Indigenous municipalities in Ecuador and Bolivia:
transnational connections and exclusionary political
cultures
Paper prepared for the workshop
“Beyond the lost decade: indigenous movements and the transformation of development and democracy in Latin America” University of Princeton, 2-3 March 2001
Sarah A. Radcliffe,
Department of Geography, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB2 3EN, UK
sar23@cam.ac.uk
In Andean Latin America, profound political changes are currently occurring under neo-liberal precepts, including “rural municipalization”, that is, the inclusion of rural areas and their populations under the remit of newly-formed municipalities. Simultaneously, neo-liberal development reforms concerned with social capital, legislation to increase the electoral voice of previously excluded groups as well as intensified rural-urban connections occur. These changes reconfigure the spaces of politics away from a core metropolitan centralized state, to a “municipalized” and putatively more participatory state. State reforms have aimed to redistribute resources to non-metropolitan (often rural) populations. However, power and resources remain tied to exclusionary political cultures and social divisions that undermine efforts by states and transnational agencies to increase opportunity and participation.
Ecuadorian municipalities led by indigenous mayors or with a number of indigenous elected officials – what I call in shorthand here indigenous municipalities - represent the construction of a politics contesting the exclusion of indigenous peoples from formal politics. However, these municipalities continue to operate within a highly fractured and weak central state, an international policy field concerned with “indigenous affairs”, and an informal political culture that marginalizes indigenous and female subjects. In developing my argument, I consider the transformations in provincial municipalities, their political procedures and cultures through which they organize relations between subjects, places and spaces. I suggest that the legitimacy of municipal authorities arose out of their electoral strengths in areas where indigenous electorates have a choice of candidates, but that the operation of political authority in office remains difficult for indigenous male and female leaders, due to persistent cultural values around politics and seniority.
In Latin America, it can be argued, citizenship no longer entails a direct – if highly problematic and often nationalistic – engagement with a strongly centralized state (see, among others, Joseph and Nugent 1994). Rather, meaningful political activism and representation occurs through local state administrations, local and civil associations, and through engagement with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and quasi-governmental agencies. These political institutions now oversee services, development funds, education and other elements of civil life that previously fell under the remit of an uneven central state (cf.. Van Cott 2000b; Reilly 1995; Morris 1992). Such re-scaling of politics owes much of the power of its rhetoric and practice to transnational neo-liberal interventions and agendas. The current phase of neo-liberal development places a heavy emphasis on participatory planning, while both neo-liberals and their critics promote “social capital” as the missing ingredient in successful “good governance” or participatory development. These themes can be examined and elaborated in light of the emergence of “innovative municipalities” in Ecuador and Bolivia[1].
Political cultures that exclude particular groups from decision-making and authority positions are embedded in quotidian lives and so taken for granted that they are often implicit in agenda setting and the formation of political constituencies. However, it is these political cultures that must be taken into account in analyzing decentralized urban politics. Cases of indigenous and female representation are examined here as windows onto prevailing political cultures.
Indigenous peoples have long been excluded from formal and informal criteria of citizenship[2] in much of Central and South America, so their emergence into the political life challenges ideas of citizenship as well as the state (Van Cott 1994, 2000b); (Yashar 1999). Bursting on to the political scene from the 1980s, particularly in the wake of the “500 years of resistance” campaign culminating in 1992, indigenous peoples have offered an anti-colonial and democratizing imaginary and discourse[3]. Indigenous people in many countries have organized politically on an unprecedented scale, and have shifted the political agendas of their respective countries[4]. Not only have these subaltern groups entered central state politics over recent years[5], but they have also challenged exclusionary political cultures, demanding spaces for autonomy, cultural renovation, and the reconstitution of indigenous “nationalities” and “peoples”[6]. As Deborah Yashar notes, “ethnic movements, in particular, have come increasingly to contest the foundations and contours of contemporary democratic practices and secure political autonomy” (Yashar 1999: 1). The indigenous movement has challenged the formal articulation of citizenship and remit of the state, by building from a broad-based social movement into a political movement. These factors necessarily entail profound implications for previously marginal groups’ political participation, and the administration of development (Kearney 1996).
In the first section of the paper, I outline recent changes in neo-liberal development theory and decentralization legislation in the Andean countries. This leads to a discussion of how the agendas of social participation and neo-liberal development have been brought together in Ecuador and Bolivia[7]. I focus on how municipalities have gained powers, political constituencies and international connections that result in distinct – and in many ways, unprecedented – social and spatial formations. In the third and fourth sections of the paper, I examine the patterns of inclusion generated by legislative and constitutional change, before turning to the enduring exclusionary cultural politics in the emerging political spaces. The conclusions address questions of reconfigurations of urban political rules and cultures in light of the experience of Andean indigenous municipalities.
II Neoliberal development and decentralization: reconfiguring social capital and political constituencies
With return to formal
electoral democracies and neo-liberal structural adjustment measures in the
1980s, two notable effects were felt in social formations and urban politics.
On the one hand, more intensive rural-urban connections occurred[8],
while in legislative provision, municipalization and decentralization were the
buzz-words of the decade. Both contributed to the blurring of lines around
previously taken-for-granted political spaces and designated subjects.
Decentralization is the
modish pattern of state reform in Latin America, where throughout the region
the number of municipalities has increased compared with a decline in Europe.
From 13,000 in the early 1990s, municipalities in the region now number around
16,000 (Arboleda and Rodriguez 1993;
Carrión 1998). Within the social development agenda,
decentralization is promoted as a means of social participation and efficiency[9].
While seeking to increase levels of transparency and participation,
decentralization fulfills international donor demands for accountability,
although of course with the necessary correlate of reductions of core state
promotion of local and regional development (Coraggio
1998). Whether in terms of federalism, de-concentration or
municipalities, decentralization represents a key administrative plank of
neo-liberal reforms. A World Bank director of such programmes argues that the
benefits of decentralization and democratization bring infrastructure and
social investment to remote councils and communities (Davis 2000: 20).
This has had a number of
inter-related consequences for the nature of politics and society-state
interactions in Latin America. In the historically centralized Andean states,
recent policy emphases on municipalities and regionalization grant ostensibly
greater degrees of local autonomy (Morris
1992). Arguably, historic rural-urban distinctions were
minimized by the extension of (urban) municipal models of representation, which
led to a re-scaling of political activity and decision-making, while re-casting
constituencies and subjects. Nevertheless, national differences in the design
and operation of municipal decentralization reveal distinctive informal
political processes and cultures that shape the opportunities for marginal
populations’ political representation in these new urban polities.
Legislative provision for
greater decentralization of government has been contextualized by three
additional factors,
·
First,
the roll-back of the central state and the “NGO-ization” of Andean society; and
·
Second,
the emergence of a “development with identity” paradigm to include indigenous
peoples
·
Third,
the engagement of international development theory and practice in social
development concerns and municipalities.
(1)
With
budget cutbacks, state activities have shifted to private and NGO sectors,
arguably more spatially uneven in distribution and take-up (Bebbington 1997; Arce 2000). Boundaries between state and non-state actors
shifted as states distributed functions to private sector providers. NGOs and
foreign funding organizations represent a strategic and highly significant ally
in development policy and implementation. Moreover, the creation of hybrid
development institutions[10]
has brought in diverse actors from radical anti-statist NGO employees, to
international agencies through to reformed government ministries (Radcliffe 2001).
(2) An additional significant factor contributing to the
transformation of political spaces and constituencies is the realignment of
international development discourse to issues of social capital, and
specifically a focus on indigenous peoples in the emergent field of
“development with identity”. Viewing indigenous people contradictorily as
embodying both social capital and poverty (Davis
2000), a focus on social difference has brought ethnic
difference to the fore in multilateral and bilateral agencies. Multilateral
social development discourse highlights the need to moderate extreme neo-liberalism,
while acknowledging the contribution of anthropology and social science in
uncovering social exclusions and recuperating (and building on) social capital.
The realignment of development discourse around transversal themes of gender,
ethnicity-race, age and generation has gained wide currency within NGOs,
multilaterals and states as a language and practice through which to bring
about greater participation. Drawing on NGO 1980s experience of grassroots
development activities, international agencies’ agenda was seen to be achieved
by “bottom-up” development with recognition of ethnicity, gender and
generation. International and multilateral agencies consequently offer
technical and financial support to municipalities and other urban authorities, engaging
with diverse civil, political and development-related actors[11].
In Ecuador, the indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian development project (Prodepine[12])
operates through highly autonomous regional offices to recuperate and
consolidate indigenous and black populations’ social capital, in order to raise
their standard of living (van
Nieuwkoop and Uquillas 2000; Fieldnotes 2000; Project interviews with Prodepine
officials in Quito, Cuenca, Ibarra, 2000).
In summary, the nature of politics and subject-state-space relations in Andean Latin America has been profoundly transformed in the past decade. With “NGO-ization” and growing transnationalism, places and political subjects are constituted through rapidly changing circuits and networks, generating new constituencies, interest groups and policy. Despite the contradictory effects of neo-liberalism and state reform in the Andes (and its contestation), the changes outlined introduce opportunities for social and political actors as well as closing them down. Moreover, rather than being exclusively about macroeconomic reform and “globalization”, neo-liberal development in the Andes has introduced an association between neo-liberal development and local communities, however contradictory in its effects.
III Municipalities in Ecuador and Bolivia:
Participation with neo-liberalism?
Numerous Andean countries have recently undergone
constitutional reform. In all but Peru, legislative reform placed
decentralization and multicultural rights in a central and visible position
(see Figure 1). Municipal decentralization takes place within an inter-national
exchange of information, supported and financed by multilateral and bilateral
development agencies. While designing its decentralization policy in 1994, Bolivia’s
neo-liberal government was informed by previous experiences of municipal reform
in Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile and Mexico. The World Bank, Inter-American
Development Bank, the UN Development Program as well as various European and
North American bilateral programmes were involved in the formulation and
implementation of the 1995 reforms. Due to distinctive national histories and
pacts between power groups, Ecuador and Bolivia’s municipal reforms share many
elements such as the goal of increased participation, while differing on other
counts. Put simply, the Bolivian reform was highly directive and formal whereas
the Ecuadorian experience was considerably more ad hoc, leaving political spaces and opportunities for social
actors.
In Bolivia, a robustly
centralized state responded to “localist sentiment” (Dunkerley 1998: 11) introducing reforms in local government finance,
definition and management. When designing its “rural municipalization” law in
1994, the neo-liberal government drew upon Latin American experiences of
municipal decentralization and direct assistance from multilaterals and
bilaterals. Despite considerable department-level and indigenous opposition,
the Law of Popular Participation created over 300 new municipalities, as well
as distributing revenue from the central state, to administer health, education
and other local services. Of the 313 current municipalities, just under
two-thirds (183) had not received resources previously (Albó 2000). Between 1990 and 1996, municipal budgets jumped from
$22 million to over $150 million (Dunkerley
1998), reaching 35% of public investment in 1995 (Van Cott 2000b: 181-2)[13].
More monies were provided to Bolivian municipalities than their Ecuadorian
counterparts (20% of federal resources, compared with 15%) (Brysk 2000: 259)[14],
and Bolivian municipalities were more subject to government-defined structures.
For example, provision for the comités de
vigilancia (oversight committees) was defined in the 1994 Bolivian
legislation, whereas equivalent Ecuadorian bodies were established on the
initiative of indigenous municipal officials[15]
(Van Cott 2000b: 156, 171-73). As part of wider neo-liberal reforms, the
participatory impulse was more explicit in Bolivian government rhetoric than
Ecuador, aiming to bring about political participation and the integration of
previously excluded populations into decision-making from the top down.
The expansion of local government
accelerated in Ecuador during the 1980s. Decentralization and participation are
propounded in the 1998 Ecuadorian Constitution as integral to the character of
the state (Ortiz Crespo 1999). New cantons (administrative units, between provinces
and parishes in descending size) were created, and rural and urban populations
incorporated into municipal governments, giving a total of 218 municipalities
for a population of some 12 million (Torres
1999a: 15,30)[16].
A series of laws through the mid- to late 1990s clarified the functions and
management of sectional authorities, most recently in 1998[17].
Municipalities were awarded considerable freedom to work in areas considered
convenient or appropriate, such as rural development, natural resource
protection, production and so on (Carrión
1998:75). Flexibility in creating civilian oversight
committees has already been mentioned.
Following a more general
contrast between the two Andean countries, Ecuadorian social movements have
managed to carry through a pro-development agenda to a greater extent than in
Bolivia (cf. Andolina 1999). Social development has been incorporated into
municipal politics, perhaps to a greater extent than in Bolivia, an aspect
seized upon by Ecuadorian indigenous leaders plugged into transnational
development networks. Despite the incorporation of social development concerns,
Ecuadorian municipalities are constrained by limited reforms of central state
administration and lack of progress in introducing alternative territorial
autonomous systems (I return to this in the conclusions) (Carrión 1998: 80).
From the perspective of
municipalities themselves, reforms reconfigure local politics in unprecedented
ways, permitting political inclusion. In the next section, I examine how inputs
from transnational agendas, social movements and free market principles have
facilitated a politics of inclusion of indigenous peoples into municipal
politics over the past decade. My focus is the processes giving rise to
indigenous-led municipalities in Ecuador, and their rural counterparts in
Bolivia. Given the increased electoral presence of indigenous local government
representatives in Ecuador and Bolivia, what opportunities arise for
incorporating indigenous political demands into municipal agendas? To what
extent do multilateral agencies’ construction of – and policy-making for –
indigenous populations constrain or enable indigenous agendas?
Working with technical
support from international and national NGOs, some 20 municipalities in Ecuador
and a number in Bolivia[18]
have expanded their (historically restricted) remit to include a goal of participatory,
sustainable long-term development that rests upon the interconnectivity of
rural and urban areas. The resultant “wave of municipal renovation” refers to
rising numbers of better-funded local governments, as well as new goals of
participatory interaction with civil society in the formulation of development
plans. The case of Ecuador provides the bulk of information in this section,
complemented by a brief comparison with Bolivia.
With the expansion of Ecuador’s cantonal government
through the 1980s, that is before
decentralization reforms, rural and urban popular organizations – church,
indigenous, neighborhood or low-income associations and social movements –
established representatives in municipal governments as individual councillors.
Through the 1990s however, after
reforms, base organizations increased their electoral gains, achieving overall
control of municipal councils and mayorships. The national indigenous
confederation CONAIE steadily gained authority and a voice in public opinion (Selverston 1994). The formation of a political party, MUPP-Nuevo Pais,
– known as Pachacutik – meant that indigenous from CONAIE and other popular
organizations contested in elections on the basis of a shared agenda for the
first time (Andolina 1999). Pachacutik contested congressional and municipal
elections in 1996, congressional elections in 1998, and the municipal elections
in May 2000 (Muñoz 1999). The latest municipal elections represented a
political victory for the indigenous-social movement, because of its
participation in the dismissal of President Jamil Mahuad on 21 January 2000.
Pachacutik won 5 prefectures as well as 23 mayorships (of 215 in total), mostly
concentrated in the highland and Amazon areas[19].
The mayorships of Cotacachi (Imbambura province) and Guamote (Chimborazo
province) stayed in indigenous hands, while new indigenous leaders emerged in
Guaranda municipality, and the prefecture of Cotopaxi[20]
and other indigenous representatives in various different local elections (see
Figure 2, showing Pachacutik gains by province).
In my argument, I suggest that four processes are key in shaping the emergence of an inclusionary politics of municipal provincial government in Ecuador, namely the addition of development agendas to local governments’ remit; transnational connections; multiculturalism; and alliances between previously autonomous sectors. Although these issues overlap and are mutually influential, I address them in turn.
a)
Introduction of development agendas to municipal concerns: Historically,
municipalities have been concerned with social infrastructure and amenities,
using meagre budgets. Ecuadorian local government retains an open definition of
its operation, an ambiguity that added local development to municipal agendas.
The historic chronic under-funding of provincial and rural areas in previous
“developmentalist” decades highlights the urgency of local development in many
rural and urban areas. The 1993 Ecuadorian municipal law gave local governments
the right to prepare development plans, although these were often biased
towards urban development (Arboleda
1993). The Pachacutik party has long recommended an
extension of municipal concerns into the development field. The international
agencies’ social participation agenda thus dovetailed neatly with indigenous
demands for a greater say in development arenas from which they had long been
excluded. Indigenous mayors and municipalities often represent some of the
poorest areas of the country, and find themselves at the forefront of preparing
local development policies. Consultative workshops with a wide range of citizen
groups are used to gain a picture of what is most urgently requested by
communities. On the basis of this, participatory diagnostic studies, as they
are termed, are converted into outline local development plans. For example, in
Cotacachi province, the indigenous mayor Auki Tituaña oversaw the conversion of
a participatory diagnostic into a development plan (Muñoz 1999: 45). In Guamote, an 18-month participatory workshop
defined development goals and means, led by the indigenous mayor but involving
local associations and over 4,000 local people (Interview with Dávila, 2000).
The goal of economic development has prompted alternative development ideas (Bebbington and Carrasco 1993). While certain areas have managed to capitalize on
skills and trading networks, others rely upon small-scale productive projects,
“alternative tourism” (as in Guamote), or cultural events (Interviews with
Prodepine staff, 2000). Indigenous-controlled regions largely remain outside
circuits of international capital investment (Martinez
1999) resulting in problems of market access and commercialization,
despite ambitious goals of linking up with “globalized alternative circuits” (Torres 1999a). (eg. organic produce marketing, fair trade
opportunities). The Prodepine project, funded by the Ecuadorian government and
the World Bank, makes diagnostic studies a requirement in funding.
Implementation of development policies relies upon the mobilization of resources from within and outside the local authority in order to put it into operation. Given their histories of community activism and development sector of NGOs and agencies, mayors and councillors often come into office having built up a range of contacts among sympathetic NGOs, development agencies and “think tanks”. It is at this stage that municipalities look to transnational networks and NGOs to assist in the execution of their development plans. Even with 15% of state resources, municipalities wishing to practice “development with identity” must look to various initiatives. The Quichua peoples confederation of Ecuador, ECUARUNARI, made funding proposals to multilateral and NGO agencies, and has facilitated exchange meetings with NGOs and their networks (Muñoz 1999): 48), while the ECUARUNARI women’s training college gained funds from UNIFEM (Interview with Chuma, 2000). In Cotocachi, exchanges with the municipality of Pasto, Colombia, provided other set of contacts (Muñoz 1999: 50).
b)
Transnational connections Indigenous (and some non-indigenous) municipalities
in Ecuador operate within a transnational space of policy-formulation, resource
distribution, and discourses around participatory democracy. One review of
Ecuador’s local development agenda identified at least 8 NGOs and bilateral
agencies with a specific interest in the theme (Torres 1999a: 28-29)[21].
Northern European monies are often directly associated with municipal questions
and local democracies (perhaps reflecting the countries’ own experiences (Torres 1999a: 28). Combining agendas of capacity-building and
institutional strengthening, international NGOs and bilateral development
agencies are in a good position to support municipal participatory planning and
local development. The types of funding programmes through which transnational
actors support the municipalities vary considerably, although their emphasis is
largely focussed on institutional strengthening and building social capital.
Municipalities in Ecuador controlled by the centre-left, and especially those
associated with a strong indigenous presence, attract a disproportionate amount
of attention from international development agencies and international NGOs.
Signifying prestige and power, such relationships entrain applications for
development funds that extend and diversify municipalities’ actions.
For
example, the internationally-funded NGO Terranova supported the creation of a
team of bilingual Quichua-Spanish promoters to work in workshops with groups of
up to 200 local people in development plans for Saquisilí and Cotacachi
(Interview with Dávila, 2000). Completion of local development plans,
especially involving high degrees of participatory consultations is followed by
offers of funding from international and national agencies, raising
expectations and causing problems of coordination between agencies (ibid.). The RIAD (InterAmerican Network
for Agriculture and Democracy) network of NGOs has worked since 1996 on themes
of indigenous organization and local authorities in Ecuador, seeing a
confluence between the decentralization perspective and citizenship
participation in local governments (Interview with Larrea, 2000). Similarly
since 1981, the German bilateral agency GTZ has been involved in municipal
strengthening via the AME[22],
while the Norwegian bilateral cooperation agency APN funds various Ecuadorian
NGOs working with municipal democracy and development (Interviews with IEE,
GTZ, APN, 2000). The Danish NGO IBIS works with the indigenous confederation
CONAIE on its construction of a pluri-national state, especially via local governments
including Cotacachi and Suscal (Interview with Cevallos, 2000). Such
transnational connections result in increased policy options available to
indigenous municipalities through greater exchanges of information[23].
Transnational agency and NGO involvement in municipal affairs illustrates a
wider process of synergy between elements of a neo-liberal social participation
theory and policy, together with an indigenous affairs network.
c)
Discourses and practices of multicultural politics: Municipalities controlled
or influenced by a popular social movement have been one of the few locations
within which a multicultural practice can be attempted. As part of the
indigenous agenda to diversify citizenship, multiculturalism and
“interculturalism”[24]
have a relatively long trajectory in indigenous politics in the Andes,
challenging exclusionary national political cultures. Intercultural policies
reaffirm elements of popular and indigenous cultures not previously accorded
official recognition. In Cotocachi for example, a multicultural policy is
followed, with funding of diverse religious, indigenous and popular festivals
associated with a number of different ethnic groups (Ortiz Crespo 1999: 78). In other contexts, a more pro-indigenous policy is
favored, in which indigenous mayors use an “ethnic discourse aimed at an
affirmation of belonging and local identity” (ibid.). Cultural events and productions associated with indigenous
culture have been funded by indigenous-controlled municipalities[25].
Interculturalism
departs from a conception of multiethnic society working for “unity in
diversity”[26]. Municipal
government in predominantly indigenous or multiracial areas represents a
test-bed for the practice of
interculturalism, rather than as rhetoric. In a presentation on
interculturalism, the indigenous mayor of Guamote – himself a former hacienda worker – argued that despite
500 years of oppression, there had to be a new dialogue and new forms of
development (Interview with Dávila, 2000). Participatory methods of planning
and municipal action can be one measure of intercultural practice, while the
introduction of bilingual consultations is another.
From
the multilateral agencies’ viewpoint, successful intercultural relations
enhance social capital, and hence the building of other forms of capital (Portes and Landolt 2000). Transnational funders attribute variations in
indigenous municipalities’ success to the extent of intercultural practice. In
Cotocachi, interculturalism was perceived to be central, whereas in Suscal (a
community additionally with a shorter history of indigenous control), a lack of
engagement with mestizo residents
contributed to more difficulties (Interview with Cevallos, 2000)[27].
Moreover in urban centres with ethnic-racial tensions, the prestige of ties to
external agencies are ambivalent. The formerly dominant “white-mestizo” population often perceive
indigenous-ness to be an advantage in gaining funds to benefit only the
indigenous section of the population (Larrea
1999).
d)
Alliances between sectors. Indigenous controlled municipalities have
introduced new forms of political organization in order to increase
participation of civil society, to generate innovative policy proposals and to
galvanize labor resources and goodwill. Owing much of a voluntary-aided
participatory discourse, attempts to spread the costs of municipal workloads
have galvanized a mix of old (“traditional” communal labor arrangements) and
new (talking shops). Indigenous municipalities have been characterized by a
high degree of coordination with other social sectors. Departing from an aim of
enlarging citizen association, local governments have explicitly and
deliberately attempted to move municipal-citizen relations away from patronage,
towards more open and participatory relations (Torres
1999b). Rather than treating urban government as a fiefdom
with clientelist potential, indigenous councillors and mayors have worked in
concert with other social actors (Muñoz
1999). The organizations formed include cantonal
assemblies, indigenous and popular parliaments, coordinating workshops (mesas de concertación), and amplified cabildos (rural community councils) (Torres 1999a: 21)[28].
Communal labour parties – mingas –
provide much needed labor, although a market rationale has crept into such
historically reciprocal arrangements: “nothing is free in Guamote; everything
has its cost” (quoted in Torres
1999b: 99).
Galvanizing
citizen contributions in combination with NGO and transnational resources
provides the municipality with resources while furthering its goal of local
development. Based on extensive networks, transnational groups in turn fund
planning and participatory activities, assisting the municipality in its work.
Guamote’s local ‘Parliament’ was funded by three internationally connected
organizations. These comprised the Instituto de Estudios Ecuatorianos (IEE,
Institute of Ecuadorian Studies, a national NGO funded by the Norwegian
Bilateral Cooperation APN), Terra Nova (for technical assistance and events),
and by the Latin America-wide Fondo Indígena for the systematization of
experience (Interview with Larrea
2000; Torres 1999b: 104). Similarly in Saquisilí, a smorgasbord of NGOs and
agencies became involved in funding diverse elements of the municipal
programme, after the election in 1996 of an indigenous mayor, 2 councillors,
and one provincial deputy[29],
a process of cooperation that has continued in later years.
NGOs perceive such municipalities as agents and catalysts, able to practice development and politics in innovative ways (Interview with Larrea 2000; Larrea and Larrea 1999: 139). Although originating with a concern in urban democracy and citizenship, the NGOs were faced after the 1996 electoral gains by Pachacutik with the possibility of work with smaller and more ‘rural’ municipalities (Interviews with Larrea, Cevallos, 2000). As noted by a NGO representative,
“Now [1996], it was directly
people from social organizations who took on candidacy and management
responsibilities, so for us, these were important experiences that we privilege
in our assistance [acompañamiento]”
Departing from a clearly defined urban agenda, NGO concerns become bound up with changing conceptions and organization of political spaces, “a more rural-urban problematic” in the words of one NGO representative. NGOs also perceive a change in their role vis-à-vis “beneficiaries”, as the municipal populations become active political subjects and NGOs their facilitators and trainers. NGOs provide pre-election training for political candidates, as do the indigenous federations.
As
in Ecuador, Bolivian legislative reforms introducing rural municipalization and
popular participation have resulted in a more inclusionary politics within
rural and urban areas. Subjects who previously would not consider themselves as
political representatives - such as indigenous, women and community leaders -
could become political candidates, often for the first time (Lind 1997). Indigenous movement male representatives did well in the 1995 local elections. Under
the 1994 legislation, there are two avenues to increase participation in
municipal government that have particularly encouraged indigenous
representation. Popular Participation legislation permitted populations to
define their own socio-spatial administration on the basis of local
associations, ethnicity or territory. Indigenous institutions can gain legal
recognition permitting them to participate in municipal government (OTBs).
Alternatively, indigenous settlements can form their own sub-units of municipal
local government through the creation of indigenous municipal districts (Plant 1998: 25). The Indigenous Municipal Districts (DMIs, distritos municipales indígenas) are
considered a crucial basis for indigenous development, covering 310 potential
DMIs in nine departments (ibid.).
Nevertheless, as the DMIs do not receive the full counterpart of municipal
funds, they turn to international charities and organizations in broader
transnational alliances[30].
Moreover in some early cases, local mayors were unwilling to relinquish funds
granted to municipal districts to newly formed DMIs. In at least one lowland
Bolivia case, central popular participation government officials lobbied mayors
in the Chaco district, persuading them to accept indigenous districts.
In
its consideration of wider structures of exclusion, the Popular Participation
law brought in issues of gender-neutral language, promotion of gender equity,
and the promotion of women’s participation in planning, at the insistence of
feminist state officials (Van Cott
2000b: 162-3). Combining gender, ethnic and generational concerns
in a governmental secretariat (SNAEGG), the Bolivian reform addressed social
divisions as transversal themes in order to introduce socio-cultural
sensitivity into development planning and administration, working with the
German Technical Assistance (GTZ) (Paulson, 2000).
Urban political reform legislation introduced by Andean
neo-liberal regimes has increased the opportunities for indigenous populations
to challenge the nature of political representation, drawing upon previous
social movement experience and the resources brought to the region by the
transnational agencies for development. The emergence of social movement
politics around indigenous ethnic identity is consolidated by the convergence
of neo-liberal social capital paradigms in an international “development with
identity field”, with decentralizing moves undertaken by states. Development
agendas and political participation are now embedded within the municipal
governments of Ecuador and Bolivia to an unprecedented degree, and owe their
emergence to a confluence of processes occurring at the international and
national scales, and at the urban-rural interface.
While the above
section has emphasized the expansion of political spaces for previously
marginalized subjects to find representation, access to decision-making and
funds, this is not the whole story. Alongside the expansion of political
opportunity lie exclusionary patterns of structure and behavior that limit participation
and full control over decentralization resources. The Ecuadorian evidence (and
preliminary Bolivian data) suggests that while decentralization has permitted
the insertion of formerly excluded citizens into decision-making institutions,
political cultures persist in making that access unequal and/or deny the
specificity of subaltern groups. Just as in the case of the inclusionary
legislation and transnational context, these exclusionary political cultures
have their origins in the state and transnational contexts, as well as in the
embodiments of racial and gendered hierarchies. I start by considering the
exclusionary structures embedded within formal political rules and legislation
by states and transnational actors; my concern is thus not to criticize
failures in implementation of reforms, but rather to address the persistent
symbols and values which shape legislation and its “blind spots”.
Funds and expertise flow according to the connections highlighted by the emerging “development with identity” field. Although legislation exists in order for indigenous groups to claim rights, access to such rights may depend upon the representations made of indigeneity. The Bolivian political culture surrounding pro-indigenous measures is one that relies mostly upon representations of indigenous-ness, rather than on established criteria, self-determination and/or self-identification (despite international law to the contrary). For those claiming an ethnic identity, international funds and assistance are forthcoming.
The relative
isolation and poverty of the municipalities at times block wider coalitions.
The new municipalities often lack the necessary institutional infrastructure
and human skills to undertake the ambitious plans expected of them, while they
are at times weighed down by bureaucracy (World
Bank 1999). Bolivian municipal development plans (planes de desarrollo municipal, PDMs)
have not matched indigenous requirements and methods of decision-making,
resulting in a central state proposal for a 10 year Indigenous Peoples
Development Plan (Plant 1998: 25;
World Bank 1999), thereby undercutting the bottom-up rational of
participatory development. There is also a tension around interculturalism, in
which NGO sectors attempt to engage indigenous communities in wider political
questions on the basis that their rights must be defended within these broader
arenas. However, indigenous leaders have rejected this in favor working more
specifically for their ethnically-defined constituencies and the priorities
identified by these groups (Muñoz
1999: 45).
Efforts to include gender, ethnic and generational axes
in the center of Bolivian municipal reforms have been noted, reflecting not
only the institutionalization of social-difference paradigms into state
infrastructures but also the problematic working out of contrasting models of
gender, ethnicity or age. Drawing on a transnational gender-and-development
paradigm, Bolivian feminist state officials managed to insert gender-neutral
language, promotion of gender equity, and women’s participation in development
into legislation (Van Cott 2000b:
162-3). However, lack of coordination between the
Sub-Secretariats of gender and ethnicity hampered efforts to synthesize
analysis, as modernist gender paradigms failed to mesh with the more
ethnographic ethnic approach (Paulson
and Calla 2000). In practice, the gender Sub-Secretariat focussed on
female subjects, ignoring the complexities of masculinities (Calla 2000), while indian subjects were conflated with ethnicity (Paulson and Calla 2000). Moreover, lack of consultation with indigenous and
peasant women meant that their concerns were not highlighted in legislation.
Embodiments of gendered and
ethnically marked values shape the outcomes of contests over power and status.
The interconnections of hierarchies of race-ethnicity, gender and class in
determining social status and social interactions is by now relatively
well-documented in Andean countries (see
for example, Weismantel and Eisenman 1998; Wade 1997; Whitten 1981). Although lying outside official citizenship and
rights, these cultural politics are deeply embedded in Latin American cultures
and the associated dynamics of political action, constituencies and agendas ( Graham 1990; Radcliffe 1999; Stepan
1991). The persistent attribution of authority and
legitimacy to subjects who are male, white-mestizo,
bourgeois and urban has historically excluded groups of citizens such as women,
indigenous, Afro-Latin Americans and others from candidature, election and
decision-making.
In the Andes, male and
female indigenous leaders face varying degrees of racism and discrimination
from urban and predominantly mestizo
(mixed race) groups. Comments about indigenous leaders make reference to their
supposed primitiveness, ignorance and lack of hygiene (Larrea and Larrea 1999; Weismantel and Eisenman 1998). In Ecuador, constructions of indigenous masculinity
vis-à-vis mestizo men reduce their
authority through feminization of the indian, and the enhanced masculinization
of other racial groups (Calla 2000). The legitimacy of male indigenous mayors is thereby
affected, making them ethnically-marked and gendered in comparison with other
elected officials. National political cultures delegitimizing male indigenous
authority make subaltern local leaders less effective in galvanizing
multi-ethnic support when faced with skeptical white-mestizo populations. In the case of one central Sierra mayor, the
power of gendered ethnic political cultures forced a change in performance of
mayoral power. The indigenous male mayor turned in his ‘indian’ poncho in favour of a three-piece suit,
as well as the adoption of explicitly heterosexual masculine public behavior
designed to associate himself with mestizo
men (Larrea 1999). The performance of a legitimate and authoritative
masculinity led to the re-embodiment of the mayor. In an example of what Diane
Nelson terms “ethnic transvestism” (Nelson
1999), the indigenous mayor became both more macho and more mestizo, in a public display designed to overcome (mestizo) resistance in a divided community[31].
Value-laden responses to
gendered and racialized embodiments curtail women’s – and particularly
indigenous women’s – access to political power. Despite legislative provision
to raise levels of women’s candidacy for local political office, recurrent
stereotyping and devaluation of female subjects restricts their access to
decentralized government. Current Ecuadorian electoral law for local elections
(ie. municipalities, Mayors, Provincial councils, and Rural Parochial Councils,
Juntas Parroquiales Rurales[32])
requires political parties’ candidate lists to include at least 30 per cent
women candidates. Law “2000-1” came into force for the first time in the May
2000 local elections, and in candidates lists 41.3 per cent were female (El Comercio 14.May.2000, A3). This
represents a secular increase on previous elections during the 1970s and 1980s,
when women represented between 6 and 14 per cent of mayoral candidates (Arboleda 1993: 25). In Andean provinces with high concentrations of
indigenous populations, the representation of female candidates was even higher
than the national average. In the southern province of Cañar, for example, 52
per cent of provincial candidates, 49 per cent of municipal candidates and 39.9
per cent of Rural Parochial council candidates were women. Similarly, in the
central province of Chimborazo, 50%, 50% and 40% of the provincial, municipal
and JPR candidates respectively were female (El Comercio, 14.May.2000, A3).
However, despite these
historically high rates of female candidacy, the electoral results were less
than encouraging. Just under twenty-five per cent of those elected in the
sectional elections were women, including 8 female mayors but no female prefecturas (provincial leaders) (El Comercio 29.June.2000; Hoy 25 July 2000). Indigenous women were
among the victors: graduates of ECUARUNARI’s indigenous women’s training
programme took 6 urban seats, from councils to Parochial Rural councils (JPRs) (Interview with Chuma, 2000; Chuma and
Palacios 2000). Nevertheless, women tended to be elected as local
councillors and as JPR representatives, that is the lower ranking posts with
less control over budgets and management. The general lack of female mayorships
(exceptions are shown on the Map) indicates an underlying marginalization of
female candidates, placing them in electable positions in the least important
posts. Such exclusion from winnable positions operates despite the extensive
experience of female candidates in political activity, whether in social
movements or community associations. One female candidate for concejal in Cotocachi for example had
traveled widely as a representative of the FENOCIN federation (Interview with
FENOCIN Women’s team, 2000).
Similar evidence of exclusionary political cultures is
emerging from the Bolivian case, particularly regarding the issue of
femininity. The emergence of indigenous municipalities is marked by the
concerns of male indigenous leaders “to preserve [patriarchal] indigenous
communities vis-à-vis the modern state” (Lind
1997 1216), a pattern reinforced by the state’s unwillingness to
tackle gender issues in depth (Van
Cott 2000b: 163, 188). In terms of formal representation, Bolivian women
have seen a worsening of their position, with a drop in number of female mayors
from 19 in 1993, to only 11 in 1995. Despite their demographic majority in the
country, peasant and indigenous women did even worse, taking only 22 of a total
of 135 female councillors’ seats in 1995 and 2 mayorships (op.cit: 188). As municipal funds have increased, so too male
candidates showed greater interest in local elections and the monies associated
with them, thereby displacing female candidates (Interview with Arias, 1999).
Even in the civil associations, women’s interests in Bolivian local urban
government have been marginalized through male-dominated organizations, despite
valiant efforts to the contrary (Lind
1997: 1217).
Evidence from across Latin America would suggest that
female candidates are experienced activists in community and neighbourhood
organizations. In a survey of Ecuador, Bolivia and six other Latin American
countries, the majority of elected local female politicians had gained
political recognition and support through previous “informal” political actions
(Lind 1997: 1215; also Arboleda
1993). Despite such extensive political experience,
however, cultural constructions of non-authoritative and apolitical femininity
combined with “non-professional” status limit women’s candidature and election
for the new municipalities in Ecuador and Bolivia.
In summary to this section, I have argued that persistent
combinations of racialized and gendered political cultures have restricted both
the formulation of decentralizing legislation in the Andes, and impeded its
potentially empowering effect on its target populations. Transnational agencies
have worked with stereotypical images of indigenous peoples, while gender and
development paradigms often misrepresent indigenous and gender concerns.
Clashing representations of ethnic and gendered subjects obscure the underlying
connections between race, gender and nation in shaping political outcomes.
Transformations in the internal geopolitics and structure of Andean states, combined with new subjects and constituencies of a decentralized neo-liberal system has resulted in the emergence of a wave of municipal renovation, to quote Victor Hugo Torres (Torres 1999a: 21). Transnational connections, resulting in in-flows of resources, technical assistance and methods of organization, interface with the expanded personnel, political clout and – in certain cases – discourses and practice of democratic participatory planning, to form new spaces and subjects of indigenous and provincial territoriality and identity. Economic poverty combined with marginalization from commercial circuits and high-value production centres places development high on municipal agendas, although it is arguable whether their mobilization of social capital and transnational resources can mitigate these effects (Cf. Bebbington and Perrault 1999; Martinez 1999).
Going beyond an analysis of the formal urban political
structures and their capture by new subjects, the paper addresses the complex
political cultures around such political institutions. The cultural politics of
local government rest upon social expectations about figures of authority, and
the ways in which those who command are associated with particular gender and
ethnic attributes. I suggest that the legitimacy of municipal authorities arose
out of their electoral strengths in areas where indigenous electorates have a
choice of candidates, but that the operation of political authority in office
remains difficult for indigenous and female leaders, due to persistent cultural
values around politics and seniority. The cultural politics of legitimacy
around notions of gender and ethnic-racial hierarchy are crucial for
understanding the political implications of decentralization, and explain the
limitations in such policies in bringing about social participation. Although
women and indigenous peoples have increased their candidacy and – in the case
of male indigenous - success in elections, their political authority often
remains denied even in small communities where they had gained political
experience. Formal political office still rests upon stereotypical attributes
of political authority, relying on the embodiments and performance of political
actors, rather than on intrinsic abilities.
In a comparative study of
Colombia and Bolivia, Donna Lee van Cott (2000b: 276) argues that future
experiments in indigenous autonomy are likely to be at the municipal level. I
would suggest that we could extend that to the Ecuadorian example. Proposals
from the Ecuadorian indigenous confederation CONAIE for a new law of indigenous
communities, and the creation of “indigenous territorial circumscriptions”
(CTIs, circunscripciones territoriales indigenas), both granting greater
autonomy to indigenous peoples and settlements, are a key plank of indigenous
demands after the 1998 Constitution. However, constitutional promises of new
territorial rights for ethnic groups remain to be specified in (as yet
unwritten) secondary legislation (Van
Cott 2000a; CONAIE 2000). Currently, CONAIE and the other indigenous
federations in Ecuador have before the National Congress proposals concerned
with the proposed law of communities (under Valerio Grefa, Pachacutik), and the
Indigenous Nationalities and Peoples law (CONAIE, 2000).
The political representation
of urban – and also in the Andes, rural – populations have been profoundly
reshaped in structure, if not always
in content, by recent neo-liberal
reforms. In practice, limits to decentralization in bringing about democratic
governance and citizen participation in policy-making and development are
numerous and all too real. Although successful decentralization requires a
strong and solid state, Ecuador and Bolivia fall short of fulfilling these
conditions (Martinez 1999). Critics point out that decentralization could lead
to further marginalization of indigenous ethnic communities, whose lack of
access to capital and state resources leave them out of the circuits of capital
and assistance that provide development opportunities (ibid.). Rural and provincial areas remain under-resourced and more
impoverished than major towns. What is certainly true is that transnational
networks of municipalities and civil associations have become deeply embedded
in the operations and discourses of urban politics, foreshadowing a shift in
local government accountability. The geographical variability of development
outcomes will increase as “successful” municipalities capture funds and others
rely upon relatively limited state inputs and/or their own limited tax base.
Drawing on recent evidence from Ecuador and Bolivia, my
paper argues that municipal politics engages with questions about
representation and democracy in post-liberal states. Neo-liberal agendas of
decentralization have in practice initiated dynamic interactions between
diverse constituencies and actors (including indigenous organizations,
political parties, hybrid development agencies, and transnational agents). The
political representation outcomes are shaped by new formal provision, although
constrained by informal political cultures whose ramifications for local
development agendas, multiculturalism and political reforms remain
understudied. In the making and remaking of urban spaces, a complex interplay
of national, international and local institutions are at work.
Sarah A. Radcliffe
1 December 2000
Figure 1 Municipal decentralization under
neo-liberalism in selected Andean countries
Figure 2 Municipal elections and indigenous
representatives, May 2000 elections, Ecuador
Bibliography
Albó, X. et al. (1999) Ojotas en el poder local: cuatro años despues. CIPCA/PADER, La Paz.
Albó, X. (2000) “Bolivia: de
dirigentes indios y campesinos a concejales municipales y honorables
diputados.” Paper presented at conference, Pluri-cultural
and multi-ethnic: evaluating the implications for state and society in
MesoAmerica and the Andes, Institute of Latin American Studies, University
of London, March 30th.
Alvarez, S., Dagnino, E. and
Escobar, Arturo (editors). (1998). Cultures
of politics, politics of culture: re-visioning Latin American social movements,
Westview Press, Boulder.
Andolina, R. J. (1999)
“Colonial legacies and plurinational imaginaries: indigenous movement politics
in Ecuador and Bolivia,” PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Arboleda, M. (1993).
“Mujeres en el poder local” In El espacio
posible: mujeres en el poder local, M. Arboleda and R. Rodriguez, eds.,
ISIS International, Ediciones de las Mujeres, Santiago, 20-42.
Arboleda, M., and Rodriguez,
R. (1993). El espacio posible: mujeres en
el poder local, ISIS International Ediciones de las Mujeres, Santiago.
Arce, A. and. Long, Norman
(editors) (2000). Anthropology,
development and modernities: exploring discourses, counter-tendancies and
violence, Routledge, London.
Atupaña, J. (2000). “Existen
pueblos indígenas en la capital ecuatoriana?” Boletin ICCI, July.
Bebbington, A. (1997). “New
states, new NGOs? Crises and transitions among rural development NGOs in the
Andean region.” World Development,
25(11), 1755-65.
Bebbington, A., and
Carrasco, H. et. al (1993). “Fragile lands, fragile organizations: Indian
organizations and the politics of sustainability in Ecuador.” Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 18(2), 179-196.
Bebbington, T., and
Perrault, T. (1999). “Social capital, development and access to resources in
Highland Ecuador.” Economic geography,
75(4), 395-418.
Brysk, A. (2000). From tribal village to global village:
indian rights and international relations in Latin America, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, Cal.
Calla, Pamela 2000 “Gender,
ethnicity and intercultural education.” Paper presented at conference Current challenges to the Bolivian state:
issues of gender, ethnicity and citizenship, University of Newcastle,
November 11th.
Carrión, Fernando (1998).
“La constitución de un Estado decentralizado.” Ecuador Debate, 44 (agosto), 67-87.
Chuma, V., and Palacios, P.
(2000). “Reconstruyendo la democracia.” ICCI
Boletin.
Colloredo-Mansfeld, Rudi.
(1999). The native leisure class:
consumption and cultural creativity in the Andes, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Coraggio, J. L. (1998).
“Perspectivas del desarrollo regional en América Latina.” Ecuador Debate, 44(August), 94-104.
Crain, Mary (1990). “'The
social construction of national identity in Highland Ecuador'.” Anthropological Quarterly, XV(3), 43-59.
Davis, Shelton H.
“Indigenous Peoples and Economic Development in Latin America: the experience
of the World Bank.” paper presented at the conference Pluri-Cultural and Multi-Ethnic: evaluating the implications for state
and society in MesoAmerica and the Andes, University of London, London,
March 30th.
Degregori, Carlos I. (1998).
“Ethnicity and democratic governability in Latin America: reflections from two
Andean countries.” In Fault Lines of
Democracy in post-transition Latin America, F. Agüero and O. Stark, eds.,
North-South Center Press at the University of Miami, Miami, 203-234.
Dunkerley, J. (1998). The 1997 Bolivia election in historical
perspective, Institute of Latin American Studies, University of London,
London.
García Canclini, N. (1995). Hybrid Culture: Strategies for entering and
leaving modernity, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Graham, R. (editor). (1990).
The idea of race in Latin America,
1870-1940, University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Hale, Charles. (1994).
“Between Che Guevara and the Pachamama: Mestizos, indians and identity politics
in the anti-Quincentenary campaign.” Critique
of Anthropology, 14(1), 9-39.
Joseph, G. M., and Nugent,
D. (eds.) (1994). Everyday forms of state
formation: revolution and negotiation of rule in Modern Mexico, Duke
University Press, Durham/London.
Kearney, M. (1996).
“Introduction (to special issue on Indigenous peoples).” Latin American Perspectives, 23(2), 5-16.
Larrea, A. M., and Larrea,
F. (1999). “Participación ciudadana, relaciones interétnicas y construcción del
poder local en Saquisilí.” IN Ciudadanías
emergentes: experiencias democráticas de desarrollo local, Mauro Hidalgo,
ed., Comunidec/RIAD/Abya-Yala, Quito, 129-152.
Larrea, F. (1999). “Frontera
étnica y masculinidades en el ejercicio del gobierno local.” Iconos, 8 (junio-agosto), 87-102.
Laurie, N., Andolina, R.,
Radcliffe, S. (forthcoming) "The excluded indigenous? The implications of
multi-ethnic policies for water reform in Bolivia", IN Pluri-cultural and multi-ethnic: evaluating
the implications for state and society in MesoAmerica and the Andes, R.Sieder
(ed.) Macmillan/Palgrave, London.
Leftwich, A. (1996). Democracy and development: theory and
practice, Polity, Cambridge.
Lind, A. (1997). “Gender,
development and urban social change: women's community action in global
cities.” World Development 25 (8),
1205-1223.
Martinez, L. (1999). “La
nueva ruralidad en el Ecuador.” Iconos,
8, 12-19.
Morris, A. and Lowder,
Stella (editors) (1992). Decentralization
in Latin America: an evaluation, Praeger, New York.
Muñoz, J. P. (1999).
“Indígenas y gobiernos locales: entre la plurinacionalidad y la ciudadanía
cantonal.” IN Ciudadanías emergentes:
experiencias democráticas de desarrollo local, M. Hidalgo et al. (eds.),
Comunidec/RIAD/Abya-Yala, Quito, 39-62.
Nelson, Diane M. (1999). A Finger in the Wound: body politics in
Quincentennial Guatemala, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ortiz Crespo, S. (1999).
“Participación ciudadana y desarrollo local: algunas pistas de reflexión.” IN Ciudadanías emergentes: experiencias
democráticas de desarrollo local, Mauro Hidalgo et al., eds.,
Comunidec/RIAD/Abya-Yala, Quito, 63-83.
Paulson, S., and Calla, P.
(2000). “Gender and ethnicity in Bolivian politics: transformation or
paternalism?” Journal of Latin American
Anthropology, 5(2), 112-149.
Peek, P. (1982). “Agrarian
change and labour migration in the Sierra of Ecuador.” IN State policies and migration: studies in Latin America and the
Caribbean, P.Peek and G. Standing, eds., Croom Helm, London, 121-143.
Plant, R. (1998). “Issues in
Indigenous Poverty and Development.” IND-105,
Inter-American Development Bank, Washington DC.
Portes, A., and Landolt, P.
(2000). “Social capital: promise and pitfalls of its role in development.” Journal of Latin American Studies, 32(2,
May), 529-548.
Radcliffe, Sarah A. (1999).
“Popular and state discourses of power.” IN Human
Geography Today, J. Agnew,. P. Sarre and D.Massey, eds., Polity, Cambridge,
219-242.
Radcliffe, Sarah A. (2001)
“Development, the state and transnational political connections: state and
subject formations in Latin America.” Global
Networks, 1(1).
Reilly, C. (editor) (1995). New paths to democratic development in Latin
America: the rise of NGO-municipal collaboration, Lynne Reinner Publishers,
Boulder.
Sack, R. D. (1997). Homo geographicus, Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
Selverston, M. (1994) “The
politics of culture: indigenous peoples and the state in Ecuador” IN Indigenous Peoples and Democracy in Latin
America, D. L. Van Cott, ed., Inter-American Dialogue/St. Martin's Press,
New York.
Selverston, M. (1997) “The
politics of identity reconstruction: indians and democracy in Ecuador” IN The new politics of inequality in Latin
America, D. Chalmers, ed., Oxford University Press, New York.
Stepan, Nancy (1991) "The hour of eugenics": Race,
gender and nation in Latin America, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Swyngedouw, Erik. (2000).
“Authoritarian governance, power and the politics of rescaling.” Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space, 18(1), 63-76.
Torres, V. H. (1999a). “El
desarrollo local en el Ecuador: discursos, tendencias y desafíos.” IN Ciudadanías emergentes: experiencias
democráticas de desarrollo local, M. Hidalgo et.al. eds., Abya-Yala, Quito,
15-38.
Torres, V. H. (1999b)
“Guamote: el proceso indígena de gobierno municipal participativo.” IN Ciudadanías emergentes: experiencias
democráticas de desarrollo local, M. Hidalgo et al, eds.,
Comunidec/RIAD/Abya-Yala, Quito, 87-112.
Van Cott, D. L. (2000a)
“Explaining ethnic autonomy regimes in Latin America.” Paper presented at the XXII Latin American Studies Association
Congress, Miami, March 11-15th.
Van Cott, D. L. (2000b). The Friendly Liquidation of the Past: the
politics of diversity in Latin America, University of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburgh.
Van Cott, D. L. (editor)
(1994). Indigenous peoples and democracy
in Latin America, InterAmerican Dialogue/St. Martin's Press, New York.
van Nieuwkoop, M., and
Uquillas, J. E. (2000) “Defining Ethno-Development in operational terms:
lessons from the Ecuador Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadoran Peoples Development
Project.” Working Paper no.6, World
Bank, Latin American and Caribbean Regional Office, Environmentally and
Socially Sustainable Development SMU., Washington DC.
Wade, P. (1997). Race and ethnicity in Latin America,
Pluto, London.
Waters, W. (1997). “The road
of many returns: rural bases of the urban informal sector economy in Ecuador.” Latin American Perspectives, 24 (3),
50-64.
Weismantel, M., and
Eisenman, S. (1998). “Race in the Andes: global movements and popular
ontologies.” Bulletin of Latin American
Research, 17 (2), 121-142.
Whitten, N. (editor) (1981).
Cultural transformation and ethnicity in
modern Ecuador, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
World Bank (1997). “Project appraisal document on a
proposed loan in the amount of a US$25.0 million to the Republic of Ecuador for
an Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian peoples development project.” 17217-EC, Environmentally and Social
Sustainable Development Sector Management Unit, Latin American and Caribbean
Region, World Bank, Washington DC.
World Bank (1999). “Bolivia:
Indigenous Peoples Development - Conditions, policies and program strategy.
Executive Summary.” [World Bank], [Washington DC].
Yashar, Deborah (1996).
“Indigenous protest and democracy in Latin America.” IN Constructing Democratic Governance: Latin America and the Caribbean in
the 1990s: Themes and Issues, J. Domínguez and A. Lowenthal, eds., The
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Yashar, D. (1999).
“Democracy, indigenous movements and the post-liberal challenge in Latin
America.” World Politics, 52.
Zamosc, L. (1994). “Agrarian protest and the indian movement in the Ecuadorian highlands” Latin American Research Review, 21(3), 37-69.
[1] The dynamics of interaction between political authorities – and between political representatives and civil society – can demonstrate the complex politics of scale now underway, as well as the emergence of new subjects of politics (cf. Swyngedouw 2000b; Alvarez 1998).
[2] Illiterate populations
(illiterate in Spanish that is) were excluded from franchise until 1979 in Peru
and Ecuador. Moreover, they have long been excluded from the national imagined
community, comprising mestizos and
‘whites’ (Wade 1997).
[3] (Hale 1994); (Andolina
1999).
[4] (Van Cott 2000b), (Selverston
1997), (Andolina
1999).
[5] In Ecuador, political gains have included the election of indigenous Congress members in the 1996 and 1998 elections, the appointment of indigenous in key government positions, and their contribution to the writing of the 1998 Constitution, see (Van Cott 2000a).
[6] The literature on
the indigenous movements of South America is vast and expanding rapidly. For an
overview, see (Van Cott 1994), (Yashar
1999) and (Zamosc
1994). On reasons why Peru has not seen indigenous
mobilization on the scale of other countries, see (Degregori 1998) and (Yashar
1996).
[7] The material presented here results from an on-going research project entitled “ ‘We are all Indians?’ Transnational political communities in Ecuador and Bolivia”, funded by the ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council), from April 1999 to June 2001.
[8] Rural-urban interaction intensified as service employment grew and rural livelihoods increasingly depended upon urban incomes. Daily rural migrants working in the urban informal sector contributed to growing rural-urban connections. In a survey carried out in the mid-1980s in Quito, Ecuador, it was found that one third of workers traveled daily into Quito for employment, mostly in the informal sector. Extrapolating from this, it was calculated that fully 10 per cent of the Quito EAP migrates every day. Wage labourers travelling to the Chapare, Bolivia, circulate on a constant basis between rural households and the “city”. Ecuadorian rural parishes survive by combining urban work, rural production with a “relative ruralization” (Torres 1999b: 93). Moreover, towns and cities have become increasingly multicultural, as migration and settlement of indigenous and Afro-Latin American populations have created large, culturally distinct interest groups. Bucking national (elite) expectations that they would relinquish an ethnic identity upon incorporation into urban economies and cultures, multicultural populations became adept at managing complex cultural settings characterized by hybridity and “bricolage” (Colloredo-Mansfeld 1999; Atupaña 2000; García Canclini 1995). Consequently, the political interests and rights of rural and ethnically-marked subjects are no longer tied exclusively to rural areas and the “thin” modernist state that existed (Bengoa 1998). Whether in Quito, La Paz or Guayaquil, ethnic “archipelagos” represent the tying together of rural/urban interests into the political landscape, as do their rural counterpart organizations of comunas, cabildos or second-tier organizations. Indigenous associations are now forming in Guayaquil, Ecuador’s largest city and historically an area in which indigenous migrants hisorically disavowed indigenous identity, in favour of national mestizo identity. See (Atupaña 2000).
[9] In the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank among others, formal democratization is perceived as linked with a need for increased administrative transparency and accountability (Leftwich 1996).
[10] The term “hybrid”
highlights the mixing of different institutional histories and personnel.
Hybrid development institutions represent the coming-together of individual
professionals, skills and experiences from sectors that were previously
separate, whether in the state (technocrats, centralized bureaucracies),
non-governmental organizations or popular organizations (neighbourhood
associations, peasant unions, indigenous communities organizations, etc.). Through 1960-1990
most regional NGOs were hostile to or at least critical of state development efforts.
As institutional and political configurations change, staff, discourses and
resources enter into innovatory networks (Radcliffe
2001). For example, the National Secretariat of Popular
Participation in Bolivia, established under the Law of Popular Participation
(1994) hired staff from independent and left-wing research institutes and NGOs
in a reconfigured Ministry of Human Development (Van Cott 2000b: 180).
[11] Multilaterals argue that
they are not involved in politics per se,
although there is increasingly an acknowledgement of the need to take politics
into account, see for example (Davis
2000).
[12] Proyecto de Desarrollo
de los pueblos indígenas y negros del Ecuador, that is Development Project
for Indigenous and Black Peoples of Ecuador.
[13] However, only after three years did productive and social investment overtake cosmetic spending (Van Cott 2000b: 181-2).
[14] Under the 1995 Ecuadorian “Ley de Regimen municipal y provincial” “autonomous sectional” authorities including municipalities were allotted 15% of state revenues.
[15] I am grateful to Robert Andolina for pointing this
out to me.
[16] In an early anti-centralist impulse, the Association of Ecuadorian Municipalities (AME) made moves to allow adaptations to local circumstances.
[17] These legal provisions included the 1992 law for cities over 1 million inhabitants (Carrión 1998); the 1993 “Law of state modernization, privatization and private sector provision of public services”. The 1998 “Law of decentralization of the state and social participation” ratified the functions of municipal and provincial councils, although arguably in a rather conservative fashion (Torres 1999a: 30).
[18] The number of indigenous controlled municipalities in
Bolivia is not easily calculable, due to peasant-indigenous designation of
individuals, and the lack of an ‘indigenous party’. Nevertheless, of the 311
municipalities studied in 1996, 210 had indigenous-peasant councillors
(concentrated in La Paz and Santa Cruz departments). Mayors are chosen by
negotiation between leading parties, and have short terms of office (Albó
1999).
[19] Information on the 2000
elections comes from the ICCI website, at http://www.nativeweb.org/elecciones
2000/, accessed on 13 September 2000.
[20]
The
ex-Vice President of the main indigenous confederation CONAIE, Arturo Yumbay,
became mayor in Guaranda, while Cesar Umaginga (leader of the provincial
indigenous federation MIC) became prefecto
in Cotopaxi.
[21] The list included Inter-American Foundation, the Embassy of the
Netherlands, Fundación Esquel-Ecuador, Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO),
Swiss FOES, CARE, Plan International, and Ayuda Popular Noruega (Norwegian
Popular Aid).
[22] GTZ 2000, Portfolio
actual de la GTZ en el Ecuador (published Quito).
[23] The flagship World Bank project in Ecuador for indigenous (and black) peoples, Prodepine, aims to provide technical assistance for “development with identity” or ethno-development (Interviews with World Bank, Prodepine, 2000; (Davis 2000); van Nieuwkoop and Uquillas 2000). Prodepine works mostly with rural parish associations (OSGs), but now additionally partners some 14 indigenous municipalities, as well as a handful of cantonal and provincial governments (World Bank 1997; Interview with Ramón, 2000).
[24] Interculturalism
itself is a discursive component of complex transnational connections made by
indigenous people in their movement’s agenda (Project notes, 2000).
[25] The remit of municipal actions is thereby extended beyond the emphasis on social infrastructure, and is seen to complement work on local development by enhancing social capital.
[26] The definition of
interculturalism given by Ecuarunari the major Quichua federation of Ecuador is
“finding imaginative solutions to changes in relations between different
groups, from a vision of respect for difference and for unity within diversity”
(quoted in (Muñoz 1999: 44). The same document goes on to make specific reference
to municipal government, in which “it is necessary to understand municipal
management and local development in relation to a relation of respect and
dialogue between social groups and different actors” (ibid.).
[27] The case of Saquisilí is
similar to Suscal in this regard.
[28] Municipalities have
also joined regional groupings in order to exchange experiences and wider
support. For example, the Mesa de
Concertacion del Consorcio Carchi de la Cuenca del rio El Angel, which also
involved NGOs, and a development agency (Torres
1999a).
[29] In the 1998 elections, the
indigenous OSG won 1 consejal, and 1
deputy for Cotopaxi province. At the municipal level, elected indigenous
representatives included the mayor, 3 Pachacutik councillors; there were also 2
DP councillors and 2 PSC (Larrea and
Larrea 1999).
[30] Personal communication, Donna Lee Van Cott,
University of London, March 2000.
[31] In this highly ethnically charged municipality, interculturalism of gender was clearly off the agenda; more research remains to be done on how masculinities are performed in more intercultural districts.
[32] According to the Pachacutik party, JPRs were established in the 1998 Constitution as autonomous entities (separate from cabildo authorities), and hence require secondary legislation in order to clarify their functions and role. Discussions have been held between the Congressional commission on decentralization and the indigenous confederations CONAIE, FEINE and FENOCIN, in order to formulate this secondary legislation (El Comercio 9.May.2000, A6).