Movements To Parties: The Rise Of Bolivia's Mas

When Movements Become Parties: The Bolivian MAS in Comparative Perspective is a book by Santiago Anria that was published in 2019. The book explores the internal politics of parties formed by social movements, using the example of Bolivia's governing Movement toward Socialism (MAS) party. Anria argues that the MAS has been able to avoid the iron law of oligarchy, which suggests that all parties eventually develop oligarchic or elitist tendencies. The book provides a structuralist explanation for the MAS's political behaviour, highlighting the role of its origins in the highly organized and disciplined social movement of coca growers, as well as civil society's capacity for autonomous mobilization. The MAS's hybrid nature, with a core coalition based in the countryside and a peripheral coalition consisting of urban and popular sector organizations, is also discussed. The book includes a comparative analysis of the MAS with Brazil's PT and Uruguay's FA, shedding light on the organizational models of movement-based parties.

The MAS's hybrid organisational structure

The MAS (Movimiento al Socialismo, or Movement Towards Socialism) is a unique political party with a hybrid organisational structure. It is a fusion of a social movement and a political party, with a structure that is both top-down and bottom-up. This hybrid nature is determined by the structural configuration of civil society and its propensity to align with the MAS.

The MAS has a loose bureaucratic structure that provides opportunities for its core social bases to act autonomously. The party did not co-opt its core constituency; rather, it grew organically out of the coca-growing unions, which inform party policies. In the rural areas, the MAS has a bottom-up structure, with organic movement-party linkages through which the bases wield significant control over its development. In the urban areas, however, the MAS has a more top-down structure, with co-optative practices that threaten the autonomy of allied social groups.

The MAS has the support of two distinctive social coalitions. The central coalition is based in the rural sector and consists of coca growers in the Chapare region, as well as three national-level peasant organisations. The peripheral coalition consists of a broader set of urban-popular organisations. The party strategises differently in relation to these two coalitions: bottom-up vis-à-vis its central coalition and top-down when facing the peripheral coalition.

The MAS's hybrid structure is the result of its genesis in the highly organised and disciplined social movement of the coca growers, in conjunction with civil society's ongoing capacity for autonomous mobilisation to shape internal power distributions, leadership patterns, and the party's organisational model. This structure has allowed the MAS to avoid falling victim to oligarchic temptations and has been key to its success as a movement-based party.

The MAS's core and peripheral coalitions

The MAS's core coalition is based in the rural sector and consists of coca growers in the northern lowland region of Chapare, as well as three national-level peasant organisations. The party's peripheral coalition consists of a broader set of urban-popular organisations. MAS strategises differently in relation to these two coalitions: bottom-up vis-à-vis its central coalition and top-down when facing the peripheral coalition.

The MAS has a loose bureaucratic structure, which provides opportunities for its core social bases to act autonomously. The party did not co-opt its core constituency; rather, it grew organically out of the coca-growing unions, which inform party policies. In the urban areas, MAS faced a different problem. The existing social organisations in the large cities weren't natural allies of rural cocaleros. The party employed a deliberate plan to win over previously existing organisations at the city and neighbourhood levels by penetrating their social networks, co-opting their leaders and controlling them.

The two distinctive social coalitions determine how MAS selects candidates, what substantive issues are considered on the national agenda and how they are decided.

The MAS's candidate selection process

In urban areas, however, the MAS employs a top-down approach, co-opting the leaders of existing social organisations and controlling them. This strategy involves penetrating social networks and co-opting leaders to win over organisations at the city and neighbourhood levels. As a result, the MAS's candidate selection process differs between its central coalition, which consists of rural coca growers and peasant organisations, and its peripheral coalition, which is made up of urban-popular organisations.

Overall, the MAS's candidate selection process reflects the party's ability to adapt its strategies to the different social coalitions it relies on, leveraging bottom-up approaches with its core constituency and top-down approaches in urban areas.

The MAS's national policymaking patterns

The MAS's policymaking patterns are determined by the structural configuration of civil society and its propensity to align with the party. The MAS has a hybrid organisational structure, a fusion of social movement and political party, which allows it to look and operate differently in rural and urban sectors.

The MAS has two distinctive social coalitions: a core coalition based in the countryside consisting of coca growers in the Chapare region and three national-level peasant confederations, and a peripheral coalition consisting of a more heterogeneous set of urban and popular sector organisations. The MAS employs bottom-up strategies with its central coalition and top-down strategies with its peripheral coalition.

The MAS's core social bases have the capacity for autonomous mobilisation, which shapes internal power distributions, leadership patterns, and the party's organisational model. The MAS's genesis in the highly organised and disciplined social movement of coca growers, in conjunction with civil society's capacity for autonomous mobilisation, is the secret to its avoidance of top-down organisational attributes.

The MAS's policymaking is influenced by the relative power or "constraining" and "creative" capacities of organised social bases. Grassroots influence varies significantly by policy area.

The MAS in a comparative perspective

Santiago Anria's book *When Movements Become Parties: The Bolivian MAS in Comparative Perspective* is the first rigorous comparative study of movement-based parties. It shows how movements can form parties and how they contribute to parties' internal politics and shape organisational party models over time. Anria's work challenges the existing literature, which argues that movement-based parties will inevitably succumb to professionalisation and specialisation.

Anria's book focuses on Bolivia's MAS, Brazil's PT, and Uruguay's FA—three successful new parties in a region where such parties are rare. Despite their similar origins, these parties differ sharply in their organisational models. Anria argues that the MAS has avoided the iron law of oligarchy due to its origins in the highly organised and disciplined social movement of coca growers, and civil society's capacity for autonomous mobilisation.

The MAS has a hybrid organisational structure, a fusion of social movement and political party. It has a loose bureaucratic structure, which provides opportunities for its core social bases to act autonomously. The MAS has two distinctive social coalitions: a core coalition based in the countryside, and a peripheral coalition consisting of a broader set of urban and popular sector organisations. The MAS employs different strategies when dealing with these two coalitions: bottom-up with its core coalition, and top-down with its peripheral coalition.

Anria's book includes a cross-national comparative analysis of the MAS, the PT, and the FA. He demonstrates that the MAS is most similar to the FA in that both parties leave open channels for their social bases to influence decision-making in candidate selection and policy-making.

The MAS and the PT

The MAS and the PT differ in their organisational models. The MAS has maintained its links to its social bases, while the PT has become more oligarchic. The MAS has a decentralised bureaucratic structure, while the PT has a more centralised structure. The MAS has a core constituency in the coca growers' unions, which inform party policies, while the PT has become disconnected from its social bases. The MAS has been able to maintain its support among its core constituency, while the PT has lost support among its core constituency.

The MAS and the FA

The MAS and the FA differ in their organisational models and their relations with their social bases. The MAS has a core constituency in the coca growers' unions, while the FA has a core constituency in the trade unions. The MAS has maintained its links to its social bases, while the FA has become more disconnected from its social bases. The MAS has a decentralised bureaucratic structure, while the FA has a more centralised structure. The MAS has been able to maintain its support among its core constituency, while the FA has lost support among its core constituency.

Frequently asked questions