Suchergebnisse

In 2008, voters in Ecuador approved a new and progressive constitution. Indigenous leaders questioned whether the new document would benefit social movements or strengthen the hand of President Rafael Correa, who appeared to be occupying political spaces that they had previously held. Correa's relations with indigenous movements point to the complications, limitations, and deep tensions inherent in pursuing revolutionary changes within a constitutional framework. Although the indigenous movements, as well as most social movements, shared Correa's stated desire to curtail neoliberal policies and implement social and economic strategies that would benefit the majority of the country's people, they increasingly clashed over how to realize those objectives. The political outcome of the new constitution depended not on the actions of the constituent assembly but on whether organized civil society could force the government to implement the ideals that the assembly had drafted.

To what extent might an indigenous mayor govern beyond ethnically defined grievances, without being labelled traitor by the indigenous organisation? This article deals with the challenges faced by the Ecuadorian indigenous movement when it attains power in local government. The issue will be explored through the case of Mario Conejo, who in 2000 became the first indigenous mayor of Otavalo representing the indigenous political movement Pachakutik. Although ethnically based tensions in the local indigenous movement were evident throughout the period, 2006 saw Conejo leave Pachakutik and create a new political movement. This rupture can be traced, I argue, to an intercultural dilemma and the difficulties of ethnically defined political movements. ; authorCount :1

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Chronology -- Acronyms -- One What Is an Indian? -- Two Socialism -- Three Strike! -- Four Federación Ecuatoriana de Indios -- Five Guachalá -- Six Agrarian Reform? -- Seven Return of the Indian -- Eight Pachakutik -- Notes -- Glossary -- Biographies -- Bibliography -- Index

For more than two decades, the indigenous movement in Ecuador has been –and despite a recent crisis still is– one of the most important social actors in Ecuador and Latin America. Its specificity of being mostly based on ethnic identity seems to have impeded a coherent interpretation of this movement as a social one, that is, an interpretation based on theories of social movements. Indeed, most analysis of this movement tend to focus on its discourse, its fight against racism and exclusion or its relationship with state and government. Only very few try to apply social movement theories on this social movement. This text will be one of them. Given that this research has an exploratory character, the theory used as an interpretative base will be resource mobilization theory, correcting its shortcomings, especially concerning discourse and culture, with other theories. The development of the organizations of the indigenous movement and the relations between them will be studied, highlighting the political, discursive and strategic differences and points of contact. By this, not only a compared history of the different organizations will be achieved, but also a specification of the thesis of the "crisis of the indigenous movement" in Ecuador. The special relationship with Rafael Correa and the subsequent efforts of unity and attempts of division will be another focus of this article. ; Desde hace más de dos décadas, el movimiento indígena ecuatoriano ha sido y –no obstante su crisis en los últimos años– sigue siendo uno de los actores sociales más importantes del Ecuador y de América Latina. Su característica específica, la de basarse en la identidad étnica, parece haber complicado una interpretación coherente de este movimiento social como tal desde las teorías de movimientos sociales. De hecho, la mayoría de los análisis de este movimiento tiende a enfocarse en su discurso, su lucha contra el racismo y la exclusión, o su relación con el Estado y el gobierno. Sólo muy pocos estudios intentan aplicar teorías de movimientos sociales a este movimiento social. Este texto pretende formar parte de dichos estudios. Dado que esta investigación es de carácter exploratorio, la teoría usada como base interpretativa será la teoría de movilización de recursos, actualizada en cuanto a su trato de discursos y aspectos culturales. Se analizará el desarrollo de las organizaciones del movimiento indígena y la relación entre éstas, destacando las diferencias y puntos de encuentro de carácter político, discursivo y estratégico. De esta forma, no sólo se llegará a una historia comparada de las diferentes organizaciones, sino a una especificación de la tesis de la "crisis del movimiento indígena" en el Ecuador a partir de 2003. La relación especial con el gobierno de Rafael Correa y los subsiguientes esfuerzos de unidad e intentos de división serán otro tópico a tratar en este artículo.

President Toledo's platform and the Bagua uprisings brought Peru's Indigenous movements into the limelight. The long and significant history of these movements, however, is often overshadowed by these recent events. Peru's Indigenous movements gained strength and momentum decades earlier, forming regional as well as international linkages to assert their rights and resist exploitation of their territories. However, the Indigenous movements of the Amazon have lacked recognition in political and scholarly discussion. This analysis examines the factors that have silenced them, in addition to illuminating several avenues that recent Indigenous movements have been exploring since the 1970s. Future research should take into account the "little things" and quieter narratives, as well as the political factors eclipsing them, in order to provide a more accurate picture of Indigenous movements in Peru.

The mobilization of militant Indigenous politics is one of the most important stories in Latin American studies today. In this critical work, Kenneth J. Mijeski and Scott H. Beck examine the rise and decline of Ecuador's leading Indigenous party, Pachakutik, as it tried to transform the state into a participative democracy. Using in-depth interviews with political activists, as well as a powerful statistical analysis of election results, the authors show that the political election game failed to advance the causes of Ecuador's poor or the movement's own Indigenous supporters.

The Ecuadorian indigenous movement has developed the concept of Good Life (Sumak Kawsay or Buen Vivir) as a conceptual weapon in order to defend the territories of indigenous nationalities as the movement itself defines them. Starting in 2002, petroleum exploitation in indigenous areas in the Amazon has been denounced as an attack against the principles of the traditional concept of Good Life. The introduction of the concept of Good Life allowed the local as well as the national indigenous organizations to define their vision of the country and society, while allowing easier coalitions with a growing Ecological Left. Good Life is not only a new content in the indigenous discourse, but also an instrument for social movement mobilization and coalition building. This text aims to offer a clearer idea of what the indigenous movement in Ecuador understands as Good Life, the development of the concept, the different contents and relations it has, and its strategic use in Ecuadorian politics.

To what extent might an indigenous mayor govern beyond ethnically defined grievances, without being labelled traitor by the indigenous organisation? This article deals with the challenges faced by the Ecuadorian indigenous movement when it attains power in local government. The issue will be explored through the case of Mario Conejo, who in 2000 became the first indigenous mayor of Otavalo representing the indigenous political movement Pachakutik. Although ethnically based tensions in the local indigenous movement were evident throughout the period, 2006 saw Conejo leave Pachakutik and create a new political movement. This rupture can be traced, I argue, to an intercultural dilemma and the difficulties of ethnically defined political movements.