Participant-Observation

The second method for gathering data was participant-observation. I had an opportunity to observe closely the functioning of state bureaucracy and to get closely acquainted with some of the new political and policy actors in a highly volatile political situation. Although I moved back and forth between ministries, development agencies, universities, social movements and other actors, I was able to observe most closely the internal functioning of the Vice-Ministry of Planning and Coordination, an entity responsible for elaborating and monitoring state policy making. It was led by the Vice-Minister of Planning and Coordination Noel Aguirre, a former NGO professional, who had, to my surprise, worked closely with the NGO where I had volunteered in 2001 (more on this in 2.4.1) and was an eager promoter of indigenous terminologies as state policy. Although our initial contact was greatly enhanced by my earlier donor contacts (see 2.4.1), the NGO linkage was a crucial factor in establishing confidential relationships and in facilitating my access to the ministry. Getting to know the vice-minister was crucial in determining the kind of knowledge to which I was able to have access. Negotiating access to the field can be painstakingly hard (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007), but in my case it was facilitated by the happy coincidence of mutual experiences and interests.

I was able to visit the premises of the vice-ministry quite regularly (at least twice a week, sometimes more often, with one week gaps every now and then due to issues such as travelling). These visits included both pre-scheduled and spontaneous meetings with the vice-minister and his staff. After becoming acquainted and establishing friendships with some executive directors, public servants and consultants, I could pop in from the busy main avenue Mariscal Santa Cruz of La Paz’ city center, through the first floor security check, to the second floor open-space offices to chat with anyone whom I knew who happened to be present. I was also invited to some internal staff meetings where the notion of vivir bien was discussed. These included meetings with indigenous intellectuals and activists. With time, I also started to meet some public servants and consultants outside the office and working hours: in restaurants, bars, parks, and at their homes. During the initial stages of my fieldwork, I discussed with Aguirre the possibility of regularly participating in the daily activities of the vice-ministry, but unfortunately this was never fully achieved. For this reason, and also for ethical reasons discussed later on, my study has a stronger emphasis on interviewing as a form of data collection than traditional ethnographic fieldwork.

After several meetings and interviews with the vice-minister, he invited me to participate in, and to observe, policy events where the notion of vivir bien was being operationalized into state practice. Most specifically these related to the planning of sectoral development plans. Organized by the Ministry of Development Planning, these events gathered together hundreds of executive directors, public servants, consultants, and

stakeholders from different ministerial sectors. By participating in these policy-shaping events, I was able to meet people from various ministries and state institutions. It also gave me contacts through which I had the opportunity to visit most ministerial premises and to interview people from a range of different ministries and institutions. Getting to know to people also facilitated my entrance to further policy events in different ministries in which sectoral projects were planned and operationalized.12

In addition to the vice-minister who facilitated my access to policy issues, I had two other channels that I used to get access to important sources of data. The first was a range of international development agencies. Because of my work experience at the UN in 2002 (see 4.2.1), I had established various contacts with international and national development experts. On returning to Bolivia to examine Morales’ policy iniatives, I had an opportunity to listen to these people’s experiences of how development policy and practice had changed over the years. Additionally, when I made contacts with different international development agencies and interviewed various (mostly Bolivian) development experts, it became clear that many people currently working in the donor community had occupied major political positions prior to Morales’ election. Therefore, by talking to donors, I was also unexpectedly able to gain insights onto earlier governments’ policy visions and political ideologies opposed to those of the contemporary governing regime.

While preparing to go to the field, I had also established contacts with people from Bolivian migrant communities. When in the field, it appeared that numbers of Bolivians who had migrated to Europe and elsewhere had returned home in search of labor and income opportunities that they were hoping Morales’ election would provide. While I was leaning on some of these people in hope of establishing valuable contacts for my research, it seemed that my presence was seen by some as an opportunity for individual gain in terms of finding an access to ministries in order to enhance their own interests. Therefore, while, on the one hand, I did get access to some vice-ministries through these contacts, on the other, I soon realized that people whom I hardly knew were attempting to take advantage of me in order to promote individual political and economic interests. This became painfully clear after an interview with one minister who, after politely answering all my questions, asked whether we could now discuss the establishment of commercial relations between his ministry and Finland. It was not an issue I was aware was on the agenda; rather it was at the heart of the interests of those who had set up the meeting. Through these same contacts I also became very quickly acquainted with complex webs of political schemes that were circulating in and around ministries and among people only loosely linked with the MAS. One evening, for example, I found

12 In addition to state bureaucracy and policy events, I participated in various public seminars organized both by academic institutions and social movements. Some of these seminars were organized in coordination with decision- and policy-makers. The themes discussed included post-neoliberalism, Latin American Left, rise of social movements, and feminism among others.

myself in a meeting of the political opposition, including members of the military and the police force, introduced by the same people who during the day had appeared to be best friends with the MAS executive. These events became crucial ethnographic data for understanding how politics and power worked in many complicated ways.

I was also able to participate in and observe many important political events organized both by social movements and the governing regime. Yet the first politically inflated affair occurred when I had not yet stepped foot on the Bolivian soil. My trip from Finland to Bolivia coincided with one of the most violent and contentious period of political turmoil since the election of Morales. Because of the alleged involvement of the US in massive and violent oppositional protests against the new constitution, the US ambassador was being expelled from Bolivia and diplomatic relations between the countries were severed.13 _{When finally in the field, many important political events took place. After a}

turbulent September full of oppositional activities, it was the time for social movements, indigenous organizations, and peasant unions to show their power. In a mid-October mobilization, thousands of indigenous peoples and peasants from all over the country marched to La Paz demanding the approval of the constitutional referendum. While ministries and development agencies closed their offices, I concentrated my observations on the contentious politics on the streets. Prior to this, los Ponchos Rojos, a militant Aymara indigenous movement from the Andean province of Omasuyos, had blocked the main central avenue, Prado, and was protesting in front of the principal ministries. In December, the CONAMAQ organized a peaceful indigenous march to defend the constitutional process.

January 2009 was a time of governmental celebrations. A massive celebration of three years of Morales’ administration was held at the Plaza Murillo. All the ministers were present; MAS parliamentarians took part in the celebrations; and indigenous peoples, peasants, and social movements from all over the country joined thousands of paceños to cheer Morales’ speech, to listen to folklore music groups, to watch fireworks, and to dance all night long. While less than fifty years ago the main square, surrounded by the centers of political power, was prohibited to Bolivian indios, indigenous symbols – whiphala flags, traditional dresses, musical instruments, and the sounds of folk music – now permeated the space. It was followed by the referendum over the constitution that took place January 25th_{, 2009. I attended Election Day at the crowded school premises in the}

upper-middle-class neighborhood of Sopocachi where Vice-President García Linera was

13 The political opposition had rioted for some time in order to oppose the new constitution. Governmental buildings had been attacked. Media outlets had been shut down. In Pando, one of the lowland regions governed by pro-opposition political leaders, a massacre of pro-MAS peasants had occurred. A state of siege was declared. The expelling of the ambassador led to the expelling of the US ambassador from Venezuela and the promise by Hugo Chávez to send army troops to Bolivia; this, for its part, led to regional unrest mediated by the government of Chile. (Postero 2013: 43; on the US ambassador Goldberg case, see Webber 2011: 196.)

voting. A massive celebration on the night of the approval of the new constitution took place at the same Plaza Murillo as a few days earlier. Evo Morales spoke to the crowds of thousands of people from the balcony of the presidential palace, joined by García Linera and the cabinet of ministers. After the Plaza, I ended up at the campaign offices of one of the MAS parliamentarians with a group of more than a hundred urban, upper-middle- class revolutionaries dancing to folk music and singing revolutionary songs, thereby demonstrating the multiplicity of the MAS supporters’ ideological beliefs.

The relatively short time that I spent in Bolivia can be considered a handicap in my fieldwork. There is no doubt that a longer period of time would have been useful for examining the routines of state bureaucracy. Yet, given that I had prior experience in Bolivia, relatively easy and very quick access to important sources of information through various channels, and that I was culturally and language-wise well equipped prior to entering the field, I was able to conduct very dynamic and intensive fieldwork with data-collection starting to become saturated towards the end of my stay. Wolcott has suggested that “the essence of fieldwork is revealed by intent rather than by location” (2005: 58), and, in fact, it does not often end simply because you physically leave the location of your study. This is very true in my case. Social media has provided me a crucial forum wherein to update my knowledge of the latest news among my informants and in Bolivia more generally. Additionally, the University of Helsinki and other Finnish institutions and NGOs have hosted various visits by Bolivian academic scholars (Luis Tapia, a political scientist from CIDES-UMSA, in 2009), political figures (such as the Bolivian ambassadors in Sweden and René Orellana, the climate negotiator for the Morales’ government, in 2012), and regional indigenous organizations (Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica, COICA, in 2012). Additionally, President Evo Morales visited the University of Helsinki in May 2010 during his Nordic tour. My active involvement in these events has enabled me to continue with my fieldwork and active communication with Bolivians on the soil of my own country. It has been, par excellence, multi-sited ethnography introduced by Marcus (1995).

Furthermore, there has been an emerging interest among Finnish NGOs and social movements in the notion of vivir bien. Consequently, various activities, seminars, and discussions have been organized, incorporating activists from all over the world, to discuss political alternatives constructed on the basis of cultural discourses. Finnish activists have gone on to assist in the dissemination of these ideas to such diverse places as Kenya and India, where they have been shared with local activist groups: an interesting topic for possible future research.