Tathagatan Ravindran

Abstract

Social movements and acts of protest have played significant roles in charting the path of Bolivian history. Massive waves of protest against neoliberalism led to the overthrow of two presidents from office and culminated in the victory of Evo Morales. The stability of the Morales government stands in stark contrast to the chronic political instability of the neoliberal era. This paper deals with the paradox of the persistence of acts of protest all over Bolivia and the stability of the political regime of Evo Morales. The paradox is explained through the use of the distinction between populist and institutionalist politics made by Ernesto Laclau. Politics in the neoliberal era was populist, where society was divided into two opposed camps through the construction of a ‘people’ against the regime. The era after the election of Evo Morales is characterized by institutionalist politics where each political demand is separately and unevenly absorbed into the system. The potential of acts of protest to cause political transformations at various levels depends on their ability to construct a hegemonic chain of equivalence against the system, and the failure to construct it has frustrated efforts to create a more radical alternative to the current government.

Keywords

Bolivia, hegemonic politics, populist and institutionalist politics, protests, social movements

From: Critical Sociology 2018 44 (1)

Editor: Wang Yi