“Division at Home,Unity Abroad? The Impact of Local and International Dynamics on Political Opportunity Structure in the Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Secure Highway Conflict”
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2022
“Division at Home,Unity Abroad? The Impact of Local and International Dynamics on Political Opportunity Structure in the Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Secure Highway Conflict”
This article observes developments in the construction of a controversial highway project through the protected TIPNIS territory in Bolivia’s Amazonian region between 2003 and 2021. The case study uses theories of political opportunity structure to guide the qualitative investigation about how indigenous groups confronted uncertain domestic and international institutional conditions. To confront divisive obstacles at home, activists ultimately developed strategies for operating within the formal rules and institutions while also creating their own “alternate” or informal sites of contestation at the international and domestic levels. This article ends with a discussion of the significance and power of these alternative institutions to influence policy.
AchtenbergE. (2011, September 23). Bolivia’s TIPNIS conflict moves beyond regional borders. Rebel Currents. The North American Congress on Latin America. Retrieved fromnacla.org
2.
AchtenbergE. (2011, August 12). Bolivia: Indigenous groups to march against TIPNIS highway. Rebel Currents. The North American Congress on Latin America. Retrieved fromnacla.org
3.
AchtenbergE. (2012, August 16). Women in the forefront of Bolivia’s TIPNIS conflict. Rebel Currents. The North American Congress on Latin America. Retrieved fromnacla.org
4.
AchtenbergE. (2015, September). What’s behind the Bolivian government’s attack on NGOs. The North American Congress on Latin America. http://nacla.org/blog/2015/09/03
AlbóX. (1991). El retorno del indio. Revista andina, 18, 299–366.
8.
AlbóX. (1994). And from Kataristas to MNRistas? The surprising and bold alliance between Aymaras and neoliberals in Bolivia. In Van CottD. L. (Ed), Indigenous people and democracy in Latin America (pp. 55–81). New YorkSt: Martin’s Press.
9.
AlbóX. (2002). Bolivia: from Indian and Campesino Leaders to Councillors and Parliamentary Deputies. In SiederR. (Ed), Multiculturalism in Latin America: Indigenous Rights, Diversity, and Democracy (pp. 77–92). New York: Pallgrave Macmillan.
AmentaE.CarenN. (2004). The legislative, organizational, and beneficiary consequences of state-oriented challengers (pp. 461–488). The Blackwell companion to social movements.
BryskA. (1993). From above and below: social movements, the international system, and human rights in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies, 26(3), 259–285.
23.
BryskA. (2000). From tribal village to global village: Indian rights and international relations in Latin America. Stanford University Press.
24.
CastilloH. (2003). El Derecho positivo y la costumbre júridica: las mujeres indígenas de Chiapas y sus luchas por el acceso a la justicia. In TorresMarta (Ed), Violencia Contra Las Mujeres en Contextos Urbanos y Rurales (2003 pp. 335–378). Mexico City: El Colegio de México, Programa Interdisciplinario de Estudios de la Mujer.
ChavezF. (2012, June 25). Native protest march approaches La Paz. InterPres Service News Agency.
27.
CIDOB. (2012, September 27). El Vicepresidente Dijo que Sabían Quin Había Autorizado la Represión en Chaparina. Retrieved fromhttps://www.cidob.bo.org
28.
Conectas Dirietos Humanos (2015, October). Civil society complaint to the BNDES on its involvement in the TIPNIS highway project. Centro de Estudios de Desarrollo y Agrario. Retrieved fromhttps://www.globalwitness.org
29.
CorzC. (2012, July 5). Policía lanzó gases lacrimógenos y agua contra indígenas y movilización de mujeres creando. La Razon.
EFE. (2021, October 14). Indígenas Piden a la ONU Que Medie Ante el Estado Boliviano Para Lograr Reunión. Agencia EFE. Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAh9Kk4ArHw
EsareyJ.DeMerittJ. H. R. (2017). Political context and the consequences of naming and shaming for human rights abuse. International Interactions, 43(4), 589–618.
39.
FabricantN.PosteroN. (2015). Sacrificing indigenous bodies and lands: the political-economy history of lowland Bolivia in light of the reent TIPNIS debate. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 20(3), 452–474.
40.
FabricantNPosteroN (2019). Performing indigeneity in Bolivia: the struggle over the TIPNIS. Life Projects and Extractivism, 2019, 245–282.
41.
FraserA.PellingM.ScolobigA.MavrogenisS. (2020). Relating root causes to local risk conditions: A comparative study of the institutional pathways to small-scale disasters in three urban flood contexts. Global Environmental Change, 63, 102102.
GamsonW.A. (1975). The strategy of protest. Homewook,IL: Dorsey.
44.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
45.
GoodwinJ. (1997). State-centered approaches to social revolutions: strengths and limitations of a theoretical tradition. In ForanJohn(Ed), Theorizing Revolutions. London: Routledge.
46.
GustafsonB. (2002). Paradoxes of liberal indigenism: Indigenous movements, state processes, and intercultural reform in Bolivia. In LewsD. M. (Ed), The Politics of ethnicity: Indigenous Peoples and Latin American states. (pp. 267–306). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
47.
HelmkeG.LevitskyS. (2004). Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740.
48.
HendrixC. S.WongW. (2013). When is the pen truly mighty? Regime type and the efficacy of naming and shaming in curbing human rights abuses. British Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 651–672.
JenkinsC. J.KlandermansB. (Eds), (1995). The Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on Sates and Social Movements. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
56.
KampwirthC. (2002). Women and Guerilla Movements: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chiapas, Cuba. University Park: Penn State University Press.
57.
KampwirthC. (2004). Feminism and the Legacy of Revolution. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chiapas. Athens: Ohio University Press.
58.
KeckM. E.SikkinkK. (1999). Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal, 51(159), 89–101.
59.
KennerD.(2011, September 21). Controversial Highway Plan Resisted by Bolivia's Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved fromhttps://boliviadiary.wordpress.com
60.
KohlB. (2006). Challenges to neoliberal hegemony in Bolivia. Antipode, 38(2), 304–326.
61.
KolbF. (2007). Protest and Opportunities, Frankfurt: Campus Verlag Press.
62.
KrögerM.LalanderR. (2016). Ethno-territorial rights and the resource extraction boom in Latin America: do constitutions matter?Third World Quarterly, 37(4), 682–702.
63.
LaingA. F. (2015). Resource Sovereignties in Bolivia: Re–Conceptualising the Relationship between Indigenous Identities and the Environment during the TIPNIS Conflict. Bulletin of Latin American Research. 34(2), 149–16.
64.
Latinoamericana Press. (2012, July 18). Indigenous from TIPNIS fail to stop highway construction.” Latinamerica Press. Retrieved fromwww.lapress.org
65.
LevitskyS. (2013). Informal Institutions and Politics in Latin AmericaRoutledge handbook of Latin American politics (pp. 119–131). Routledge.
LindAmy. (2005). Gendered Paradoxes. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
68.
LittleP. E. (2014, April). Mega-development projects in amazonia: A geopolitical and socioenvironmental primer. Red Jurídica Amazónica, Articulación Regional Amazónica, Derecho, y Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Lima, Peru.
69.
Los Tiempos. (2011, October 25). El Presidente promulga la ley corta del Tipnis. Los Tiempos.
LuceroJ. A. (2003). Locating the ‘Indian Problem’: Community, Nationality, and Contradiction in Ecuadorian Indigenous Politics. Latin American Perspectives, 30(2), 23–48.
72.
LuceroJ. A. (2008). Struggles of voice: The politics of indigenous representation in the Andes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
73.
MaloneyM. (2016). Building an alternative jurisprudence for the earth: the international rights of nature trbunal. Vermont Law Review, 41(2016), 129–142.
74.
MartinD.MillerB. (2006). Space and Contentious Politics. Mobilization: An International Journal, 8(2), 143–156.
75.
McAdamDougJohnMcCarthyMayerZald. (1996). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
McNeishJ.A. (2013). Extraction, protest, and indigeneity in Bolivia: The TIPNIS effect. Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, 8(2), 221–242.
77.
MelendresM. (2012, July 20). La construcciòn de la vía por el TIPNIS se definirá por mayoría. Página Siete.
78.
MeyerD. S.MinkoffD. C. (2004). Conceptualizing political opportunity. Social Forces, 82(4), 1457–1492.
79.
MeyerD.RochonT. (1997). Toward a coalitional theory of social and political movements. In RochonT.MeyerD. (Eds), Coalitions and Political Movements. Boulder: Lynne Reinner Press.
80.
MonasteriosK. P. (2007). Bolivian women's organizations in the MAS era. North American Congress on Latin America.
NashJ. (Ed), (2005). Social movements: An anthropological reader. Blackwell Publishing.
83.
O’DonnellG. (2006). On informal institutions, once again. Informal institutions and democracy (pp. 285–289). Lessons from Latin America.
84.
Organization of American States (OAS). Fourth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala. 1 June 1993, OAS, Inter‐American Court of Human Rights, Country Reports, available at http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Guatemala93eng/toc.htm
85.
Organization of American States. (2020). Report on admissability: 64 indigenous communities of the Mojeño, Yuracaré, and Tsimne peoples. OEA/Ser.I/V/II. Doc 123.
PruceJ. R.BundabinA. C. (2016). Beyond naming and shaming: new modalities of information politics in human rights. Journal of Human Rights, 15(3), 408–425.
91.
Reuters. (2011 September 26). An indigenous woman and her child who participated in the TIPNIS protest march are seen arrested by riot police in Yucumo September 25, 2011. Reuters. Retrieved from Reuters.com.
92.
RisseT.SikkinkK.RoppS.C. (1999). The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices. In Domestic politics and norm diffusion in international relations (117–149).
93.
RousseauS. (2011). Indigenous and feminist movements at the Constituent Assembly in Bolivia: locating the representation of indigenous women. Latin American Research Review, 46(2), 5–28.
94.
SierraM.T. (2001). Human rights, gender and ethnicity: legal claims and anthropological challenges in Mexico. POLAR, 24(2), 76–93.
95.
SilvernS. E. (1999). Scales of justice: law, American Indian treaty rights and the political construction of scale. Political Geography, 18(6), 639–668.
96.
SpeedS.R.CastilloA.H.StephenL.M. (2006). Dissident Women: Gender and Cultural Politics in Chiapas. Austin: University of Texas Press.
StroupS. S.MurdieA. (2012). There's no place like home: Explaining international NGO advocacy. The Review of International Organizations7(4), 425–448.
99.
TamayoI. P. (2018, Noveber 22). ‘Punished’: Bolivian communities opposed to highway cry foul over neglect.” Mongabay. Retrieved fromMongabay.com21 October 2021.
100.
Tarrow, S. G. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
101.
TillyC. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
WebberJ. R. (2012). Revolution against ‘progress’: The TIPNIS struggle and class contradictions in Bolivia. International Socialism, 133(3), 147–172.
109.
YasharD. J. (2005). Contesting citizenship in Latin America: The rise of indigenous movements and the post-liberal challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
