초록 열기/닫기 버튼
Anti-extractivist movements in Peru have been characterized as limited in scope and space, occurring mostly around high altitude Andes villages near the mining sites and in the middle of the rainforest. Though the extractive disputes have been numerous and persistent since 2000, numerous anti-extractivist movements could not expand beyond local boundaries, which is basically for two reasons. First, anti-mining movements could not build a nation-wide alliance network due to their lack of economic or environmental interests in common with other sectors and areas. Second, the political opportunity structure has been unfavourable to the small voices of the peasants from the remote and isolated mountain areas. While there could be many explanations for the weakness of anti-extractivist movements in Peru, this paper focuses on the political opportunity structure as the most relevant approach. I pay special attention to the reason anti-mining movement, it being the most prominent source of social conflict in Peru, and which proved to be unable to achieve any real change in the mining policy of the government. I focus on three main sources of political opportunity structure which were unfavourable to the anti-mining movement: 1) the authoritarian elite control of the state, 2) weak political institutions that disempower formal democracy, and 3) a weak civil society. More specifically, authoritarian exercise of the power by the state, the class nature of the neoliberal state, the fragmented party politics, an ineffective and weak democracy, a weak civil society, and the resulting lack of indigenous/peasant voices in Peru have resulted in closed opportunity for the required reform of the extractive sector. It would be necessary to develop a more democratic and responsive state and a more effective political party system with a more autonomous and mature civil society, in order to contribute to more effective policy reform, reduced socio-environmental conflicts and a more dynamic and stable economy in Peru.