Collective land ownership and union dictatorship

By: Hugo Marcelo Balderrama - 15/06/2026

Guest columnist.
Share:     

It is true that the highway robbers, who have blockaded Bolivia for 40 days, have ample logistical and financial support to carry out their crimes. However, as Grover Colque explains in his book, *Bolivia, Asymmetric Threat to the Americas*, there is a group that, like city residents, suffers all kinds of abuses: I am referring to the ordinary people in the country's rural areas. But to this we must add an aggravating factor: coercion.

In Bolivia, small agricultural holdings are geared towards the livelihood of the producer and their family. They fulfill a social function and, therefore, are indivisible, unseizable, and irreversible. Furthermore, they are not subject to taxes. Their size can vary depending on the activity carried out and the specific region of the country where they are located. In the case of the country's lowlands, such as the Amazon, small agricultural holdings can reach a maximum size of 50 hectares, while small livestock holdings have a maximum size of 500 hectares.

On the other hand, medium-sized agricultural properties, which in lowlands can reach 500 or 2500 hectares if dedicated to agriculture or livestock farming, respectively, are understood as those that, in addition to supporting the owner's family, are intended for production for the market.

Likewise, Cristian Aramayo, in his article: Land and Power, states:

If land is a source of power, what does it mean that 97% of Potosí's territory is under collective ownership? Who benefits from the fact that over 83% of Chuquisaca and Cochabamba's territory is under collective ownership? Is the land ownership structure unrelated to the fact that these three departments have the highest poverty rates in Bolivia?

Additionally, the Political Constitution prohibits indigenous people from selling their lands. Article 395 states verbatim: "Double land grants and the purchase, sale, exchange, and donation of lands granted as endowments are prohibited."

It's important to clarify one point here: those who cannot mortgage, exchange, or sell their land are not owners; their status is that of tenants of the communal lands. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that community members are held hostage by union dictatorships, as they are intimidated with the threat of losing their land if they don't obey the collective's directives. These are essentially territories run by a pimp or gang leader where he is the law.

Now do you understand why unions, NGOs, and socialist activists opposed the possibility of modifying land ownership? Their only interest was keeping millions of Bolivians in poverty, since they knew that changing their situation would leave them without servants and slaves.

Furthermore, it is necessary to highlight another of the great hypocrisies of the indigenous left, because according to their positions, Bolivian indigenous people possess infinite ancestral wisdom, yet they never allow them to be free. It's like reducing them to an eccentric anthropological attraction.

Things aren't any better for city dwellers. In fact, the tax burden imposed by the central government and local municipalities forces us to work almost four months just to pay taxes. Those who take the risky path of starting legal businesses have it even worse.

Juan Bautista Alberdi, the father of the 1853 Argentine Constitution, declared: "Private property is the difference between barbarism and civilization." It is time for Bolivia to begin debating this difference, because millions of Bolivians need to be free from the tyranny of union bosses.

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».