Wrote Anders:
>And then there are countless examples of how local control can stomp on
>minorities or dump a community's crap on its neighbors if it isn't strongly
>counterbalanced by larger entities. So, what's so great about starting
>locally, as opposed to starting locally _and_ regionally _and_ nationally
>_and_ internationally?
Right. It can also become a sink hole for ALL political energies, at the
expense of engaging "larger" issues. The government here passed a law in
1994 calld the Law of Popular Paricipation which in effect decentrailized
social spending and created local governments for the first time thorughout
the entire country.
This is not insignificant when you consider that lots of such monies are
flowing into indigenous/peasant communities, in turn producing varied, but
interesting results in terms of local control and administration. Example:
the Guarani of the eastern lowlands (Chaco) are talking serious turkey with
Enron Corp. about compensation for running a gas pipeline to Brazil through
their land. Their forthrightness and general smarts are in some measure a
result of the lessons learned in managing affairs locally through the Law of
Pop. Particip.
YET, at the same time the same the government implementing the Law of Pop.
Particip. it was also selling off national industries (parts of gas and oil,
airlines, etc.) at fire sale prices. As one observer noted, the policy
seems to be "los centavos para nosotros, los millones para ellos" -- "the
cents for us, the millions for them". (Or: "structural adjustment with a
social face".)
Not to suggest that what is being discussed here is the kind of
decentralized social spending alluded to. My point: in general political
terms we're seeing that attention to the local comes at the expense
(deliberately?) of addresing some big issues.
Tom
Tom Kruse / Casilla 5869 / Cochabamba, Bolivia
Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
