consideration was given to asset redistribution. In other words, civil society
could not touch upon structural issues that produce and reproduce inequal-
ity and poverty because the social agenda did not allow it. The agendas
where structural issues could be discussed (the economic and the political
agenda) were open to only limited civil society participation and were by
their nature unlikely to yield clear agreements, implying that no immediate
changes would endanger the existing status quo. During interviews several
CSO representatives claimed that the government had failed to act upon the
demands of civil society regarding political and economic reforms; that the
participation process was a hoax, a political maneuver to make the donors
happy; that the process was not open for discussing the poverty reduction
strategy in its totality; that the underlying macro-economic policies were not
touched upon. The sting was thus taken out of the participation process by
confining participation to a limited range of topics that were social in nature
and service-oriented in scope.
Following its choice to emphasize the local level, the Technical Sec-
retariat and government decided to organize participation using the institu-
tional framework of the Law of Popular Participation. As explained before,
the Mayor, the Vice-President of the Council, the President of the Vigilance
Committee and a woman would be participating in the round tables. The
fact that at least half of listed players were elected officials holding a politi-
cal mandate is a somewhat odd interpretation of civil society participation
and representation. Civil society organizations correctly argued that this
process was more about central government consulting local government,
than central government consulting civil society. The more specialized
intermediate NGOs were thus as a result bypassed, which was very much to
the convenience of the Bolivian state, because these highly professionalized
NGOs are generally perceived by the state as oppositional and antagonistic.
Conversely, the Church is often perceived by other members of civil society
as being closely aligned with the state14 (Christian Aid 2001:3). Bypassing
the intermediate actors is, to a large extent, silencing critical voices and thus
taking the sting out.
Such conflicting views on whether civil society was involved or not,
point to different interpretations on what civil society is and who may act on
its behalf. Since the participation process is about poverty-reducing policies,
a fundamental question was: who is entitled to speak on behalf of the poor?
When we look at the PRSP sourcebook published by the World Bank15, a
very open and inclusive listing of stakeholders is presented. The following
actors are referred to: government departments other than the ones in charge
of developing the PRSP, local governments, parliament and other repre-
sentative bodies, the public (including the poor), organized civil society, the
private-for-profit sector, and external partners (i.e. donors). In other words,
the definition of civil society as used by the World Bank is quite broad, and
it recognizes the heterogeneity of civil society. But, does it suffice to just
list all possible actors as potential participants in the PRSP process? Is it not
too bland an approach to want to co-opt and support a differentiated ‘civil
14 The ties between government
and civil society are as varied as
the groups themselves. Bolivia
has a relatively numerous, di-
verse and forceful civil society.
Deep social cleavages, inequality
and the struggle against dictator-
ship have given rise to vibrant so-
cial movements and large popular
protests. A quite large trade un-
ion movement mainly bolstered
Bolivian social movements. Due
to the structural adjustment plans
however, most of the unions
(peasants and workers) have been
left decimated and internally
divided. Although their capac-
ity to mobilize people into the
streets still is very impressive,
the internal conflicts impair them
to effectively co-ordinate and
pursue common agendas in order
to influence politics. Quite dif-
ferent are the large intermediate
NGOs. Some of these organiza-
tions mainly work in advocacy
and lobbying. Others are federa-
tions, representing the interests
of member-organizations. These
organizations often count with a
staff that is highly educated, very
professional and with impressive
technocratic skills.
15 see the website of the World
Bank where this sourcebook is
available.
IDPM-UA Discussion Paper 2002-05 • 17