Pachakutik and the Rise and Decline of the Ecuadorian Indigenous Movement

Introduction: Indigenous Political Mobilization

 Introduction Indigenous Political Mobilization The cholo, a fusion of cultures, is inevitably replacing the Ecuadorian Indian. . . . When the cholo replaces the Indian as the typical member of Ecuador’s lower class, then—but not before—will the ruling class be under compulsion to institute reforms. Rebellion cannot be launched by the Indian; it can and probably will be carried forward by the cholo, the Ecuadorian of the future. —George I. Blanksten north american political scientist George I. Blanksten reached these conclusions at the end of his 1951 study of Ecuador’s government and politics (1964,177).This was a time when the country’s political and social elites viewed Ecuador’s indigenous population as a drag on development and modernization. Indians’ “disappearance” via miscegenation and by becoming cholos (a term used to describe Indians who rid themselves of their indigenous identities by moving to the cities, shedding their indigenous garb, and embracing mestizo culture) was seen as a key solution to the bottleneck indigenous peoples represented against the country’s progress toward becoming modern.1 As Blanksten also claimed, Ecuador’s Indians—viewed as hopelessly traditional, submissive, fatalistic, and oppressed—would not be the motor force for political change. They would not rebel and would therefore be incapable of acting effectively in their own interest or in the interest of reforming the state and society. That Ecuador’s—and other Andean  introduction countries’—indigenous peoples have suffered oppression for some five hundred years, first at the hands of the Spanish and continuing throughout the republican era, is indisputable. Blanksten’s claim that indigenous peoples would not revolt tells us two things. First, social prognosticators are often proved wrong, and Blanksten should not be faulted for failing to envision the organizational growth and power of Ecuador’s indigenous confederations that was to take place within three decades of his writing. Second, that Blanksten appears ignorant of the numerous Indian rebellions in both the colonial and republican epochs is a testament to the lack of attention paid to indigenous peoples by most historians.2 In this light,it becomes less surprising that the 1990 levantamiento,3 a nationwide uprising by many thousands of Indians that was organized by local, regional and national indigenous organizations, was an unexpected occurrence to Ecuador’s whites and mestizos , who were shocked to see indigenous peoples being “uppity.” The 1990 levantamiento also clearly demonstrated that, despite the efforts of Ecuador’s white and mestizo leaders to encourage the disappearance of el indio, many of the country’s indigenous peoples were proudly and boldly asserting their claims to their indigenous identities,cultural practices, and community rights to land and territory.4 Importantly, Ecuador’s Indian population was demanding a central role in the country’s politics, a role that would enfranchise them to participate in decision making about how they live and how they are governed. In short, the levantamiento gave notice that Ecuador’s Indians were not simply rebelling; they were insisting that the country live up to its claim that it was a democracy that was truly attentive to their interests and needs. Ecuador is not the only country in Latin America where indigenous peoples have been mobilizing and making similar claims and demands.Scholars from a number of disciplines have for some time addressed the emergence of indigenous activism in Latin America.5 Contemporary indigenous activism and movements (re)emerged in the 1980s with the so-called third wave of democratization. Across the region indigenous peoples marched, demonstrated, protested, participated in international discussion forums, blocked major roads, occupied government buildings, took up arms, and, in Ecuador, played key roles in deposing two presidents. Latin American Indians also created indigenous movements to represent their interests and demands, both to civil society and, importantly, to the state. As Deborah Yashar (2005, 21) points out, significant indigenous movements emerged in  indigenous political mobilization Ecuador, Bolivia, Guatemala, and Mexico. By contrast, indigenous mobilizing in Peru has been weak and quite localized (Yashar 2005, 21–22; Albó 2004). However, indigenous organizing in these and other countries has not met with equal success (see chapter 2). What factors gave rise to this dramatic growth in indigenous mobilization ? One observer, whose analysis is limited to the central Andean region, suggests that there were both internal and external conditions, though what role each played varied between countries (Albó 2004, 28–36). Among local conditions, Albó cites land colonization and oil exploration...