Struggles for Sustainable Urban Development in Cochabamba, Bolivia

The conflict saw the birth of a new local political force, an organisation called the
Coordinadora por la Defensa del Agua y la Vida (Coordination for the Defence of Water and Life)
to represent the civil society. However its legitimacy was initially denied, as the government
saw the existing civic committees as a legitimate representative of the civil society (Assies
2003). According to Assies the civic committees were largely controlled by local businesses
and represented only a small sector of the population during the water war. The credibility of
the municipal government lead by Manfred Reyes Villa was undermined by their decisions
during the conflict (Nickson & Vargas 2002). First they approved the tariff increases but
then joined the opposition. It became an attractive political argument to support the public
in their opposition towards the concession contract.
During the crisis, it seems that the original problem of water supply was forgotten by the
government as it concentrated on the riots and restoring order. The government decision-
making became dominated by attempts to solve the conflict and not the problems of water
management. This was evidently a result of the heavy pressure by civil society under which
the government had to operate. Nevertheless it also reflects a conflict management style by
the Bolivian government. Assies (2003) comments, that the government typically ignores and
trivialises popular mobilisations and then uses increasing violence to repress them. He sees
that such measures only escalate the conflict and:
finally the government gives in to social pressure and ends up signing last-minute
agreements in which it does not believe and that it will not carry out, and this
sets the stage for a new round of protest.
This appears to be a valid observation about Bolivian political conflicts where the same
issues, such as coca and neo-liberalism, seem to come up over and over again. After failing to
secure legitimacy by other means, the government might see violence as the only way to
maintain the legitimacy of its decisions or to simply stay in power. There is less need for this
type of strategy in countries where governments have been more effective.
12