0521827469 cambridge university press contesting citizenship in latin america the rise of indigenous movements and the postliberal challenge mar 2005

Indigenous people in Latin America have mobilized in unprecedented ways.By taking to the streets, forging new agendas, and fielding political candidates,indigenous movements have come to

Indigenous people in Latin America have mobilized in unprecedented ways.

By taking to the streets, forging new agendas, and fielding political candidates,indigenous movements have come to shape national political debates aboutmultiethnic democracies, political equality, and subnational autonomy Theseare remarkable developments in a region where ethnic cleavages were onceuniversally described as weak

Deborah Yashar explains the contemporary and uneven emergence of LatinAmerican indigenous movements – addressing both why indigenous identitieshave become politically salient in the contemporary period and why they havetranslated into significant political organizations in some places and not others.She argues that ethnic politics can best be explained through a comparativehistorical approach that analyzes three factors: changing citizenship regimes,social networks, and political associational space Her argument provides insightinto the fragility and unevenness of Latin America’s third wave democraciesand has broader implications for the ways in which we theorize the relationshipbetween citizenship, states, identity, and collective action

Deborah J Yashar is Associate Professor of Politics and International Affairs

at Princeton University and the Director of Princeton’s Program in Latin

American Studies She is the author of Demanding Democracy: Reform and action in Costa Rica and Guatemala, 1870s–1950s, as well as articles and chapters

Re-on democratizatiRe-on, ethnic politics, collective actiRe-on, and globalizatiRe-on

Jack A Goldstone George Mason University

Doug McAdam Stanford University and Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

Sidney Tarrow Cornell University

Charles Tilly Columbia University

Elisabeth J Wood Yale University

Ronald Aminzade et al., Silence and Voice in the Study of Contentious Politics Charles D Brockett, Political Movements and Violence in Central America

Gerald Davis, Doug McAdam, W Richard Scott, and Mayer Zald, editors,

Social Movements and Organization Theory

Jack A Goldstone, editor, States, Parties, and Social Movements

Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly, Dynamics of Contention Charles Tilly, The Politics of Collective Violence

Charles Tilly, Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650–2000

Contesting Citizenship

in Latin America

THE RISE OF INDIGENOUS MOVEMENTS AND THE POSTLIBERAL CHALLENGE

DEBORAH J YASHAR

Princeton University

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São PauloCambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge , UK

First published in print format

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521827461

This book is in copyright Subject to statutory exception and to the provision ofrelevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take placewithout the written permission of Cambridge University Press

- ---

- ---

- ---

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of

s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does notguarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org

hardbackpaperbackpaperback

eBook (EBL)eBook (EBL)hardback

Audrey and John Yashar

List of Tables pagexi

Part I: Theoretical Framing

2 CITIZENSHIP REGIMES, THE STATE, AND ETHNIC

3 THE ARGUMENT: INDIGENOUS MOBILIZATION IN

Part II: The Cases

4 ECUADOR: LATIN AMERICA’S STRONGEST

Part I: The Ecuadorian Andes and ECUARUNARI 87

Part II: The Ecuadorian Amazon and CONFENAIE 109Part III: Forming the National Confederation, CONAIE 130

5 BOLIVIA: STRONG REGIONAL MOVEMENTS 152

Part I: The Bolivian Andes: The Kataristas and

Part II: The Bolivian Amazon and CIDOB 190

6 PERU: WEAK NATIONAL MOVEMENTS AND

Part I: Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia: Most Similar Cases 225

Part II: No National Indigenous Movements: Explaining

Part III: Explaining Subnational Variation 250

Part III: Conclusion

7 DEMOCRACY AND THE POSTLIBERAL

1.1 Estimates of Indigenous Peoples in Latin America

3.1 Emergence of Indigenous Movements in Latin America:

3.2 Emergence of Indigenous Movements in Latin America:

3.3 Latin American Indigenous Movements in the Context of

4.2 Distribution of Agricultural Lands, Ecuador (1954 and 1974

4.3 Ecuador: Number of Families/Beneficiaries and Hectares of

Land Distributed through Colonization and Land Reform

5.3 Evolution of Social Public Spending in Bolivia (1980–1989)

6.1 Peru: Number of Peasant and Native Communities, by

6.2 Peru’s Central Government Expenditure by Economic

In the summer of 1996, I traveled to Chiapas, Mexico, to take part in aZapatista conference entitled “The Intercontinental Conference for Hu-manity and Against Neoliberalism.” Thousands of people from all over theworld traveled to this conference, later dubbed the “Intergalactic Confer-ence,” to learn about the Zapatistas, make common cause with this move-ment, and strategize about a global fight for democracy and justice Theconference provided an opportunity to bear witness to extraordinary devel-opments in Mexico It also raised themes that resonated throughout LatinAmerica As I subsequently traveled to Guatemala, Ecuador, Bolivia, andPeru, I often recalled the speech read by the indigenous leader, Ana Mar´ıa,

at the opening event To the thousands of people who had traveled to LaRealidad, Chiapas, she said:

Below in the city and the plantations, we did not exist Our lives were worth lessthan the machines and the animals We were like rocks, like plants along the road

We did not have voices We did not have faces We did not have names We did nothave tomorrow We did not exist

Then we went to the mountains The mountains told us to take up arms to

have a voice, it told us to cover our faces to have a visage, it told us to forget ournames so that we could be named, it told us to protect our past so that we couldhave a tomorrow

Behind our black faces, behind our armed voice, behind our unnamed name, behind those of us that you see, behind us is you, behind us are the same simple and

ordinary men and women that are found in all ethnic and racial groups, that paintthemselves in all colors, that speak in all languages, and that live in all places.The same forgotten men and women

The same excluded people

The same people who are not tolerated.

The same people who are persecuted

We are the same as you Behind us is you.1

The rights to be heard, to be seen, to be recognized, and to be respectedare at the core of much indigenous organizing throughout the Americas –from Mexico, to Guatemala, to Ecuador, to Bolivia, and beyond This booksets out to explain the unprecedented and uneven emergence of these LatinAmerican indigenous movements They have assumed a dominant role insocial movements and have increasingly come to shape political agendasthroughout the region In the process, they have demanded a voice and aseat in places that once ignored indigenous peoples They have struggledfor equal treatment, just as they have demanded local autonomy

I thank, first and foremost, the indigenous activists who spent so many hourstalking with me about indigenous communities, movements, and politics

in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru – the countries that form the core of thisbook While those conversations took place several years ago, they are stillvery much alive for me I would particularly like to acknowledge AmpamKarakras, Jos´e Mar´ıa Cabascango, and Leonardo Viteri, in Ecuador; JenaroFlores, Constantino Lima, and Marcial Fabricano in Bolivia; and BonifacioCruz and Evaristo Nukjuag in Peru Some among this list welcomed meinto their homes; others brought me to conferences and workshops; otherssat down countless times to talk with me about indigenous movementsand democracy; they all opened up doors that allowed me to talk to otherindigenous activists and leaders I am indebted to them all for their insightand generosity, without which I could not have written this book

So too, several Latin American scholar-activists helped me to navigatenew and uncharted waters, helping me to decipher and to amplify thewealth of experiences, books, and ideas In particular, I want to thank XavierAlb ´o, Ricardo Calla, Mar´ıa Eugenia Choque, Carlos Mamani, and RamiroMolina in Bolivia and Juan Bottasso, Ampam Karakras, Diego Iturralde,Jorge Le ´on, and Galo Ram ´on in Ecuador Each of these scholars helped

me to better understand contemporary politics in the region and to makesense of the political similarities and differences among the countries situ-ated in the Andean-Amazon corridor

por la Humanidad y contra el Neoliberalismo Chiapas, Mexico 1996, pp 23–9.

In the United States, several people helped to lay the foundation for thisproject Jorge Dom´ınguez was the intellectual catalyst for this book At thetime, I was completing my first book on democracy and authoritarianism inCentral America Jorge asked me to write a chapter on indigenous move-ments and democratic governance for his co-edited volume with AbrahamLowenthal That fateful request sparked my fascination with ethnic politicsand ultimately led me to pursue the research that culminated in this book.Ted MacDonald, in turn, provided me with my first contacts in the field.

I thank him immensely for introducing me to people who proved to be

so consequential as I conducted the research, particularly in Ecuador andBolivia And to Sid Tarrow and Kay Warren, who took an early interest inthis project, read my work with care, challenged me intellectually to thinkabout the fields of social movements and anthropology, respectively, and

in turn invited me to take part in seminars that proved to be enormouslyproductive

In the process of writing this book, I have incurred many lectual debts to colleagues and friends who have shared their workand provided critical and insightful feedback on related articles, bookchapters, and conference presentations I thank, in particular, JeremyAdelman, Eva Bellin, Sheri Berman, Nancy Bermeo, Alyson Brysk, ValerieBunce, Miguel Centeno, John Coatsworth, David Collier, ChristianDavenport, Jorge I Dom´ınguez, Kent Eaton, Susan Eckstein, JonathanFox, Kevin Healy, Donald Horowitz, Courtney Jung, Ira Katznelson, ArangKeshavarzian, Margaret Keck, Atul Kohli, Roberto Laserna, AbrahamLowenthal, Jos´e Antonio Lucero, Beatriz Manz, Doug McAdam, KathleenMcNamara, Tali Mendelberg Guillermo O’Donnell, Rachel Sieder,Paul Sigmund, Theda Skocpol, Lynn Stephen, Sidney Tarrow, CharlesTilly, Donna Lee Van Cott, Kay Warren, Lynn White, and ElisabethWood

intel-This book is deeply indebted to the crew of excellent researchers whohelped me along the way I want to thank those who assisted me in thegathering of materials in the United States, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru.Rafael de la Dehesa, Anna Dahlstein, Tyler Dickovick, Lily Jara, EsperanzaLuj´an, Maritza Rodr´ıguez-Segu´ı, Daniela Raz, Adam Webb, Jorje Valle,and Verouschka Zilveti provided assistance in scouring bibliographies, re-viewing newspapers, and pulling together databases on socioeconomic indi-cators Lily Jara, Verouschka Zilveti, and Maritza Rodr´ıguez-Segu´ı played aparticularly important role in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru, respectively – each

of them compiling databases that were used in Part II of this book A special

thanks, moreover, to those students at Harvard and Princeton and leagues at the Institute for Popular Democracy who took seminars with me

col-on power and protest, social movements, and ethnic politics and citizenship.All of these seminar discussions helped to crystallize many of the ideas dis-cussed in these pages

This book would not have been possible without the generous supportprovided by the following agencies and research institutes: The UnitedStates Institute of Peace; the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies ofthe American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science ResearchCouncil; the Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the Uni-versity of Notre Dame; the Center for International Affairs and the MiltonGrant, both at Harvard University; Class of 1934 University Preceptorship

in the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University; Princeton sity’s Program in Latin American Studies; Princeton’s Lichtenstein Institute

Univer-on Self-DeterminatiUniver-on; the Center for Advanced Study in the BehavioralSciences summer Seminar on Contentious Politics; and the Institute forPopular Democracy in the Philippines

Lewis Bateman is a phenomenal editor: insightful, expedient, savvy, andwitty He made it a delight to work with Cambridge University Press andfound two reviewers, Charles Tilly and Elisabeth Wood, who were char-acteristically wise, thoughtful, and provocative Their critiques made this amuch better book than it would have been otherwise I also want to thankEdna Lloyd who helped me format the final manuscript with great dili-gence, speed, and kindness; Christine Dunn for the copyediting; BeckyHornyak for the index; Prerna Singh and William T Barndt for proofing;and Sorat Tungkasiri for sharpening the photograph pictured on the book’scover

Finally, I turn to my family Writing this book would not have been as fun,engaging, and thought provoking had it not been for John Gershman, mypartner John traveled with me throughout Latin America and then worked

by my side in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Manila, the Philippines; SouthBend, Indiana; and now Princeton, New Jersey His unmatched intellectualcuriosity, profound insight, and charming irreverence often made me look

at old material in new ways; this book and my life are all the better for it.Sarah and Rebecca Yashar-Gershman, our daughters, came along relativelylate in the game, both born after the research was done and at a point when

I thought I needed just one more year to complete the writing That oneyear turned into several more, years that have hands down been the mostexciting, hilarious, warm, if exhausting years of my life

It is to my parents, Audrey and John Yashar, that I dedicate this book.They have been an unending source of love, support, and inspiration Withtheir commitment to education, independence, and politics, they have al-ways encouraged me to chart my own path and pursue big questions –even when my answers differed from their own By their example, theyhave highlighted the importance of seeking that mutually beneficial, if elu-sive, balance between family and community, work and play In the face ofrepeated uncertainty and adversity, they have embodied strength, determi-nation, wisdom, and grace For all this and more, I dedicate this book tothem.

Deborah J YasharPrinceton, New JerseyFebruary 2004

CEB Communidades Eclesiales de Base

COICA Coordinadora de Organizaciones Ind´ıgenas de la

Cuenca Amaz ´onica

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

Bolivia

APCOB Apoyo para el Campesino-Ind´ıgena del Oriente

Boliviano

CANOB Centro Ayoreo Nativo del Oriente Boliviano

CEJIS Centro de Estudios Jur´ıdicos e Investigaci ´on Social

CICOL Central Ind´ıgena de Comunidades Originarias de

Lomer´ıo

CIDAC Centro de Investigaci ´on, Dise ˜no Artesenal y

Comercializaci ´on Cooperativa

CIDDEBENI Centro de Investigaci ´on y Documentaci ´on para el

Desarollo del Beni

CIDOB Confederaci ´on Ind´ıgena del Oriente, Chaco y

CNTCB Confederaci ´on Nacional de Trabajadores

Campesinos de Bolivia

COPNAG Central de Organizaciones de los Pueblos Nativos

Guarayos

CSUTCB Confederaci ´on Sindical Unica de Trabajadores

Campesinos de Bolivia

MITKA Movimiento Indio Tupak Katari

MRTKL Movimiento Revolucionario Tupak Katari de

Liberaci ´on

TAYPI Taller de Apoyo a Ayllus y Pueblos Ind´ıgenas

Ecuador

AIEPRA Asociaci ´on de Ind´ıgenas Evang´elicos de Pastaza

CEDOC Central Ecuatoriana de Organizaciones Clasistas

CEPCU Centro de Estudios Pluriculturales

CONACNIE Consejo de Coordinaci ´on de las Nacionalidades

Ind´ıgenas del Ecuador

CONAIE Confederaci ´on de Nacionalidades Ind´ıgenas del

Ecuador

CONFENAIE Confederaci ´on de Nacionalidades Ind´ıgenas de la

Amazon´ıa Ecuatoriana

ECUARUNARI Ecuador Runacunapac Riccharimui (Awakening of

the Ecuadorean Indian)

FEDECAP Federaci ´on de Desarrollo Campesino de Pastaza

FEINE Federaci ´on Ecuatoriana de Ind´ıgenas Evang´elicos

FENOC Federaci ´on Nacional de Organizaciones

Campesinas

FENOC-I Federaci ´on Nacional de Organizaciones

Campesinas e Ind´ıgenas

FEPOCAN Federaci ´on Provincial de Organizaciones

Campesinas del Napo

FODERUMA Fondo de Desarrollo Rural Marginal

IERAC Instituto Ecuatoriano de Reforma Agraria y

Colonizaci ´on

Guatemala

(Council of Ethnic Communities “We Are AllEqual”)

CONIC Coordinadora Nacional Ind´ıgena y Campesina

Mexico

AIDESEP Asociaci ´on Inter´etnica de Desarrollo de la Selva

Peruana

CONAP Confederaci ´on de Nacionalidades de la Amazon´ıa

Peruana

SINAMOS Sistema Nacional de Apoyo a la Movilizaci ´on

Nacional

Theoretical Framing

Questions, Approaches, and Cases

Ethnic movements have (re)surfaced with the most recent round of mocratization in Latin America, Southern Europe, Asia, and Africa Whilethese movements vary considerably, they have collectively challenged pre-vailing ideas about citizenship and the nation-state In particular, theyhave questioned the idea that the nation-state, as currently conceivedand constituted, serves as the legitimate basis for extending and definingdemocratic citizenship rights and responsibilities Alongside an older set

de-of demands for equal inclusion and access for all ethnic groups, we creasingly find demands for the recognition of group rights and ethnicself-determination

in-The emergence of these movements in Latin America is particularlystriking While ethnic-based movements have a long history of organizing,protesting, and mobilizing in Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe, there hasbeen no comparable pattern of ethnic-based organizing in contemporaryLatin America, until recently.1 Indigenous people in Latin America havemobilized in the past, but rarely to advance ethnic-based claims and agen-das Indeed, the cultural pluralism literature often identified Latin America

famous 1780s rebellion led by Tupak Amaru and Tupak Katari As social historians continue

to excavate history from dusty and faraway archives, we continue to learn of numerous localized rebellions coupled with ongoing forms of what Scott (1985) has popularized as

“everyday forms of resistance.” Yet, these rebellions remain the exception in Latin American history They certainly did not emerge as national or sustained movements And by the early twentieth century, movements rarely mobilized around indigenous-based claims See

Argentina, and Brazil.

as the exception, the region where ethnic political debates, mobilization,and conflict did not occur.2It is no longer possible to sustain this position.During the course of the last third of the twentieth century, significantand unprecedented indigenous movements emerged throughout the Amer-icas.3An indigenous uprising shut down roads, occupied churches, and cutoff commerce in Ecuador in June 1990 – marking the presence and strength

of Ecuador’s organized indigenous population and emerging indigenousagenda An indigenous march covered 650 kilometers from the lowlands

of the Bolivian Amazon to the highland capital of La Paz later that sameyear Indigenous people in Chiapas confronted the Mexican state on NewYear’s Day 1994 and subsequently articulated a set of ethnic-based demands.Mayan Indians in Guatemala coordinated the Second Continental Meeting

of Indigenous and Popular Resistance in 1991, an event that coincided withthe founding of various Mayan organizations.4International forums cele-brating indigenous resistance and culture flourished in 1992, followed bythe United Nations’ (UN) decision to call for an International Decade ofthe World’s Indigenous People (1995–2004) and to finish work on the Dec-laration on the Rights of Indigenous People Moreover, indigenous leadersthroughout the Americas have taken a more active role in debating policy,shaping institutional design, and running for political office In Colombiaand Ecuador, for example, indigenous rights were discussed in constituentassemblies in 1990–1991 and 1997–1998, respectively In Ecuador, Bolivia,and Guatemala, indigenous movements have fielded political candidates

in local and national elections And throughout Latin America, ments have played a key role in discussions about land reform, land use,bicultural education, and census taking, among other issues Indeed in

move-1997 and 2000, indigenous movements in Ecuador were among the mary actors that took to the streets and successfully toppled two differentpresidents

pri-In short, in Latin America rural men and women are coming together

as Indians in regional and national organizations and making claims denied

Afrolatins alongside that of the region’s indigenous peoples and popular sectors.

them as Indians This is happening just as more traditional labor andpeasant-based organizations have declined in organizational strength Forjust as workers, women, leftists, and others have become less prone to en-gage in movement organizing and protest politics, we have found a burst

of widespread protest among indigenous peoples in the region It is notthat Indians have not organized in the past However, they have not orga-nized along ethnic lines to promote an explicitly indigenous agenda Withthe contemporary formation of indigenous movements in Latin America,indigenous peoples are contesting the terms of citizenship They are de-manding equal rights; but they are also demanding recognition of specialrights as native peoples – with claims to land, autonomous juridical spheres,and the right to maintain ethnonational identities distinct from, but forma-tive of, a multinational state As such, they are opening up the debate aboutwhat citizenship entails – particularly in a multicultural context

This book explains the uneven emergence, timing, and location of digenous protest in contemporary Latin America: why indigenous move-ments have emerged now and not before; and why they have emerged insome places and not others In the process, it speaks to several broaderdebates: How does state formation (un)intentionally shape political iden-tities and the salience of ethnic cleavages? Under what circumstances cansocial actors mobilize around new political claims? What is the relationshipbetween ethnicity and democracy? And how are ethnic movements trying

in-to push new democracies in a postliberal direction?

A Meso-Level Approach: National Projects, the Reach of the State, and Unintended Consequences

To explain the timing and location of indigenous organizing in LatinAmerica, this book begins with a simple but all-too-often overlooked obser-vation about identity politics Institutions matter In particular, in the era ofthe nation-state, it is the state that fundamentally defines the public terms

of national political identity formation, expression, and mobilization.5sofar as states are the prevailing political units in our world and insofar as

to the state He observed that the move from local fiefdoms to nation-states shifted the terrain

of political action It encouraged actors to scale up their actions from local to national levels The point being made here parallels Tilly’s key insight but focuses more specifically on the identities that are privileged rather than the scale and target of social mobilization.

they extend/restrict political citizenship and define national projects,6theyinstitutionalize and privilege certain national political identities In turn,they provide incentives for actors to publicly express some political identi-ties over others In this regard, states try to shape, coordinate, and channelpublic identities.

In analyzing identity politics, it is therefore logical to use the state as thepoint of departure In particular, this book sets out to analyze how LatinAmerican states attempted to structure society – its identities, interests,and preferences – by taking a careful look at a complex of state institutions:citizenship regimes The latter have played a disproportionately impor-tant role both in shaping and later reflecting state-projected nationalisms

As discussed at length in Chapter2, citizenship regimes define who has political membership, which rights they possess, and how interest interme-

diation with the state is structured The state, in general, and citizenship

regimes, in particular, play a key role in formally defining the

intersec-tion between naintersec-tional politics, political membership, and public identities

As citizenship regimes have changed over time, so too have the publiclysanctioned players, rules of the game, and likely (but not preordained)outcomes

However, the state and citizenship regimes cannot be studied in an tutional vacuum; nor can publicly sanctioned identities, rights, and modes

insti-of interest intermediation be taken at face value For as several key works

on the state have highlighted, while we must analyze the state, we cannot

as-sume that states are competent, purposive, coherent, and capable Nor can

we assume a preconstituted society that will respond predictably to tional change.7 To the contrary, we must analyze states and state projects

institu-in light of the reach of the state – understood institu-in terms of the state’s actual

penetration throughout the country and its capacity to govern society Forthe reach of the state can vary considerably Not only is the state virtuallyabsent in many areas nominally governed by it but the state’s proclaimedcontrol over governed areas is often undermined by weak and incapableinstitutions

institutions whose capacity and institutionalization vary among countries and subnationally.

Consequently, state projects do not necessarily translate into stated comes With respect to national projects and political identities this meansthat publicly sanctioned identities do not necessarily equal private identitiesand preferences People can and do have several identities and can expressthose identities in different forums This is not just a pluralist or postmod-ern insight It is also one that Geertz (1963) advocated in his discussion

out-of new nation-states confronted with diverse ethnic populations He notedthat states need to encourage ethnic groups to adopt a shared civic iden-tity before the state and to express their ethnic identities in more privateforums One does not have to agree with Geertz’s policy recommendation

to agree with his insight that this is possible

Hence state projects must be assessed against the reach of the state.Where the state has unevenly penetrated society, local enclaves provide anarena for “private” identities to find public expression We have found thisdynamic with the Muslim Brotherhood throughout much of the MiddleEast, the Basques in northern Spain, and Catholics in Northern Ireland

We will find that indigenous peoples in Latin America also operate in thiskind of context: states have privileged certain identities and interests buthave been too weak to impose them While in the Amazon, state weakness

is a function of the relative absence of the state In the Andes and ruralareas in Mesoamerica, it is a function of the varied capacity of the state

to penetrate into these localities and displace preexisting forms of nance In all these areas, a certain kind of local autonomy remained – one inwhich ethnic identities remained salient, local authority structures evolved,and actors learned to maneuver between local ethnicities and nationalidentities

gover-What can one take away from this brief discussion? For it started off byasserting the centrality of states and concluded by noting their partial and

at times unintended impact

r States privilege certain political identities – particularly through

differ-ent forms of citizenship regimes In this regard, political iddiffer-entities arehistorically contingent, institutionally bounded, and open to change

r The reach of the state, however, shapes the degree to which states

suc-cessfully impose these political identities throughout society Nationalprojects can produce fractured responses, precisely because states con-front complex societies that do not always share common experiencesvis-`a-vis the state In this regard, political identities are not entirelymalleable

r Where the reach of the state is uneven, in particular, local enclaves can

persist and alternative political identities and authority structures cancoexist subnationally with national projects that suggest otherwise

r By extension, where new rounds of state formation challenge

(inten-tionally or otherwise) the autonomy of these enclaves, we should not besurprised to find resistance and, where possible, mobilization

r In this regard, historical sequencing matters We can assume neither

that states nor societies persist independently of one another Hence, weneed to look at how states interact with society and, in turn, how societyresponds to and/or resists state efforts

In short, this book argues that political identities are historically tingent, institutionally bounded, and open to change States (and those inpower) set the stage but societies do not always conform to the script This

con-is because even if the state can define the terms of public interaction, itcannot impose preferences or displace identities; for political identities areneither fixed nor completely malleable Indeed, they operate differently indifferent arenas and at different times The question then becomes, why

do some identities and interests become more important at some times and

not at others, in some places and not others And when and why do thosepoliticized identities translate into political action?

To explain changes in identity politics (in this case, the contemporaryemergence of indigenous movements in Latin America), this approach leadsone to hypothesize that important institutional changes might have politi-cized identities in new and unintended ways This is precisely what this bookfinds In the context of Latin America’s indigenous movements, I argue that

contemporary changes in citizenship regimes politicized indigenous identities

precisely because they unwittingly challenged enclaves of local autonomythat had gone largely unrecognized by the state However, I will also ar-gue that we cannot simply infer mobilization from motives, a point drawnfrom scholarship on social movements and contentious politics.8 Indeed,

one must also consider two additional factors, the political associational space that provided the political opportunity to organize and the transcommunity networks that provided the capacity for diverse and often spatially distant

indigenous community to scale up and confront the state This book ops this three-pronged argument conceptually (Chapter2), theoretically(Chapter3), and empirically (Chapters4–6)

Prevailing Explanations

This meso-level approach differs from the prevailing theories of identitypolitics It is neither bound by local primordialism, on one end of the spec-trum, nor transnational constructivism, on the other Rather, the approachdeveloped here consciously seeks to find a middle ground in which institu-tions become the historical referent for, but not the contemporary composer

of, political identities I argue that this mid-range comparative approach ismore compelling, precisely because it can explain change over time andvariation among cases, something that the prevailing explanations cannot(yet) do Here I critically review five explanations that have been marshaled

in recent years to explain identity politics, in general, and ethnic politics, inparticular While each approach is provocative, I find that none of them pro-vides the adequate point of departure to explain change and variation This isbecause they lack a temporal and/or spatial understanding of political iden-tities and their relationship to the state To these approaches I now turn

identi-is assumed that actors possess a strong sense of ethnic or racial identity

that primarily shapes their actions and worldview Accordingly,

individu-als and communities commonly advance and/or defend ethnically derivedconcerns – particularly when they perceive a disadvantage or long-standingabuse or ethnic slight The emergence of indigenous organizations andprotest are therefore understood as a natural expression of integral eth-nic identities Identities are fixed They are locally rooted They are oftenunderstood as immutable

Primordial arguments have found their greatest renaissance amongchroniclers of the former Soviet Union, former Yugoslavia, Burundi,Rwanda, and Israel/Palestine In the first two cases, it is argued that polit-ical regimes repressed a deeply rooted sense of national identity The sub-sequent breakdown of repressive political institutions enabled submergedethno-national identities to resurface; and with that rebirth, nations have

naturally aspired to establish their own nation-state In the latter threecases, the ongoing conflict is analyzed as a consequence of historic antago-nisms, whether within or between states As the press would have it, there

is long-standing animosity going back as long as anyone can rememberthat explains the ongoing and brutal conflict between primordial groups

in Burundi, Rwanda, Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and just aboutanywhere where ethnic conflicts appear

Yet, primordial arguments fall short First, they cannot be empiricallysustained Detailed case studies and comparative analyses have revealed theconstructed and changing nature of ethnic identities Identities are not fixed

nor do they have natural affinities In Latin America, for example, Indian

is not a natural category It is a category imposed by colonial powers; it doesnot recognize the diversity (and at times historical animosity) among indige-nous communities To forge an indigenous movement in the contemporaryera, activists had to convince people to expand their self-identification from

Quichua, or Shuar, or Totzil or something else to Indian This was not a

given And in the process of organizing and protesting, those identities,interests, and preferences were open to further change The situational andevolving terms of ethnic identities and political mobilization have been con-vincingly demonstrated and widely accepted by anthropologists and social

historians Consequently, one can argue that primordial sentiments, to use

Geertz’s term, are strong in some cases; but the historical explanation ofthat sentiment is weak

Moreover, the primordial approach sidesteps the fundamental question

of why these identities emerge as a central axis of action in some cases andnot others Ethnic/national identities and conflicts are not reclaimed ev-erywhere, even when there are moments of political opening Hence, even

if democratization allows for the greater expression of ethnic identity, thisdoes not mean that individuals assume that political identity And wherethey do, it is not apparent that they do so for primordial reasons (as op-posed to strategic ones, as discussed next) The cases of Latin America aremost instructive here Earlier rounds of democratization did not lead tothe emergence of indigenous organizations or ethnic conflict – even whenindigenous identities were clearly significant at the local level Indeed, abasic claim of this book is that the politicization of ethnic cleavages is a newphenomenon in the region Finally, even if we assume that ethnic loyaltiesare given, unchanging, and deeply rooted (an extremely dubious assump-tion to begin with), primordialist arguments provide little insight into why,when, or how these identities translate into political organizing and action

in some cases and not others For even if ethnicity is the primary identitythat affects where one lives, how one votes, and where one spends money, itdoes not mean that individuals will join political organizations and mobilize

on behalf of their ethnic group

In short, the emergence of ethnic movements and conflicts speaks to thesalience of ethnic identities; but primordial arguments fail to problematizewhen, why, and where identities become politically salient and the condi-tions under which they engender political organizations

Instrumentalism

Instrumentalist or rational choice analyses challenge the primordial sumption that ethnic identities as such motivate collective action Instru-mentalists begin by assuming that individuals have fixed preferences, aregoal oriented, act intentionally, and engage in utility-maximizing behav-ior.10 These assumptions lead instrumentalists to ask a) why individuals

as-choose to organize (along ethnic lines) and b) why they as-choose to act tively, particularly if in the absence of doing so they can still enjoy collective

collec-benefits This last point has been elaborated most skillfully by MancurOlson (1965) In other words, while they question primordialism’s assump-tions about the naturalness of identity and the group, they share an as-sumption that preferences are fixed But whereas primordialists assumethat groups seek to maintain the integrity and autonomy of the group,

as such, instrumentalists tend to analyze the maximization of other goals:

generally economic resources, power, and/or security To explain why viduals choose to act, therefore, they assess the costs and benefits alongsidethe positive and negative incentives In other words, one needs to look atindividual intentionality and its collective consequences

indi-Instrumental approaches to collective ethnic action have addressed avariety of dynamics: ethnic mobilization in Africa (Bates1974), languagechoices in the post-Soviet world (Laitin1998), ethnic conflict (Fearon andLaitin1996; Bates, Figueiredo, and Weingast1998), and feelings of belong-ing (Hardin1995) These authors, in turn, have articulated a provocativeset of arguments Bates focuses on modernization and the ways in which itprovides new opportunities for political entrepreneurs who seek to secure

access to scarce resources Laitin focuses on the cascade dynamic to explainlanguage choices in a context of relative political stability versus change.Fearon and Laitin analyze the security dilemma in light of information ex-changes, signaling, and the problems poised by noise Hardin provides atheoretical explanation of the need to belong to groups and how that canspiral into conflict In other words, the approach has been used to explain

a wide range of outcomes In some cases political entrepreneurs play anactive role In others they do not But in all of them, decisions are made at amicroanalytic level – taking individual actors as the unit of analysis, assum-ing their preferences, and looking at the aggregation of individual-baseddecisions to explain broad macro-analytic outcomes

But regardless of the particular argument, instrumentalist explanations

of collective ethnic action share one general problem They tend to shift

the question away from why ethnicity (as opposed to some other identity)

becomes salient to a discussion of how to maximize a particular goal (be

it material gain, security, belonging, or something else) In this scenario,the politicization of ethnicity is largely instrumental to achieving othergoals; the ethnic card is one tool among many The conditions under whichethnicity becomes politicized is less relevant to these studies than modelingand predicting the utility and capacity of ethnicity for collective action.Yet, this recrafting of the question sidesteps why ethnic loyalties become

the basis for political action at one time versus another These studies to date have provided little insight into how one arrives at utility functions –

particularly if actors are not acting in their economic self-interest – out making post hoc arguments; why actors occasionally act in ways thatappear detrimental to their material interests; and when and why ethnic-ity (as opposed to other categories) becomes politicized To answer thesecentral questions, one needs to move away from rational choice’s trade-mark parsimony to historically grounded determinations of preferencesand institutional boundaries, as found in Laitin (1998).11 As argued inthis book, indigenous movements are rational responses to changing in-stitutional circumstances The changing circumstances, rather than the

why individuals privilege ethnic identities in some cases and not others Fearon and Laitin

better inform one another – with rational choice, for example, underscoring the strategic calculations embedded in cultural analyses and culturalist explanations, in turn, providing a better understanding of the discourses and heuristic frames that are mobilized in situations

of ethnic violence.

rationality, however, are the key variables to explaining why, when, andwhere movements emerge.12

Poststructuralism

Poststructural alternatives challenge the prior two approaches.13 Despitetheir diversity, poststructural approaches commonly assume that identitiesare not given or ordered but socially constructed and evolving Individuals

do not necessarily identify with or act according to structurally definedpositions, for structural conditions do not determine or define actors inany kind of uniform, unitary, or teleological fashion Individuals are pluralsubjects and power is more diffuse As subjects, they can assume a role infashioning and reconstituting their identities (e.g., as Indians, workers, orwomen), although there is no agreement over the degree of choice thatactors have vis-`a-vis these diffused power relations

Poststructuralism opened the door to see ethnic identities as primaryand purposive without arguing that they are primordial or instrumental innature By challenging structural and teleological explanations, it problema-tized identity rather than assuming it By refocusing on the local, analyzingdiscourse, and highlighting identity as a social construction, poststructuralstudies have heightened our sense of context, complexity, and the dynamicprocess by which agents (re)negotiate their identities Indigenous identity

is, from this perspective, both constituted by social conditions as well asrenegotiated by individuals

This book draws on poststructural assumptions that individuals are ral subjects with multiple configured identities; these identities are sociallyconstructed and transmutable But it also assumes that very real structuralconditions of poverty and authoritarian rule can impede the unencumberedexpression of identities and pursuit of collective action just as they canshape needs as preferences Given the structural conditions faced by LatinAmerica’s indigenous peoples, I do not ascribe to the literary method thatpushes scholarship in a discursive and relativist direction Discursive anal-yses cannot speak to the comparative questions raised in this book While

which ethnic identity becomes politically salient for a group of people, they do provide

that privileges strategy (discussed here) versus identity (discussed next).

problematizing ethnicity, poststructural approaches can neither explain why

it becomes assumed as a salient political identity across cases nor delineate the

conditions under which people are likely or able to organize around thatidentity Many poststructural theorists would argue that these questionswrongly presuppose universal explanations (where none exist) Ultimately,the poststructural distancing from generalized explanations begs the ques-tion as to why indigenous movements have emerged throughout the Amer-icas in the past decades In other words, it is difficult for these approaches

to scale up from the individual and local to the regional and comparative

Structural Conditions of Poverty and Inequality

A fourth approach focuses on structural or material conditions of povertyand inequality It is a given in Latin America that indigenous populations ex-perience ethnic discrimination, marginalization, material deprivation, andeconomic exploitation “World Bank and other development agencies in-dicate that Indians remain the poorest and most destitute of the region’spopulation, with the highest rate of infant mortality and childhood malnu-trition and the lowest rates of literacy and schooling” (David and Partridge

1994: 38) Carlos Fuentes, speaking of the inextricable fusion of ethnic andclass identities among the Mayan in Chiapas, said: “What has an extremelylong lifespan is the sequence of poverty, injustice, plunder and violation inwhich, since the 16th century, live the Indians who are peasants and the peas-ants who are Indians.”14Indeed, ethnically stratified poverty is all the morestriking and onerous given that: “[e]ven before the severe adjustment ofthe 1980s, Latin America had the most inequitable income distribution andthe highest level of poverty relative to its income of any area in the world”(Morley1995: vi) According to Gurr (1993: 61 and2000: ch.4), indigenouspeoples in Latin America have experienced among the highest discrimina-tory barriers (along economic, political, and cultural lines) in the world.These material or structural conditions have disadvantaged indigenouscommunities for centuries and constitute a constant source of conflict andobject of change Resistance has assumed multiple forms from sporadic re-bellions to everyday forms of resistance embedded in dances, stories, andrituals that are an integral part of indigenous communities.15The dance

of the conquest (practiced in various indigenous communities throughout

14New York Times op-ed reprinted in the Boston Globe, January 11, 1994.

Latin America), for example, has been amply studied by anthropologistswho have highlighted the ways in which the dance is a vivid reminder of anongoing process of colonization, anger against the landlord, and expression

of resistance Similarly, the Popul Vuj (the Mayan book of origin) weavesmany complex tapestries of meaning, one of which is the oft-repeatedphrase: “May we all rise up, may no one be left behind.”

Yet, looking at structural conditions of poverty and inequality alone not explain the contemporary and continental-wide rise in indigenous mo-bilization in Latin America or elsewhere This is because these structuralconditions are constant They coincide both with the lack of mobilization

can-in earlier times and the rise can-in mobilization can-in the contemporary period.Moreover, differences in poverty rates do not coincide with the unevenemergence of these movements Poverty rates, for example, are indisputablyhigher in the Amazon than in the Andes.16Yet, there is no clear correla-tion between poverty rates, the emergence of indigenous movements, andtheir strength and/or their mobilizational capacity Relative to the Andes,Amazonian movements emerge early in Ecuador, late in Bolivia, and with-out rival in Peru In other words, poverty and inequality are severe andongoing concerns But they are poor predictors of when, where, and whyindigenous movements emerge.17

Amazonian cantons.

ethnic mobilization, one cannot begin to respond to the demands of these communities without redressing these very structural conditions.

This approach has put forth several types of arguments to explain theinteraction of globalization and the salience of ethnic identities Mostcommonly argued is that globalization has heightened inequalities in therace to integrate markets Economic integration, therefore, can threateneconomic livelihoods, national sovereignty, and/or cultural boundaries.Protest emerges as a defensive response to integrated markets.19 Fromthis perspective, one would hypothesize that free markets harm indige-nous ways of life and, therefore, politicize indigenous communities totake action A second approach identifies the emergence of a transnationalcivil society and/or transnational advocacy networks.20This new transna-tional context provides networks, resources, information, funds, and soforth that were previously inaccessible to groups Under these circum-stances politically weak groups, including ethnic communities, have gainedthe opportunity and capacity to protest They have become politicallystronger with the support, information, and funding provided by vari-ous international organizations, nongovermental organizations (NGOs),funding agencies, and professional associations A final globalization argu-ment contends that globalization has produced new sets of norms and ideas,including human rights, and indigenous rights, and environmental rights,among others These are increasingly instantiated in international institu-tions that legitimate and propagate these ideas In turn, these ideas shapeself-understandings and legitimate the demands of new social movements,including ethnic-based movements.21

Each of these approaches is at first blush compelling and aptly scribes important movements that have gained substantial press – includingthe Zapatista protest against the North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA), indigenous protests against international oil exploration, indige-nous participation in UN working groups and professional conferences,and collective efforts to pass the International Labor Organization’s (ILO)Convention 169 In other words, there appears to be a descriptive fit be-tween certain aspects of globalization and the campaigns launched by somemovements

de-Yet globalization approaches remain blunt instruments to address theregionwide politicization of ethnic cleavages, in general, and indigenousmovements in Latin America, in particular This is so for several reasons

his arguments about protest could logically include new ethnic movements.