<html>
<body>
<h2><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=5 color="#008080"><b>Autonomy or
New Forms of
Domination?</b></font></h2><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Raúl
Zibechi | February 18, 2009<br><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>Translated from:
<a href="http://ircamericas.org/esp/5807">¿Autonomía o nuevas formas de
dominación?</a><br>
Translated by: Monica Wooters<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5877" eudora="autourl">
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5877<br><br>
</a></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>Americas Program, Center
for International Policy (CIP)</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><div align="right"><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>
<a href="http://americas.irc-online.org/">americas.irc-online.org</a><br>
<br>
</font></div>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><b>In late 2008, the Hugo Chavez
administration celebrated 10 years in government. Since his first
electoral triumph on Dec. 6, 1998, a new period began characterized by
the emergence of progressive and leftist governments in South America.
Chavez's rise to power was the result of a long process of struggle from
the bottom-up that initiated with <i>caracazo </i>of Feb. 1989the first
massive popular insurrection against neoliberalism. It has now led to
crisis in the party system, which supported domination by the elite for
decades. <br><br>
</b>In the following years, another seven presidents have come to power
creating a new paradigm within the institutional political scenario in
eight out of 10 governments in the region: Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in
Brazil, Néstor and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, Michelle Bachelet in
Chile, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa
in Ecuador, and Fernando Lugo in Paraguay. These governments were made
possible, to greater and lesser degrees, by the resistance of social
movements to the neoliberal model. <br><br>
In a few cases this change was the consequence of a long electoral
history (notably in Brazil and Uruguay), while in other countries it was
the fruit of social movements' actions that were able to bring down
neoliberal parties and governments (Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and in
part, Argentina). After 10 years of this process, it seems timely to
undertake a brief history of what has occurred:
<ol>
<li>More important than the differences between these processes is the
fundamental element they have in common: the return to a central state
that has been converted into an actor for change;
<li>The marginalization of the social movements, which in the 1990s and
at the start of 2000 were the main players in resistance to the
neoliberal model;
<li>The dominant contradiction has been the dynamic between the
government and the right, an issue that pushed many social movements into
a pro-state position that has appeared largely avoidable;
<li>Some tendencies aim to move the social movements toward new bases of
support, employing new causes and forms of intervention. </font>
</ol><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>The decline of the
"progressive" decade as a process of social, political, and
economic change implies the need for social movements to take inventory
of the period and analyze the gains and losses that it represented for
the popular camp. <br><br>
</font><h3><b>The Risks of Subordination
</b></h3><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>In the first stage after
the "progressive" governments took power, the subordination of
social movements to their respective governments predominated, resulting
in demobilization, divisions, and the fragmentation of initiatives. Only
small groups maintained open confrontation, while the majority
collaborated with the state in return for subsidies and other material
benefits, including positions in state agencies and institutions. Another
large part of the original collectives simply dissolved. <br><br>
In contrast, the social movements of Chile, Peru, and Colombia have taken
important steps forward. In these three countries, it is the indigenous
peoples that have taken the initiative. The Mapuche people of Chile are
recovering from the destruction caused by the antiterrorist law inherited
from the Pinochet era and reactivated by the "socialist"
Ricardo Lagos (president from 2000-2006), and together with students and
diverse sectors of the workers' movement (miners and foresters in
particular) are engaging in an important revitalization of their
movement. <br><br>
Indigenous communities affected by mining in Peru founded a new
organization, National Confederation of Peruvian Communities Affected by
Mining (Confederación Nacional de Comunidades del Perú Afectadas por la
Minería, Conacami), engaged in vigorous resistance to the genocidal
mining activities of multinational companies that contaminate water
sources and air to improve their profits. Conacami is a Quechua
community-based organization that continues to resist free trade policies
with the United States and the neoliberal policies of Alan García. Its
members have proved willing to risk their lives and incarceration as
political prisoners to carry their movement forward. <br><br>
In Colombia, the historical struggle of the Nasa people manifested in the
Association of Indigenous Councilmen of the Northern Cauda (Asociación de
Cabildos Indígenas del Norte del Cauca, ACIN) and the Regional Indigenous
Council of Cauca (Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca, CRIC), has been
doubly successful. The large social movement known as Minga (collective
work) was created in October in Cauca, joining dozens of indigenous
peoples. Minga was able to break the military hold on society that
paralyzed indigenous peoples. The vast majority of Afro-Colombians,
sugarcane laborers, service industry workers, and community and human
rights organizations united with the indigenous struggle. <br><br>
The example of these movements, created and fostered in adversity,
inspires social movements throughout the continent. The long hunger
strike by Patricia Troncoso between Nov. 2007 and Jan. 2008, and the
efforts of the indigenous Colombian movement Minga share the powerful
goal of overcoming isolation and low-intensity genocide designed to wipe
them off the map and deny their existence. <br><br>
In other countries the social movement scenario is very complex,
Argentina being perhaps the most emblematic case. Most of the
<i>piquetero</i> movement was co-opted by the state through social
programs and the designation of leaders of the movement for government
positions. The human rights movement, and in particular the Mothers'
Association of the Plaza de Mayo (Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo),
which played a major role in the resistance to neoliberalism in the
1990s, has moved toward a more official role and begun to defend
government policies. In addition, a section of the neighborhood
associations have disappeared. <br><br>
However, not everything has regressed within the social movement
community. In the last five years numerous collectives have emerged, many
of them linked to environmental issues such as open-pit mining,
deforestation, and soy monoculture. As a result, hundreds of local
assemblies (most small but incredibly active) have been created,
coordinated through the Union of Citizen Assemblies (Unión de Asambleas
Ciudadanas, UAC), which has become an active leader in the resistance to
multinational mining. <br><br>
Some 200 rural organizations of small-scale farmers make up the National
Campesino Front (Frente Nacional Campesino). This Front represents family
and community agriculture against the imposition of soybean production.
It brings together longstanding movements (such as the Campesino Movement
of Santiago del Estero, [Movimiento de Campesinos de Santiago del Estero,
MOCASE]), with newer organizations of small producers including a handful
of collectives from the urban periphery. <br><br>
Movements in Brazil have not been able to overcome a long period of being
on the defensive, which intensified under the Lula administration. In
Uruguay, despite the strengthening of the union movement due mainly to
state protection of the union leaders, social movements are far from
being defined as anti-systemic actors. The urban poor have mobilized but
only on a local level and their movement is extremely fragmented.
Government social programs are largely responsible for the current
weakness of grassroots movements. <br><br>
In Bolivia the situation is different. Movements have not been defeated
and continue to maintain an important capacity to mobilize their bases of
support and pressure both the government and the right-wing. The
political crisis of last Sept. was resolved thanks to the popular
sectors. The intense activity of the social movements included a siege on
the opposition stronghold of Santa Cruz, and by resistance from the huge
Plan 3000 settlement of poor and indigenous people located on the
outskirts of the oligarchic mestizo city. <br><br>
According to Raquel Gutiérrez, the attitude of the Bolivian movement
during this period reflects "a new margin of political autonomy from
government decisions," since they learned that the government will
be unable to restrain the oligarchy. "They are no longer willing to
subordinate themselves so that the government will guarantee them what
they want." <br><br>
Alongside pressure from the movements, there exists a pro-state logic
embodied in the profuse state bureaucracies (judicial, legislative,
ministerial, and municipal agencies, and military). These bureaucracies
are averse to change. In addition to their characteristic conservatism,
there are the new political apparatuses integrated by a wide array of
elected officials (representatives, senators, councilmen, and mayors) and
un-elected officials (ministers and hundreds of consultants) whose main
ambition is to remain in their positions. <br><br>
</font><h3><b>New Forms of Domination
</b></h3><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>It seems virtually
impossible for grassroots movements to overcome their dependence on and
subordination to the state, especially given that the new
"leftist" and "progressive" governments have
instituted new forms of domination including social programs aimed at
"integrating" the poor. These play the leading role in the
design of new forms of social control. <br><br>
Recently I had the following conversation with a high ranking official of
the Uruguayan Ministry of Social Development: <br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>"We understand the [current] social policies as policies of
independence and not as policies used to control the poor."
<br><br>
<dd>"Is this your personal opinion or that of the Ministry as
well?" <br><br>
<dd>"It is the belief of the national government and not just that
of the Ministry of Social Development or my personal belief. The national
government did not come here to placate the poorest social sectorsit
came to generate opportunities for integration and independence."
<br><br>
</dl>This conversation, no doubt honest, calls into questions the role of
social movements as the state assumes their discourse or even their
practices. The issue raises three central questions:
<ol>
<li>The end of the old right.</i> The new governments that gained
strength during the crises of the first stage of neoliberalisma period
of privatization and deregulationcannot move forward without destroying
the foundations of the traditional domination of the elite right-wing.
These elite have erected expansive networks with local political bosses
to subdue the poorest individuals through mediation with state
institutions and control of the electoral system. <br><br>
Grassroots movements came about in the battle against the elite. The case
of the piqueteros</i> is typical. The struggle to gain direct control of
subsidies, taking it away from the network of local political bosses,
gave meaning and power to the movement. The wave of mobilizations that
modified the regional political map directly confronted the right-wing.
<br>
The new governments tend to displace these networks, with more or less
success, and replace them with state bureaucracies. Perhaps this is the
principle "progressive" move on the part of the new
governments. In order to dismantle the networks belonging to the old
elite, the states appeal to the same language and the same norms and
codes of the popular sectors organized into movements.
<li>The new forms of control.</i> The crisis in discipline as a way to
train new cadres in closed spaces was one of the main characteristics of
the "revolution of '68." The loss of control by patriarchal
hierarchies and the breakdown of vertical control in factories, schools,
hospitals, and the military forced capital and the state to create new
forms of control, placing at the center of their strategy the question of
population and security. Social programs directly implemented by the
state but executed by a range of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
are how new forms of domination are put into practice in the opaque area
of control. Through these tactics the state becomes expansive and comes
to the poor neighborhoods that have been converted into bastions of
revolt to work from the inside; in other words, it works with the same
sectors that have organized themselves into movements but to dismantle
those organizations. <br><br>
The state's presence no longer takes on the shape of the police baton,
which never really disappears, but rather the more subtle "social
development for integration and the citizenry." NGOs supply the
state with information they have accumulated over decades of
"cooperation" through daily interaction in the
"participative" practices that characterized popular education
to accomplish this task. We now have a new legion of young government
officials who no longer wait for students in the schools or patients in
the hospitals, but go directly into the heart of impoverished and
rebellious populations. They have an advantage in this area of work; they
know the ins and outs of the popular sectors because a large percentage
of these officials have participated in the resistance to the neoliberal
model. In other words, they have been radicals, or, at the very least
have had close ties with social activism. <br>
It is fair to say, as does the Brazilian sociologist Francisco de
Oliveira, that social programs are instruments of control based on a
bio-politico mechanism through which the state classifies individuals
based on what they lack and "restores a kind of political clientele
relationship" in which the policy ends up becoming irrelevant. <br>
It is true that social programs can help alleviate poverty, but they do
not change the distribution of wealth, avoid the growing concentration of
income, or transform the central aspects of the model. In affecting the
capacity for organizing movements, they block their growth and in this
way are tools of the neoliberal war to commercialize life. It is
interesting to note that almost all leftist intellectuals consider the
implementation of social programs an accomplishment of progressivism.
<li>An offensive against autonomy.</i> These same governments are now
adopting the vocabulary of social movements, even saying that they wish
to support a "critical autonomy" within the social sectors that
receive the benefits of social programs. They create methods of
coordination so that the social movements may participate in the design
of social programs and become involved in the application of local
policies (never general policies that could question the model).
<br><br>
The social movements are made to participate in a "participative
evaluation" of their neighborhood or town. They even charge them
with carrying out the local assistance work so that they might become
involved in the policy of "organizational strengthening"
designed by the World Bank, which decides which organization is best
suited to collaborate with the corresponding ministry. <br>
All of this occurs to "build the state" in the daily practices
of the popular sector, the same context in which these individuals
learned to "build movement." Social programs are directed at
the heart of communities that have engaged in rebellion. The state seeks
to neutralize or modify the networks and methods of solidarity,
reciprocity, and mutual aid created by those from below to survive the
neoliberal model. Once those ties and the autonomous wisdom that was
generated by the social movements disappear, the people will be much more
easily controlled. <br><br>
</ol>None of this should be attributed to a supposed evil within the new
progressive governments. Each time those from below throw off the
trappings of domination, other, newer, more perfected forms necessarily
appear. Only by neutralizing the social programs and overcoming the
offensive against autonomy from below can social movements find their way
back to the road to independence. <br><br>
Translated for the Americas Program by Monica Wooters.<br><br>
<br><br>
</i><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>