Panamanian Perspectives On Panama's Indigenous Population

Professor Herrera is perhaps Panama's foremost expert on the history of the Panamanian State and society’s relationship with its indigenous population.[i] He recounts how 15 or so years ago, after a review of the indigenous situation in Panama, he concluded that Panama had made significant advances in indigenous rights and relations.[ii] However, in recent years there seems to have been a regression in these areas due to the discovery of important natural resources on indigenous territory, and the State’s desire to exploit those resources.[iii] Up until the 1960s, indigenous peoples were not viewed as much of a threat to the economic development of the country, but instead were seen mostly as a threat to the socio-cultural integrity of the nation.[iv] The population was small enough at the time, that there were not so many conflicts over land.[v] However, as land and population pressure increased in the western provinces, the State adopted a policy which released this pressure through offering land in the largely undeveloped Darien Province to the east.[vi] At that time, the overall space between a colono and an indigenous community was relatively large, resulting in relatively few conflicts.[vii] He notes what an important role the price of global commodities can play on the State's policy toward local development conflicts. In the 70's, he had participated with indigenous efforts in trying to halt copper mining operations in Cerro Colorado. The project was eventually abandoned due in part to the work that they did, but mostly due to a drop in the global price of copper.[viii] However in recent years, the price has been climbing again, which makes these operations once again financially desirable.[ix] This is a phenomenon that affects indigenous communities across the board. Thus, he sees this growing national and international demand for natural resources as driving the regression in national policy towards its indigenous people populations.

Professor Herrera conveyed that even now there have even been rumors circulating of legal proposals to eliminate the comarca status from certain areas, the Ngobe-Bugle Comarca in particular. He sees these rumblings as evidence of a growing antagonism towards indigenous rights in Panama due to the desire to exploit resources on indigenous territory. In regard to the legal status of natural resources within the comarcas, he echoed Dr. Jordan's perspective regarding the legal ambiguities that persist.  He noted that from the community’s perspective, the land and resources are theirs. However, from the perspective of government agencies and their employees, it belongs to the State.[x] He illustrates the issue by telling the story of reforestation projects in the western part of Panama in the 70's. The government paid the local people with food supplies to plant "pino caribena" trees within their traditional territorial boundaries. After 20 years, the trees had grown up and it came time to harvest the wood. The indigenous people wanted to harvest some of the wood, but the government prohibited it, saying that it belonged to the State, since they had paid the local people for the rights with food supplies. The indigenous people disagreed.[xi] This situation represented a serious lack of communication between the government and indigenous people, which he sees as also being the case in the Wargandi situation.

Dr. Jordan fears that if the indigenous communities were to ultimately refuse to acquiesce to government development policy, they will cease to exist, because it is the goal of the government to have them disappear.[xii] He hopes that one day the attitudes will change, but doesn't see this happening without a concerted national policy of affirmative action, with education towards tolerance and diversity. He recalls the account of the Malaria epidemic in the Bayano region where the Kuna would not allow government officials in to the community to fumigate because the community was engaged in a traditional religious pipe smoking ceremony.[xiii] They had let the health officials enter the community before the ceremony, and again allowed them to enter afterward. However, the way the situation had been portrayed in the Panamanian media was that out of superstition, the Kuna leaders wanted to let their people die of malaria[xiv] He concludes that as long as the Panamanian society continues to think that way-judging that what the Kunas have is only superstition, but what the non-indigenous people have is faith, there will be no understanding or acceptance of Kuna culture by the broader Panamanian society.

Though the Panamanian governments of Torrijos, Moscoso, and now Martinelli have had slightly different policies toward indigenous people, they have all basically operated from the same assumptions.[xv] The assumption is that indigenous people are backward, and need to be modernized.[xvi] Panamanian law considers the natural resources of the country to be the patrimony of the State.[xvii] However, the indigenous nations of Panama do not accept that concept.[xviii] They argue that they have rights that go beyond mere use of the land, and there have been a string of recent conflicts over that disagreement.[xix] The State claims the resources for the sake of income. According to Dr. Jordan, all the State really wants is money. In his view the issue comes down to balancing between the interests of money and people. He notes that his inclination is towards people, but for many, especially in government, the inclination is towards money. This is a struggle that goes on not only at the State or national level, but also within indigenous communities.[xx] One of the great threats to indigenous people is the interests of outside people.[xxi] However, perhaps an even greater threat is the interests of people within who have been manipulated, or opted on their own, to serve the interests of the outside world.[xxii] This is a trend happening within all indigenous communities.[xxiii] This is especially difficult, because as part of the community, they have the voice and ear of the community.[xxiv]

When asked whether the State should allow internally destructive behaviors or decisions to continue, Dr. Jordan provides an insightful response that speaks to the heart of the debate between top down development vs. community development models. He notes that ultimately the state should allow the internal, local decision to stand, and more importantly to not manipulate what is going on. It is not a question of whether the State is permitting internally destructive decisions, but to what extent the State is enabling or feeding those decisions.[xxv] What the State of Panama often does, as evident in James Howe’s book about the Kuna, and from Dr. Jordan's own work on the Ngobe, is to work to find people within the community who are amenable to advancing the money driven interests of the State.[xxvi] Once the State has identified these people, it then does everything possible to manipulate the local situation to make sure that those compliant individuals are the ones in power.[xxvii] In his opinion, the indigenous communities ultimately lose out most when they are integrated into the dominant society of the State.[xxviii] Ultimately, he would never put the fault on the indigenous people. He puts it on the Panamanian society because he feels that in their depths they want to eliminate indigenous identity. They do not want to allow people to live that kind of lifestyle.[xxix] They want them to modernize, and if they do exist, that it only be in posters, as a type of adornment to the national face.[xxx] In contrast to the Panamanian model, Dr. Jordan notes the Colombian model as perhaps the best system that he is aware of for equitably incorporating indigenous communities into the national fabric. Rather than the dualistic model that Panama has embraced, the Colombian model treats local indigenous communities in a more integrated fashion, as a type of local municipality, responsible for its own governance.[xxxi]

Another type of manipulation of indigenous people was evident in the international environmental conservation discourse of the 80's and 90's that elevated and essentialized indigenous people as idyllic guardians of the environment.[xxxii] This movement tended not to view indigenous people as agents of their own destiny; rather it saw them as objects to be used in the environmental movement.[xxxiii] That focus was bound to lead to disenchantment.[xxxiv] In the end it played into the hands of the State, who through acknowledging the error of that movement, now had an argument for returning to classical development models.[xxxv] According to Dr. Jordan, indigenous people were key allies for a time in the environmental movement, but in the end, the movement did not account for a true understanding of the indigenous worldview.  Dr. Jordan feels that the main failure of conservation and development projects aimed at indigenous people can be found in the very seeds of the project concept, that is, in the initiative behind the project. He estimates that 90% of development project design initiatives come from outside the community. This ends up causing the community to feel like the project is something being imposed upon them.[xxxvi] The community is only left with a few different options. They can reject the project, ignore it, or try to make the most of it.[xxxvii] Occasionally, given the opportunity, the community members themselves will ask for a project. What usually happens though is that the people that live in the communities still have a very different way of thinking than the people that live in the cities.[xxxviii] This causes a problem of lack of dialogue and understanding.[xxxix] Project developers think in terms of methodology, deadlines and indicators, whereas communities have distinctive cycles.[xl] Often the methods used by projects are not appropriate for work in a community. However the project staff and community participants are forced to work that way because that is what they have been directed to do.[xli] This causes things to be very difficult and ultimately leads to very low success rates.[xlii]

Whether a project is deemed successful may vary significantly depending on the standards being used to assess the project. If a project is judged by its methodology and achievement of indicators, it may be judged a success. However, if a project is judged by whether the overall goals were achieved, often the judgment is less optimistic.[xliii] The way projects are usually measured is by the reports that are submitted.[xliv] However, the problem is that development project reports are an “art-form.”[xlv] First, there are the people who know how to write them, and what they are expected to include.[xlvi] Then, those who review them have incentives and are motivated to approve them.[xlvii] Finally, those who ultimately evaluate the reports, follow the same standards and methodologies of those who produced them.[xlviii] They are also responding to incentives to produce favorable evaluations.[xlix] This makes it very difficult to evaluate a project honestly, especially if you do it based on the reports from the actual project.[l] Dr. Jordan argued that a truly effective evaluation could only come from an independent, academic standpoint. In contrast, in the project reports, no one wants to say that the project turned out poorly.

Dr. Jordan advised that there are usually two ways that project directors tend to respond to independent academic researchers. They can see the researcher as a potential asset to the project, as someone who can document everything that is happening and share it in a positive light. The other option is that they are afraid that the researcher will have a negative perspective and interpret and report on the project negatively.[li] It is very rare that an independent observer can come in and actually help to rectify mistakes.[lii] It is very hard for project developers and directors to accept that they make mistakes.[liii] In the end, whether the project directors themselves find the academic's insights useful, the research that is done helps to shed light on what is actually happening at the local scale.[liv]