The “Coordinadora de Defensa del Agua y de la Vida” (“Coalition in Defense of Water and Life”) was the unified resistant network of both unionized and non-unionized workers that fought against the government, Bechtel, and the World Bank. Despite the diversity in terms of occupation and even cultural practices, this alliance proved capable of seamlessly integrating local, urban and rural identities (Olivera 2004). The public’s identity was driven by the motive to secure access to water and public services.
Crucially, the identity remained one of equality through unity. The people who led community initiatives like protests named themselves “spokespersons”. Although Oscar Olivera was named as an official leader, or liaison between the public and the government, the public did not give authority to any one person; but rather for themselves as a collective group. The protestors named themselves “the Multitude” and “Water Warriors”. The public used three framing techniques in their communication strategy: metaphor, slogans, and catch-phrase.
Their metaphor was The public juxtaposed itself against the government and Betchel. They rallied, “Our struggle, and our duty, is to continue to advance in the project of defending our lives, our families, our companeros, and our nation against the handful of pillagers of democracy.”the “David and Goliath” frame: poor people versus multinational corporation. The public juxtaposed itself against the government and Betchel. They rallied, “Our struggle, and our duty, is to continue to advance in the project of defending our lives, our families, our companeros, and our nation against the handful of pillagers of democracy.” Although the public began protests and resistance movements as early as November 1999, it was Oscar Olivera who solidified the public’s collective identity as their leader and spokesperson by February 2000.
The public titled themselves as “Water Warriors”, “Federation of the Factory”, and “Coalition for Water and Life”. The public pushed back against Betchel’s actions by erecting rural blockades, blocking transit, and staging demonstrations. The community organizers called themselves “spokespersons” on behalf of the public they fought for rather than “leaders” as the media labeled them.
Despite tear gas, power cut off, and government threats, the Bolivian protesters marched the streets chanting slogans such as: “The water is ours, damn it!” The violent climax that ultimately ended Betchel’s involvement in Bolivia was when the police killed a young protester.
As the public’s narrative gained traction and recognition on a global stage, other countries, such as India, sympathized with the national’s efforts and even publically supported the Bolivian’s efforts to resist Betchel’s actions.
Communication Strategy
Network
The public was an informal, emergent network. It was not officially arranged with contracts, money exchange or assigned responsibility. Rather, this type of network was connected by identity. (Arsenault 2011) It was also a counter-power network because the actors had the power capacity to not only challenge but also change the power structures and relations in society. (Castells 2007) Olivera recounts, “People from all walks of life participated. They said we had all united. There were the rich from the northern part of the city, with their clothes, their water, and their food, but this time something was different. This time they marched behind the slogans of the poor, instead of the other way around – the way it usually happens- with the poor marching behind the slogans of the rich.” (Olivera 2004, 47)
Lastly, the public was a collective, horizontal network. Similar to Jürgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action through horizontal networks, the Coalition formed a social space that heralded equality, namely of those, “affected by the social problematic of water, who have equal rights in practice of expression, intervention, and action.” (Ibid, 72) The network was flexible as individuals, workers, and even children intervened and participated in protests to express themselves. This participation legitimized the network and continually broadened the social base. (Ibid, 74)
Participatory Development Communication
In the beginning of the Water Wars conflict, the network did not realize their social power and economic importance. (Olivera 2004, 106) But the participants soon realized their voice. The Coordinadora responded to a political vacuum by, “uniting peasants, environmental groups, teachers, and blue- and white- collar workers in the manufacturing sector….The Coordinadora spoke in the name of people who felt ignored, excluded, and neglected…..and could find no space within which to voice their ideas (ibid, 28-29)
The public’s communication strategy parallels a participatory development communication grassroots model. Theorist Silvio Waisbord describes participatory development is to, “inform, motivate, and train rural populations mainly at the grassroots.” (Waisbord, nd, 18) Olivera attributes the persistence and breadth of the collective as well as the individual to making “an extensive network of mobilization and joint action, first at the regional, then at the provincial (county), and finally at the state level.” (ibid, 72)
Everyone in the Coalition participated in decision-making and implementation of protests. Through this model, the public became empowered and solidified their trust and unity.
*Photo credit: Kris Krug/Flickr creative commons
Crucially, the identity remained one of equality through unity. The people who led community initiatives like protests named themselves “spokespersons”. Although Oscar Olivera was named as an official leader, or liaison between the public and the government, the public did not give authority to any one person; but rather for themselves as a collective group. The protestors named themselves “the Multitude” and “Water Warriors”. The public used three framing techniques in their communication strategy: metaphor, slogans, and catch-phrase.
Their metaphor was The public juxtaposed itself against the government and Betchel. They rallied, “Our struggle, and our duty, is to continue to advance in the project of defending our lives, our families, our companeros, and our nation against the handful of pillagers of democracy.”the “David and Goliath” frame: poor people versus multinational corporation. The public juxtaposed itself against the government and Betchel. They rallied, “Our struggle, and our duty, is to continue to advance in the project of defending our lives, our families, our companeros, and our nation against the handful of pillagers of democracy.” Although the public began protests and resistance movements as early as November 1999, it was Oscar Olivera who solidified the public’s collective identity as their leader and spokesperson by February 2000.
The public titled themselves as “Water Warriors”, “Federation of the Factory”, and “Coalition for Water and Life”. The public pushed back against Betchel’s actions by erecting rural blockades, blocking transit, and staging demonstrations. The community organizers called themselves “spokespersons” on behalf of the public they fought for rather than “leaders” as the media labeled them.
Despite tear gas, power cut off, and government threats, the Bolivian protesters marched the streets chanting slogans such as: “The water is ours, damn it!” The violent climax that ultimately ended Betchel’s involvement in Bolivia was when the police killed a young protester.
As the public’s narrative gained traction and recognition on a global stage, other countries, such as India, sympathized with the national’s efforts and even publically supported the Bolivian’s efforts to resist Betchel’s actions.
Communication Strategy
Network
The public was an informal, emergent network. It was not officially arranged with contracts, money exchange or assigned responsibility. Rather, this type of network was connected by identity. (Arsenault 2011) It was also a counter-power network because the actors had the power capacity to not only challenge but also change the power structures and relations in society. (Castells 2007) Olivera recounts, “People from all walks of life participated. They said we had all united. There were the rich from the northern part of the city, with their clothes, their water, and their food, but this time something was different. This time they marched behind the slogans of the poor, instead of the other way around – the way it usually happens- with the poor marching behind the slogans of the rich.” (Olivera 2004, 47)
Lastly, the public was a collective, horizontal network. Similar to Jürgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action through horizontal networks, the Coalition formed a social space that heralded equality, namely of those, “affected by the social problematic of water, who have equal rights in practice of expression, intervention, and action.” (Ibid, 72) The network was flexible as individuals, workers, and even children intervened and participated in protests to express themselves. This participation legitimized the network and continually broadened the social base. (Ibid, 74)
Participatory Development Communication
In the beginning of the Water Wars conflict, the network did not realize their social power and economic importance. (Olivera 2004, 106) But the participants soon realized their voice. The Coordinadora responded to a political vacuum by, “uniting peasants, environmental groups, teachers, and blue- and white- collar workers in the manufacturing sector….The Coordinadora spoke in the name of people who felt ignored, excluded, and neglected…..and could find no space within which to voice their ideas (ibid, 28-29)
The public’s communication strategy parallels a participatory development communication grassroots model. Theorist Silvio Waisbord describes participatory development is to, “inform, motivate, and train rural populations mainly at the grassroots.” (Waisbord, nd, 18) Olivera attributes the persistence and breadth of the collective as well as the individual to making “an extensive network of mobilization and joint action, first at the regional, then at the provincial (county), and finally at the state level.” (ibid, 72)
Everyone in the Coalition participated in decision-making and implementation of protests. Through this model, the public became empowered and solidified their trust and unity.
*Photo credit: Kris Krug/Flickr creative commons