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.
• 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)
 24

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
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 Poco
Aut. Originarias 6 4 8
Municipio 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.

29
¿Qué sabe del Plan de Desarrollo Municipal Originario (PDMO)?
 25

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?

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.
 26

• 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.

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
30
¿Hay otros comentarios que le gustaría hacer acerca de la relación entre usted y el gobierno municipal cuando estaba
Mallku o Tamani?
 27

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.

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
 28

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:

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 Mujeres
2005 14 1
2006 15 1
2007 15 1
2008 15 1
2009 16 0
Total 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
31
The text stated: [translation] “Facilitate gender inclusion and women’s participation within those groups.”
32
It includes the Presidente, Junta de Vecinos.
 29

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
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)

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.
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.
 30

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:

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

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.
 31

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
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
42
The POA shows that there were projects performed and expenses made outside of Curahuara, in rural areas.
 32

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
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
 33

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
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.
 34

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
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.
 35

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.
 36

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?

 37

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
 38

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.”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.