locating the indian problem_community, nationality, and contradiction in ecuadorian

7/29/2019 Locating the Indian Problem_Community, Nationality, And Contradiction in Ecuadorian

1/27

Locating the "Indian Problem": Community, Nationality, and Contradiction in EcuadorianIndigenous PoliticsAuthor(s): Jos Antonio LuceroReviewed work(s):Source: Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 30, No. 1, Indigenous Transformational Movementsin Contemporary Latin America (Jan., 2003), pp. 23-48Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3184964 .Accessed: 28/08/2012 16:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLatin American

Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3184964?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3184964?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/27

Locatingthe "IndianProblem"Community,Nationality,andContradictionin Ecuadorian ndigenousPolitics

byJose Antonio LuceroJose Carlos Mariateguibegan a justly famous essay by insisting thatPeru's "Indianproblem"was fundamentally problemof economics rather

thanone of politics,law, race, culture,ormorality."The ndigenousquestionarises from our economy. It has its roots in the propertyregime of land"(Mariategui,1979 [1928]: 35). Theoristswho arguedotherwise,he warned,were "doomed o absolutediscredit."nterestingly,heessay thatbeganwitha Peruvianeconomic "problem" losed with a solution that was relevant arbeyondPeruandthat nvolvedan awarenessnotonlyof economics butalso ofpolitics, identity,andideology (1979 [1928]:45, my emphasis):1Thesolution to the Indianproblemmustbe a social solution.Its makersmustbethe Indians themselves.Thisconceptualizationeads us to view themeetingofindigenouscongressesas a historic feat.The indigenous congresses,debasedin the past years by bureaucratism, do not yet represent a course of action, buttheir first meetings signaled a route that linked Indians from various regions.TheIndians lack nationallinkages.Theirprotestshavealways beenregional.This has contributed, in large, part to their abatement. A people of four million,conscious of its size, never despairs about its future. The same four million,while they remain an inorganic mass, a dispersed crowd, are incapable ofdeciding their historical direction.

Jose Antonio Lucero teaches political science at Temple University.He has been a visitingresearcher t theCentrode Investigaci6nde los MovimientosSociales del Ecuador Quito)andthe Centro de Investigaci6ny Promoci6ndel Campesinado La Paz). His research ocuses onpolitical representation nd ndigenoussocial movements n Bolivia andEcuador.Thisarticle sbasedon tenmonthsof fieldwork n Ecuador 1998-1999) and a brief visit inAugust2000. Theresearchwassupported ygrants romFulbrightIE,theMacArthur oundation, ndthe follow-ing sources at PrincetonUniversity: the Center for InternationalStudies, the Council onRegional Studies, and the Programin Latin American Studies. The author also gratefullyacknowledges he institutional upportof Centrode Investigaci6nde los MovimientosSocialesdel EcuadornQuitoandthe intellectualencouragement f itsdirector, orgeLe6nTrujillo.LAPreviewers and PatrickC. Wilson offeredhelpful criticisms of earlier drafts. This article wasmuchimprovedby MariaElenaGarcia'spatientandprecise suggestions.LATINAMERICANPERSPECTIVES,ssue 128,Vol. 30 No. 1,January2003 23-48DOI: 10.1177/0094582X02239143? 2003 Latin AmericanPerspectives

23


3/27

24 LATINAMERICANPERSPECTIVES

This lesson has not been lost on contemporary ndigenous activists inEcuador.Far rom an"inorganicmass,"Ecuadorianndigenouspeopleshavedevelopednational(andinternational)inkagesin the developmentof argu-ablythe mostpowerful ndigenousmovement n thecontinent,a movementthathasplacedcollectiverights n theconstitutionandmajorobstacles in theway of neoliberaleconomic reform.This article does not attempt o reviewthe important ndcomplexrise of indigenousmovements n Ecuador,but itdoes try to continue the line of inquirywith which Mariateguiconcluded.Througha comparisonof indigenous"communities"and "nationalities,"hopeto contributeo ourunderstanding f thepoliticsof identityandorgani-zation in both the abatementand the achievementsof indigenous protest nmodernEcuador.This articlecomparesthe ways in which the models and discourses ofindigenous"community" nd"nationality" ave linkedIndians o state nsti-tutionsduringtwo critical momentsin the historyof state-Indian elations,the late 1930s and the late 1990s. Conceptually, he units of communityandnationalityrepresent he two "unifyingpoles"of contemporary ndigenouspolitics thatconnect movementsto local indigenousspaces (comunidades)and aim toward projects of supracommunal indigenous autonomy(nacionalidades)(Ibarra,1999:83). Historically, he late 1930s and the late1990s represent wo importantandcontrasting ritical unctures n the longandcomplexhistoryof indigenous-state elations.2First,bothperiodsrepre-sent political openingsduringwhich indigenous people are to some extentincorporatednto nationalpolitics aftersignificantperiodsof social unrest.Second,bothperiodsleave clearpoliticaland cultural egacies through heriseand institutionalizationf particular indsof hegemonic ndigenouscol-lectivities,community n the 1930s andnationality n the 1990s.3Third,thetwo periodsinvolveddifferent ypes of incorporation,he 1930s incorpora-tion "fromabove"on corporatisterms setby the state,and the 1990sforcedincorporation frombelow" with termscomingfrom new indigenoussocialmovements.The contrastingstories of state-led"communitybuilding"andindigenousconstructionsof "nationalities" elpshedlighton a centralques-tioninthedevelopmentof national ndigenoussocial movements:howlocal-ized andregionalized ndigenouspopulations,overtime,converge nto a uni-fied,visible,andrepresentable ational ndigenouspoliticalactor(Guerrero,2000). While exploringthe differentpoliticaloutcomes of corporatist om-munities inthe 1930s)anddefiantnationalities inthe 1990s),thiscompari-son also problematizes he neat distinctionbetween resistanceand domina-tion. Paradoxically, the unintended consequences of community andnationalityformationsuggest that militarygovernmentscan help createspacesfor contestationwhile social movementscanreproducehepatterns f


4/27

Lucero LOCATINGTHE "INDIAN PROBLEM" 25

dominantpower.Theconceptualandhistoricalcomparisondevelopedbelowillustrateshow thedouble-edged ermsof politics providehope in situationsof statedominationandencouragecriticalreflection n times of socialmove-mentsuccess.

FRAMEWORKS: THEORIES ANDHISTORIES OF POLITICS IN FRAGMENTED STATESBeforeturning o thiscomparison, t is worthbriefly describing he theo-reticalunderstandingshatguidethisstudy.Focusingas it does on resistanceanddomination, t comes as little surprise hatit takesa Gramscianview ofcommunitybuildingand contention.Gramscianculturalanalysisis helpfulin illustratinghe role thatthetermsof politicaldiscourseplayin hegemonicprocessesof dominationand resistance.Rather handrawingon Gramscian-inspiredstudies far beyond the "linguisticturn," his article (like Garcia'salso in this issue) builds on the historically groundedanalysis of WilliamRoseberry n examiningthehegemonic processesthroughwhich "theformsandlanguagesof protestor resistancemustadopt he forms and anguagesofdomination n order o be registeredor heard" 1996: 81). Insteadof viewingindigenouscommunitiesandnationalitiesas eitherprimordial ollectivitiesor ahistoricaldiscursive ormations,Roseberry'swork eads us to investigatehow theseunits and "the magesandthe movements heyinspireareproductsandresponsesto particularorces, structures, nd events"(1996: 83). More-over,by calling attention o the articulationof variouspoliticalunits (com-munities,nationalities, tates),this line of inquiryalsohelps explainhowpol-

itics is structured monga "peopledividedby a historythat blends culturalandracialdiversity ntorelationships f unequalpower" Ster, 1992:2-3).Althoughalmostall the statesof theAmericashaveformallyadopted ib-eral,representativeorms of government hatostensiblyconnect the "peo-ple" to the "state,"the uneven political landscapes of actually existingdemocraciesrequirestructures f politicalrepresentationo connect variouskinds of political subjectsto various kinds of political communities.Theempiricalunevennessof representations especially striking nthe contextofAndeanpoliticalhistories,in whichthetransitions rom colonial to republi-canpolitical systemswere farfromclean breaks.For muchof therepublicanperiodin LatinAmerica,indigenous people remainedneocolonialsubjectswithoutcitizenship rights.However,theywere neverbeyondthe politics ofrepresentation,understoodas a set of cultural and political processes thatmake visible, institutionalize,and articulatecertain kinds of political sub-jects and communities.4Rather,indigenous peoples were part of hybrid


5/27


political systems constitutedby democraticandnondemocratic epresenta-tive institutions.Consequently,rather hanprivilegeliberal,corporatist,orany othermodel of representation,his articleasks moreopen-endedques-tions: How were "Indians"pokenforinparticular istoricalcircumstances?Whatideas, identities,andrelationshipswereconstructedand institutional-ized, andhow didtheylinkpolitical subjectswithlargerpoliticalcommuni-ties? As we movetowardprovidingan answerto thesequestions,we shouldnote thatpolitical representationtarts ong beforewe think aboutelectionsorvoting;it occurs also in the variousways we orderandclassify land,terri-tories,andregions.This view of representation,hen,comesveryclose to theconcerns of MariateguiandGramsci.First,the historiesof indigenousmovements,as Mariategui tressed,areunintelligibleapart romthehistoryof land.Themostimportant ural nstitu-tion of the colonial andrepublicanperiodswas thehacienda, helarge andedestate of the highlands.More than a mode of agriculturalproduction, hehaciendawas also apoliticalinstitution hatprovided heincipientEcuador-ian statewith the answer o avexingproblem:how tokeepa colonialpoliticaleconomy functioningin ostensiblyrepublicanand liberal times. While theindependent,iberalEcuadorian epublicno longer egally recognized"Indi-ans" as a fiscal and legal category (as the colonial state had done), locallanded elites along with local church and town officials acceptedthe tacitinvitationof the nationalstate to takechargeof the indigenouspopulations.As AndresGuerrero1993; 1994;2000) hasshown, nthe late nineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies"ethnicadministration"n Ecuadorwas effectivelylocalized andvirtuallyprivatizedas hacendados, he church,andother ocalpowers were essentially given charge of "their"Indians. As we will seebelow,the legislationthatrecognizedthe legal standingof indigenouscom-munities n 1937 explicitly left untouched his systemof ethnic administra-tionby excludinghaciendasandtheirsizableindigenous abor orce fromthereach of the Ley de Comunas.The agrarianreformsof the 1960s and 1970s, however,finally under-mined the systemof ethnic administration.Toclaimthebenefits of agrarianreform, indigenous people reorganizedand legalized their communitiesthrough he state.Indeed,while manyof the communitiesorganized n thewake of the 1937 law analyzedbelow, it was duringthe years of agrarianreform that most communitieslegally came into existence (Zamosc, 1994:54). Agrarian reforms helped move the "Indian problem" from thesemiprivatesphereof ethnic administration o a nationalpublic sphereinwhich nationaldevelopment plans were debated and nationwideprotestswereplanned. n the 1990s,concernwithruraldevelopmentntensified n theface of neoliberalpolicies that eliminated subsidies and social spending.


6/27


However,concernsoverthe land were no longerrestricted o familiarones ofsubsistenceandproduction "latierraes de quienla trabaja") utalso linkedto political questionsof the autonomyof indigenous"territories."5Second, as Gramsciknew,regionaland other subnationaldynamicsarecrucial in the elaboration of hegemonic and counterhegemonicprojects(Gramsci,1971 [1949];Roseberry,1996).The "regionalquestion" n Ecua-dor hasusuallybeen focusedoncoastalGuayaquilandhighlandQuitoas therespectiveeconomic andpolitical poles of national ife. Forindigenouspoli-tics, politicalcentersof gravityare located in the AndeanhighlandsandtheAmazonian lowlands. It is important o note thatAndean and Amazoniansystems of ethnic administrationhave very distinct histories.The "Indianquestion"was,for most of therepublicanperiod, tself aquestionof thehigh-lands, where the majorityof indigenous people lived in Ecuador.Whileindigenous"tribes"nhabited he tropical owlands,until the late twentiethcentury hedispersedpopulationswere of relatively ittle concern o nationalelites. The statebeganto paymoreattention o the Amazonregionwhen theAmazonbecame a sourceof importantnatural esourcesandthe site of bor-derconflicts with neighboringPeru.Fromthese conflicts emergedthe nowfamiliar, f misleading,nationalistslogan: "Ecuador s, has been, and willalways be an Amazoniancountry." n the second half of the twentiethcen-tury,the stateencouragedmissionariesto create settlementsof Amazoniangroups iketheShuarnot as comunasbut as "centers" ortamingandciviliz-ingthe"savages" nd"cannibals" f the Oriente Karakras, 001). Morewillbe said aboutregionaldifferences,butfornow it suffices to saythat he devel-opmentof national ndigenoussocial movementsinvolves the constructionandnegotiationof local, regional,and national ndigenous spaces.

COMMUNITIES, CORPORATISM,AND THE LEY DE COMUNAS OF 1937We begin with the orderingand classifying of Ecuadorin the 1930s,because it is at this point that many begin the story of the "returnof theIndian" Alb6, 1991)to Ecuadorian olitics.6LuisMacas,inhispresentation

to the 1998LatinAmericanStudiesAssociationmeeting,providesafamiliar,if not the standard, rajectory or the movement: the contemporaryndige-nous movementgrew steadilyfromthe reconsolidationof indigenouscom-munity organizing made possible by the Ley de Comunas of 1937 tosupracommunalssociation n the1960sand1970sandthen,finally,with thecrises of stateandeconomyinthelate 1980sand1990s,to nationaland nter-nationalorganizational ctivityandagitation.Thehistoricalrecord s much


7/27

28 LATINAMERICANERSPECTIVES

morecomplicatedand agged, varyinggreatlyfromplaceto place (see, e.g.,Becker, 1997; 1999;Figueroa,1996-1997), butMacas'sdescription choesacommon theme of new indigenous representation:here exist local spaceswhereIndianshavelong practiced heirownwaysof life, production, ndjus-tice-sus usosy costumbres."Community"etains ts privilegedpositionasthe building block of the movement in movement discourse. Jose MariaCabascango,acontemporary ational ndigenous eader quoted nFigueroa,1996-1997: 209), makes the point:Theprincipleof community,of reciprocity,of solidarity hathas existedin thecommunity s a fundamental spect[of the indigenousmovement].That s, inour heads is placed thatprinciplewhich will not be erasedby colonialism,externalinfluences, or the policies of acculturationand integration hat thestatepursuesagainst heindigenouspueblos.We have maintained s a commu-nity this organizational trength.

Thus,it is worthaskinghow this "principleof community"was "placed n"anyone's"head"n the firstplace.And it is here that1937and new efforts toreimaginethe place of Indians are crucial.The 1937 Ley de Comunas andaccompanyingEstatutosOrganicoswereimportant urningpointsin the his-toryof state-Indian elations.In the 1930s, an increasinglyautonomous,military-controlledtaterec-ognizedthe need torespond o thegrowingnumberof rural onflicts inmanyhighland communities especially in the northern Sierra (Ram6n, 1993;Becker,1997).Inaddition,anemerging iberalandmodernist lite discourseemphasized he need for an internalmarketand an end to "feudal" conomicrelations nthecountryside.Thepreviousdecadeshad seen the eliminationofthe diezmo(a "tax" hatwent to the Church)and the formal abolition of thedebt-peonage aborsystem of concertaje.7These modernizingdiscoursessometimeshad regionalaccents. Coastalexport-sector lites, already n competition or nationalpolitical powerwiththe sierra andedclass,used the ideas of modernization s a waytochallengethe local power base of serrano elites. In nineteenth-centuryEcuador theemergenceof two distinctregionalelites-the cacao-exporting ligarchyonthe coast and the landed sierra elite-and the competitionbetween themhelps explain the push by coastal elites for "progressive"egislation thathelped Indiansescape the debt-peonagesystem of the haciendas. Coastalindustrieswerechronicallyshortof laborand saw theweakeningof haciendadomination as importantto freeing-up Indian labor (see Clark, 1997;Figueroa,1996-1997). Thepushto loosenhighlandcontroloverindigenouslabor,combined with the lingering pessimistic images of the "disgraced


8/27

Lucero LOCATINGTHE "INDIANPROBLEM" 29

Indianrace,"generatednew legislative"protection"or Indians.TheLey deComunaswas itself anexpressionof such"protective"egislation,but it washardlya directattackon haciendas.Rather,t "came o serve as acompromisebetween the concessionsthatwere stillgiventolarge andownersandthepro-jectof indigenistaswho,worriedabout heexperienceof the Mexicanrevolu-tion,sawintheagrarian onditionsthe fermentof social conflict"(Figueroa,1996-1997: 198). If we think aboutrepresentationas the constructionofpolitical subjectsand their inclusion in political communities,the Ley deComunas s instructive.The 1937 law recognizedthatthere existed human settlements(such ascomunidades ampesinas)thatwere notincorporatedntotheadministrativedivisions of the Ecuadorian tate or"nationality." ccordingly,with thegoalof promoting he "socialdevelopmentof these communities"andrecogniz-ing their "rightsand obligations,"the law created the legal category ofcomuna with which ruralcommunities of 50 people or more could obtainlegal recognition(personerfa uridica). The measurepresented hepossibil-ityof a newdegreeof politicalandeconomicautonomy or "free"ndigenouscommunities,albeit within anemergingcorporatist tate structure.8 he lawallowed forcomuneros oelect theirownlocalgovernments cabildos)andtohold propertycollectively.Comunaswere linkedinstitutionally o local andcentral state structures: hey were linked to the local administration f theparroquiaand tenientepolitico butalso couldappealdirectlyto theMinistryof Social Welfare or arbitration f conflicts.Inrecognizingcomunasthe state(not surprisingly)did not intendto pro-vide apermanent egalbasisforindigenouscommunitybuilding.Tothe con-trary,comunas were simply a way station on the road to a more "rational"form of production, he cooperative.While Article 1 of theLegal StatuteofDecember 1937 recognizesthe "right[of] campesinocommunitiesto existand develop socially and economically under the protectionof the state,"Article3 of the same statutedeclares hat hegovernmentwill adopt"thenec-essary means to transform he communitiesinto cooperativesfor produc-tion."As one indigenista ntellectualandhigh-ranking ureaucratmadeclearat thetime,the nationalprojectof the Ecuadoriantatewasto"obtain he kindof Indian hat suits us"("obtener l tipode indioque nos conviene")(A. M.Paredes,quoted n Guerrero,1993).9Yet,it is remarkable hatthe forms andlanguageof communitywere neverdisplaced by the modernizingmodelsof cooperatives. Accordingto 1993 Ministryof Agriculturedata,comunasrepresented64.2 percentof the local organizations n indigenous areas ofhighland Ecuador while cooperatives represented 16 percent (Zamosc,1995: 70).


9/27


Even withouta strongmove towardcooperatives, herewereearlyindica-tions thatlegal protectionof communitiesmight still result in the "kindofIndian" hatsuitedthe state and iberal ndigenistaelites. The mostrepresen-tative voice of Ecuadorian ndigenismowas Pio JaramilloAlvarado(1980[1922]: 150),whowrote n the 1920s about hevirtuesof the"freecommuni-ties" that were the targetof the Ley de Comunas:The reecomuneroasopposedo the ndio oncertado]sagoodworker, ell-fed,dresses eatlyconaseo],knowshow odefend isrights efore heusur-pation f neighboringacendados,ecovers bandonedonesof cultivation,utilizesrrigation,onstituteshenucleus f thedemandor heagrarianightsof the Indians,andorganizesstrikes. . . and for all these characteristics hehacendadooesnot ookwellupon hecomunero ndpropagatesheneed odivide heterritorieshat heseIndians ccupy.

Thus these free spaceshad to be protectedandperhapssomeday,when thesemifeudal orceswaned,evenexpanded. nJaramillo'spassage,representa-tive of the Ecuadorian liberal imagination, the "community,"free ofhacendadodomination, s the spacein which Indianscan be well-fed, clean,productive,rights-bearing,n short,"modem"political subjects.To conclude thispartof ourcomparative xploration, wouldsuggestthatthe elaborationof the Ley de Comunashighlights importantaspectsof theviolent rhythmsof dominationandresistancein Latin America.First,thislegislationreflectsa pattern amiliar o studentsof Latin Americain whichthe incorporation f popularsectorsfollows a periodof social unrest.SinceBolivar, liberal Enlightenmentideas of equality and liberty have beeninjected selectively and cautiously into situationsof dramaticallyunequalpower relations. Uprisings and revolutions provoked nightmaresin thecriolloelite imaginationof subaltern ectorswaitinglike volcanoesto erupt,makingeven libertadoresworriedaboutgiving the masses too much free-dom.'0Thispatternof revolutionand conservative iberalstatebuildingdoesnot play out only within the boundariesof nation-states.Local elites were(andare)very awareof the dangers"inthe neighborhood."The specterofslave revolt in Haiti in 1791 weighed like a nightmareon the conservativecriollo revolutionarieswho led the Wars of Independence.The bloodydecade-longMexican Revolutionand its aftermath nformed hethinkingoflegislatorsin Ecuadorand throughout he Americasin the firsthalf of thetwentiethcentury.Similarly, heCubanRevolution n 1959playedanimpor-tantrole in stimulating he waves of agrarian eform n the Andes.As a kindof "safety-valve"system of representation, orporatistarrangementshavelongbeenimportantor thegoal of social control." Corporatisttructures f


10/27

LuceroLOCATINGHE INDIANROBLEM" 31mediation ikethose createdbytheLeyde Comunasareawayof quellingdis-sent and are formed n the contextof internationalvents,politicaleconomiccurrents,andshiftingconstellationsof nationaland local forces.Second, the Ley de Comunaswas not only a responseto the conflict onhaciendasandevents n Mexico butalso aprojectionof certaineliteimagesofthe Indian.Theprotective egislationthatbeganin the 1920s andwhose lastexpressionwas the lawof 1937had its rootsinconservativeand iberal hink-ing.The conservativeNationalSocietyof Agriculture,whilerecognizing heneed for the developmentof an internalmarket,arguedthat the coercivemechanisms that governed rural relations were necessary because the"Indiandid not have the necessarylevel of moralityand culture" o really"participaten his rightsand duties."Accordingly,a spokesman or the Soci-ety (quoted n Figueroa,1996-1997: 194)explained n 1918that"theIndianproblem s morethan a legal problem, t is a matterof moralandintellectualculture,andwe should not fail to improve helegislation, addingwhatever sneeded. We should educate and enlighten him [the Indian]to the extentappropriateo his current onditionsandcapabilities."We should not be sur-prisedthat the same paternalistic one is echoed by the 1937 law's openingconsiderations dentifyingits goal as the "intellectual,moral,and materialimprovement" f communitymembers.Moreover,reflectingthe belief thatlanded elites often providedthe pedagogicalpush needed, the law appliedonly to "free"settlementsnot linked to repressive(im)moraleconomies ofhaciendas.

Finally,it maybe helpfulto anticipateourjumpto the presentby takingnote that he"community"hat s often invokedby contemporaryndigenousactivists is a very different construct from the legal "community"of the1930s.It is still shotthroughwithhopesformodernity,but n thelanguageoflate-twentieth-century cademics and Indianactivists "community"s theterrainof traditionandresistance.Authorssuchas GaloRam6n(1993) andJose SainchezParga(1992) write of communitiesin the languageof PierreClastres,asanexampleof society against hestate,convertingwhatwas oncea state-sanctionedpaceforcontrol nto sites for theproduction f alternativelogics andpractices hatgo againstthe grainof dominantWestern ationali-ties (Figueroa, 1996-1997). However,in the legislation of the 1930s, thecommunitywas not an Indianpolitical subjector partof a projectof resis-tancebutaplace-a properand safeplace-for the Indianproblem.As Clarksuggests(1998: 393), in the Ecuadorof the 1930sand1940s,anautonomousIndianprojectwas "literallyunthinkable." his wouldonly becomepublicly"thinkable, upturingwidespread mages of Ecuadorian ndiansas passiveelementsof the nation,in the 1990s."


11/27


NATIONALITIES AND CODENPEI wouldlike to move now to thatmomentthat Clarkmentions- the dra-matic breakwith what Guerrero1994) calls "ventriloquist epresentation,"when Indians,as Mariateguihad insisted, finally speak for "themselves."While indigenousorganizinghas a long history, t is notuntilthe 1990sthatone organization more than any other, the Confederaci6n de lasNacionalidades Indigenas del Ecuador (Confederation of IndigenousNationalitiesof Ecuador-CONAIE), stepsout of the shadowsof leftist andChurchorganizational fforts andspeaksas anindependentandrepresenta-tive indigenousactor. The CONAIE-ledmassive marches, blockades, andproteststhat becameknownas the June 1990 uprisingmarked he dramaticreturnof indigenouspeople to the nationalstage of the political scene (seeAlmeidaet al., 1991; 1993; CONAIE, 1998; Le6n, 1994; Zamosc, 1994).Overthe spanof a decade,CONAIEhas become the most important ocialmovementorganization n the country.Muchof its organizational trengthcomes from a remarkable ccomplishment:he confederationof local, pro-vincial,andregional ndigenousorganizations f Ecuador'scoast,highland,

and Amazonregions.Created n 1986by theunionof the two largest ndige-nous confederations,EcuadorRunacunaRiccharmarishunTheAwakeningof the EcuadorianIndians-ECUARUNARI) in the highlands and theConfederaci6nde NacionalidadesIndigenasde la Amazonia Ecuatoriana(the Confederationof AmazonianIndigenousNationalitiesof Ecuador-CONFENIAE)n the lowlandregions,CONAIEmarked he nationalconver-gence of what were previouslyparallelregional organizational rajectories.Withstrongcommunal,provincial,andregional inkages,CONAIEhas thecapacity o mobilizeits bases as do few othersocial movementorganizationsin the countryor,arguably, he continent.It is important o stressthatCONAIEis hardlythe first national ndige-nous organizationin Ecuador and that other organizationscontinue toadvancedifferent orms of indianidad. 2 n this interplayof representations,some ideaswinout overothersand,occasionally,get institutionalized, nd itis herethat hehegemonyof CONAIE n settingthe terms orindigenousrep-resentations moststriking.13 he mostimportantdea advancedand institu-tionalizedby CONAIEis the redefinitionof moder indigenous groupsasnacionalidades.In its veryname we find anothermportant ignof Ecuador-ianpeculiarity.Ecuadors theonly country nLatinAmerica nwhichindige-nous organizationshave made significantprogressin institutionalizing heunitandidea of indigenous"nationality."Initially,one suspectsthatthis is a conceptcuriouslyout of place. Prob-lems of difference n the Americas haveusuallybeen described n termsof


12/27

Lucero LOCATINGHE"INDIAN ROBLEM" 33

race, caste,class, or"culture"Wade,1997),rarely n thelanguageof nation-alities.'4On the otherside of the Atlantic,nationalityhas long been a com-mon category. Indigenous leaders acknowledge European influences(Maldonado,1992;interview,Quito,November12, 1998;AmpamKarakras,interview,February12, 1998)butpointoutthatthe idea of nationalitieswasnot imposedoruncritically mportedbutconsciously selected(1) to replaceseveralcompeting home-grownpejorativeterms (e.g., jivaros, colorados,aucas) and (2) to describe a particular ociopolitical situation(Karakras,1990:6):In the face of such confusion [overnames],we, the Indianorganizations, heIndian ueblos,want ogiveourselves urownnames,maintain ur dentity,our personality.And to the extent that we want to encompass the differentIndianpueblos, whatever heirparticularhistoricaldevelopment... we haveopted for the termof Indiannationalities.This resolutionhas been carefullyconsideredandobeys no outsideinfluence.Rather,we understand hatthecat-egory "nationality" xpressesthe economic, political,cultural,andlinguisticaspectsof ourpueblos;it situatesus in nationalandinternationalife.

This remarkablepassagemakes clear some of the politicalandsocial tasksperformedby "nationality." irst, the multiplicityof indigenous identitiesand labelssimplywouldnot do forthepoliticaltaskof organizinga nationalsocial movement.Onetermhadtobecapaciousenoughto accommodate pe-cific differencesand reflect a broaderpolitical project.Second,thatbroaderpolitical project explodes the idea of a single homogeneous Ecuadoriannationby proposing hat,as in otherpartsof theworld,a statecouldstill be asingle state and leaveroomfordifferent anguages,cultures,and economies(see Ibarra, 1999; Sanchez Parga, 1992; Ayala Mora, 1992; Maldonado,1992;Ram6nandBarahona,1993).Finally, t is worthnotingthat the "we"thatKarakras dentifies are the organizationsand thepueblos. Nationalitywas chosen not to erase previously legitimated ethnic identities (e.g.,Kichwa,Shuar)ororganizational nes(e.g., ECUARUNARI,heFederaci6nIndigenay Campesinade Imbabura) ut to create a politicalanddiscursivespace in which to articulate hem.While Karakras ightlystresses the independenceof CONAIEby statingthat its decisions "obey no outside influence,"this should not be taken tomean thatthe Ecuadorian deas of nationalityare disconnectedfrom widerinternational urrents.To the contrary, he Ecuadorianusage of nationalitycan be traced to a ratherbroadnineteenth-centuryraditionof thoughtandexperience.Inthesocialisttradition,MarxandEngelstooka ratherpessimis-tic andevolutionaryview of the chancesof smaller"nationalities"gainst he


13/27


rise of thegreatnationsof Europe.Engels argued hat hecontinuedexistenceof nationalities"represented othingmore than a protestagainsta greathis-toricaldrivingpower" quoted n Kymlicka,1995:70). Theconceptwas alsofamiliar o liberals ike JohnStuartMill,who saw nationalitiesastheproductof "collectiveprideand humiliation."As did MarxandEngels,Mill thoughtthatthe weakernationality e.g., BasqueorBreton)would have to submittothe largernations(such as SpainandFrance)of Westerncivilization ratherthan"sulkon its ownrocks,thehalf-savagerelic of pasttimes."15n thetwen-tieth century,socialists andliberals left some of this ethnocentrismbehindandused the term to confront he ethnic troubles n CentralEurope, he for-merSoviet Union, andSpain.The idea of nationalitytraveled to Ecuador as partof the internationalintersectionof leftist politics and social science. The spreadof the idea inEcuador reflects the influence of Soviet social scientists (especiallyZubritskyand Berjov) on a particulargroup of politically active Marxistintellectuals ncludingIleanaAlmeida,who studied n the Soviet Union(seeAlmeida,1979).These intellectualsandtheirwritings nfluenced heemerg-ing indigenouselite thatpassed throughthe UniversidadCentraland laterconstitutedCONAIE.While indigenous people had previously looked tostatecategories,"inmodern ndigenousdiscourse, hereexisted a reconstruc-tion of political languagenourishedby the traditionsof the left and the con-ceptualizationsof social science" (Ibarra,1999: 91). CulminatingwithKarakras'snfluentialrestatementquotedabove,nationalitybecame the dis-cursive vehicle for CONAIE'salternative,democraticpolitical project.The continuing importanceof the idea of nationalitycan be illustratedwith abrief examinationof thepoliticsof creating he newplanningministrydedicated to indigenous affairs, the Consejo de Desarrollo de lasNacionalidadesy Pueblos del Ecuador theCouncil for theDevelopmentofthe Nationalitiesand Pueblosof Ecuador-CODENPE). Thehistoryof thisinstitution eflectsnewprioritiesninternational nd nationalagendas.Inter-nationally,ndigenouspeoplewerebecoming increasingly mportanto bod-ies such as theInternational aborOrganization ndtheUnitedNations.TheUnitedNationsrecognized hecontinuing mportance f indigenous ssuestointernational gendasby movingfrom the 1993Yearof IndigenousPeopletothe InternationalDecade of the World's Indigenous People, 1995-2005(Brysk,2000: 130).Thischanging nternational nvironmenthad some observableeffects onnationalorganizing.The six national ndigenousorganizations hat in 1992had come together as the CoordinadorAgraria (Agrarian CoordinatingBody) to oppose attempts to privatize the agrariansector became theCoordinadoraNacional del Decenio (National CoordinatingBody of the


14/27

Lucero LOCATINGHE"INDIAN ROBLEM" 35

Decade [of Indigenous People]). This change in name also reflected achange in attitudetoward some state and internationalactors. When theCoordinadora el Decenio contacted he WorldBank aboutnegotiations hathad begun between the bank and the Ecuadoriangovernmentover a newindigenous development nitiative,an internalbank memo (quotedin VanNieuwkoopandUquillas,2000:26) sawthis contactas "a andmark" ecause"indigenousorganizations n Ecuadorhave usually taken a confrontationalpostureagainst hegovernmentandhave also beenverycriticalof theWorldBankand otherinternational rganizationsn the past."Indigenousorganizations, speciallyCONAIE,had indeedbeenverycrit-ical of the variousgovernmentalnstitutions hat since themomentous1990uprisinghad been created o deal with indigenousaffairs.In the mid-1990s,both President Sixto Duran Ballen's Secretaria Nacional de AsuntoIndigenasy MinoriaEtnicas(NationalSecretariatorIndigenousand EthnicMinoritiesIssues-SENAIN) and PresidentAbdala Bucaram'sMinisteriode DesarrolloEtnico (Ministryof EthnicDevelopment)were heavily criti-cized by CONAIE orbeinggovernmentalattempts o dividethe movementby co-opting certain sectors. CONAIE and other organizationswanted amore concerted effort to create more inclusive indigenous representation;such an effort came after Bucaramwas ousted.InterimPresidentFabianAlarcon, hrough oordinationwith the six exist-ing national ndigenousorganizations,he WorldBank,and the InternationalFundfor AgriculturalDevelopment(IFAD),createdby decree the ConsejoNacional de Planificaci6n de los Pueblos Indigenas y Negros del Ecuador(the National Ecuadorian Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian PlanningCouncil-CONPLADEIN). Thisnewministry-levelagencywas meant o bethe coordinatingbody for the Proyectoparael Desarrollode los PueblosIndigenasy Negrosdel Ecuador theIndigenousand Afro-Ecuadorian eo-ples' DevelopmentProject-PRODEPINE). The budgetof the new indige-nous developmentinitiative totaled US$50 million, with US$25 millioncoming from the WorldBank, US$15 million from the IFAD, and US$10million fromthe Ecuadorian tateand theindigenouscommunitiesandorga-nizations.This initiativehas been describedby WorldBank social scientistsas a series of "firsts" VanNieuwkoopandUquillas,2000: 9):

Theproject s the first stand-alone nvestmentoperation inancedby theWorldBank thatfocuses exclusively on indigenouspeoples and otherethnic minori-ties. It is the first time thatEcuadorhas borrowedresourcesspecifically forinvestmentsto benefit its indigenous and Afro-Ecuadoranpopulations.It isalso the firsttime that ndigenousorganizations ndtheEcuadoran overnmenthavejoined forces in an effort explicitly based on puttinginto practicethevision of "developmentwith identity," r "ethnodevelopment."


15/27


CONPLADEINandPRODEPINE,he one apartof Ecuadorian tateandtheothera "stand-alone" utinternationallyundedprogramoutsidethe state,were meant to worktogetherin implementingprojectsfor indigenousandAfro-Ecuadorian opulations.CONPLADEINwas structuredo give thesixnational ndigenous organizationsand the one Afro-Ecuadorian onfedera-tion equalrepresentation n its executive council.16As onemight guess,CONAIEwas notveryhappywith anarrangementnwhich it had the same number of votes as the almost defunctcommunistFederaci6nEcuatorianade Indiosandthe otherallegedly "less representa-tive"organizations:"Theyhave imposedthe forms of organization hat thestateaccepts.In the case of CONPLADEIN here s noclearpoliticalproject,and it does not establishclearly the representation f indigenouspueblos,rather t convokes nationalorganizations hat do not necessarilyrepresentindigenous people" (CONAIE, 1999). This statementreflecteda positionthat was becoming consensus among a group of CONAIE intellectuals:labor-union ype organizationswere no longer the appropriatemodel forindigenous political life. As a prominentAmazonian indigenous leaderdeclared,"The final projectof indigenous peoples should not be verticalorganizations ike the existing ones.... In the processof consolidatingthenations(ornationalitiesastheyaredefined nEcuador), heregionalandpro-vincialorganizations houlddisappear"Viteri,1999:93-94).WithCONAIEunhappyand an election on the horizon,the chances ofchangewerehigh,andthingsdidchange.Withthe electionof JamilMahuadin 1998,CONAIEmanaged onegotiate herestructuringf CONPLADEIN.A newpresidentialdecree transformedCONPLADEINntoa newentity, heConsejo parael Desarollo de las Nacionalidadesy Pueblos del Ecuador(Council for the Developmentof EcuadorianNationalitiesand Peoples-CODENPE).CODENPEwould be organizednotby nationalconfederationsbutby "nationality" nd, n the case of thelargestnationality,heKichwa,bythe smaller unit of pueblo.17The non-CONAIEorganizations ound them-selves excluded from this new structure.'8This new structure,said theCONAIE 1998) leadership,would be "apillar ntheprocessof institutional-izing indigenousrepresentationwithin the State."But this pillar seems tohave been a littleshaky.CreatingCODENPE'sExecutiveCouncil of Nation-alities-composed of one member of each of the 12 nationalitiesand 15pueblos-has proven o be amajorproblem.To understandwhythis has beenso difficult, it is important o remember hat, like the "community"of the1930s,nationalitiesandpueblosarenotnaturally xistingunitsbut ratherheproductsof politics.We might begin by asking some seemingly basic questions.What is anationality?What is a pueblo?How arethey different?When asked these


16/27


questions,RicardoUlcuango(interview,Quito,July23, 1999),thepresidentof ECUARUNARIand now vice presidentof CONAIE, begins with ananswer thatis similar to my own:"Well,up untilnow,we areanalyzingthesituation."He goes on to pointto characteristics hatothers have also men-tioned:nationalityhas its own language,territory, nd culture.It is a seem-ingly neatlyboundedculturalcontainer.Butthingsarerarelyso neat.As wewill recall, it was not so long ago thatAmpamKarakrasand others couldspeakof agroup'sbeingat onceapuebloandanationality see above).Such aconflation seems inconvenient or the new politicsof Indianrepresentation.Nationalityandpueblohave becomemoresharplydemarcatedunits as theirmeaningshave been shapedby conflicts that occuralong the most familiaraxis of Ecuadorianpolitics: region.What have become knownand naturalizedas the threeregionsof Ecua-dor-coast, sierra,and Amazon-have over time acquiredrealpoliticalandeconomicimportance.As Ihavealreadypointedout,for most of therepubli-can period, politics in Ecuadorhas pitted coast against sierra. This stillremains argelytrue,as one can observe in everything rom news broadcasts(always with Guayaquiland Quito anchors)to presidential ickets (JamilMahuadwas themayorof highlandQuito,andGustavoNoboa,his vice pres-ident and laterpresident,was rectorof the CatholicUniversityin coastalGuayaquil).For much of this history,the Amazon was on the marginsofpoliticalimaginings.In thelate twentiethcentury,however, t beganto meritincreasednationalattention.First,borderconflicts with Perumade theAma-zon a front ine thathad to be defended.Second,theAmazonrepresented n"empty"space to which to send colonists (to ease the pressureof agrarianreform). Third, and most important,the Amazon was the source of oilreserves that funded the modernizing nitiativesof the militarygovernmentof the 1970sandcontinuesto be a majorpartof Ecuador'sexport-dependenteconomy. As a site for warfare,colonization,and transnational conomicactivities,the Amazonremainsa strangespacein thenational maginarybutnot so strange or indigenousorganizing.CONAIE eadershaveinverted heregional mage.For ndigenousorgani-zationsit is thecoast,not theAmazon,that has beenmarginal.Amazon andsierraare home to the vast majorityof indigenouspeople and have becomethe"natural" ivisions of indigenouspolitics:the mostrecurring onflicts atnationalcongresses and assemblies often revolve around the problem ofregion. Simplifying somewhat,contrastsare easily identifiable.Serranos,lowland Indianswill say,have been taintedand confusedby the Western ra-ditionsof Marxismandunion-stylestrikes.9Amazonicos,respondhighlandKichwas,aregobiernistaspreferring o dialoguewith the state andforeign


17/27


corporations ather hanto take to the streets. CONAIE has hadto expendever-greater nergyin overcomingregionaltensions.Theseregionalconcernsbeardirectlyon thequestionof nationalities.TheAmazon is home to organizational ioneerssuchas the Shuar,who begantoorganize alongexclusivelyethnic(notpeasant) ines beforeanyoneelse (inthe 1960s). The lowlands are also home to the greatestnumberof differentlanguagegroupsor nationalities.The sierra s home to the greatestabsolutenumberof indigenouspeople,buttheybelongoverwhelmingly o the Kichwanationality.Consequently,using nationalityas an organizingprinciplehasdifferent onsequences or the threeregions nthestructuring f theplanningministry,CODENPE.The unit of nationality avors the more diverse Ama-zon. This did not please the highland indigenous elites, and therefore,"pueblo"underwent edefinition.No longer synonymouswithnationality,tcame to refer to smaller,place-basedcollectivities that made up a largernationality (e.g., Otavalo and Cayambi pueblos are part of the Kichwanationality).The compromise hatemerged n theseregional disagreementsgave each pueblo (in the sierra)and each nationality(in the Amazon andcoastalregions)one vote on the CODENPEExecutive Council.The problemwiththe compromise s thatthe organizationof the indige-nous movementdoes not reflect the structureof representationbeing con-structed romaboveby CONAIEelites andthe Ecuadorian tate.The formerdirectorof CONPLADEINputsthepointin no uncertain erms:"Indigenouspeople are organizednot as nationalitiesor pueblos but as organizations.There exist federationand confederations.The [reformed] onstitutionrec-

ognizes ourorganizationalorms,butthere s no structure o thenationality,andthiscould divide the movement.This is athesis fromtheAmazon,notthesierra. n the Amazonthesituation s different"ArturoLe6n,interview,Feb-ruary7, 1999). So it shouldbe no surprise hat the ExecutiveCouncilof theNationalities ook overayearto beconstituted,despitethefact that he execu-tivedegreerequiredts constitution n a matterof months.Whilemany ndig-enous assembliesareseekingto move toward he models of nationalityandpueblo,we shouldrecallthat hisis amove not toward"traditional"rganiza-tion butrather wayfromthe tradition f provincial epresentative odiesthathadbeen the unquestionedmode of representationor decades.

A recentPRODEPINE1998) surveygivesanotherview of theproblemofcategories. PRODEPINE, the World Bank project created alongsideCODENPE,has a short life span(five years)andconsequentlyneeds con-crete actors on the groundto function.NGOs will no longer do, since thepointof thisproject s to work withindigenousand Afro-Ecuadorianroups.Accordingly, it has looked for its own "suitable" Indians and Afro-Ecuadorians hrougha survey of first-level, second-level, and third-level


18/27

Lucero LOCATINGTHE"INDIANPROBLEM" 39

organizations.20 reviously,PRODEPINEoperatedunder the assumptionthat t couldwork at the second level withthebenefitsreverberating pto theprovincial evel anddownto the communities(GermanMuenala, nterview,Peguche,July18, 1999).Thesurveywas intended o test thatassumptionanddetermine he level of organizational apability nthecountryside. ngeneralterms,PRODEPINE oundthatthis principlewas acceptablefor the sierrawhere existing second-level organizationhad the necessaryorganizationalskill andcapacity(though hepicture s uneven),butfor the Amazon this wassimplynotpossible.Because of demographicdistributions,heonly scale oforganization hat made sense was the third-level(provincial)actors. Dis-tances andcollective-actionproblemswere too greatfor the Amazon to havethe kind of organizationaldensity that exists in the sierra(see PerraultandWilsonin this volume).But there are some smallgroups (e.g., the Secoyas,about70 families)that could not quitefit intothethird-levelcategory-thatis, theycould not be calledthird-levelbecause their structuresdid not movefrom communal o supracommunalo regional.Theywere so small thattheyneeded only one organization,which for all intentsand purposeswas thenationality.So PRODEPINEagreedthat,despiteits preference or workingwith second-levelgroups,it would work withthese nationalities.Here t is worthhighlighting hedifferencebetween CODENPE'sview ofthe "institutionalization f indigenousrepresentation"ndPRODEPINE's.CODENPE,thenheadedby Luis Maldonado,a CONAIE ntellectual,useditspoliticalclout inentering nto anagreementwith anincomingpresident otransform t from a body thatrepresentedorganizations o one thatrepre-sented nationalitiesandpueblos, excludingotherorganizations ndtryingtoaccommodate heregionaldivisionswithinCONAIE'ssocial movementnet-works.PRODEPINE-whose executivedirectoruntilrecentlywas SegundoAndrango, rom the same provinceas Maldonadobutfrom the Federaci6nNacional de OrganizacionesIndigenas y Negras, a non-CONAIEnationalfederation-under the watchful echnocratic yes of theWorldBankworkedonly with organizations hat had the capacityto execute programs.Wherethere was no otheroption,it workedwith nationalities.As of this writing,PRODEPINE'soptionscontinue to narrow.The con-flicts between CODENPEand PRODEPINE eacheda new stagein 2000, afew monthsafter ndigenousorganizations ndthemilitaryousted PresidentJamilMahuadand eft in hisplaceMahuad'svice president,GustavoNoboa.In thepost-Mahuadpoliticalenvironmentand afterhaving long complainedabout the organization-centeredogic of PRODEPINE,CODENPE Secre-tary Luis Maldonado won an authoritativebureaucraticbattle that forcedPRODEPINEExecutiveSecretaryAndrangooutof office andreplacedhimwith ManualImbaquingo, ormerly he second-"highest"-rankingfficial in


19/27


CODENPE and a friend of Maldonado. The CODENPE bulletin WillakPanka was quick to quote World Bank program official Martin VanNieuwkoopas statingthat "theWorldBank had no objection" o thechange(CODENPE,2000: 1).Thus t seems thatnationalityandpueblo,withincipi-ent leadershipstructures,may soon be the units of both CODENPE andPRODEPINE rojects. nthestrugglesover"operationalizing thnodevelop-ment"(VanNieuwkoopandUquillas,2000), the termsof indigenousrepre-sentation are the productsof globalized local interactions: ong-standingdisputes between former leaders of competing organizations n the sameprovince(Maldonadoof CONAIE,Andrangoof FENOCIN)arereplayed nconflicts between multilateral and national agencies. PRODEPINEandCODENPEbecomeprismsthroughwhichinternational ndlocal forces arerefracted.

CONCLUSIONSWhere s Ecuador's"Indianproblem"?From hishistoricalcomparison t

is clear that "theproblem" s no longerconfined to the spacesof local com-munities,as stateelites thought nthe 1930s. Moreimportant,he"problem"has"jumped cales"(see Perraultnthisissue)andgrown nto apoliticalpro-ject thatis remapping he contoursof Ecuadorian ocial and political life.Thoughoccupyingchangingplacesinprojectsof dominationandresistance,bothcommunityandnationalityemergedas productsof political strugglesbetween ndigenouspeoplesandstates.Thesestruggleswereshapednotonlyby states andIndians,however,but also by the powerof regionalconflicts,internationalprocessesof dependentdevelopment,and transnational ocialscientificdebatesabout heplaceof indigenouspeoplein a supposedlymod-ernizingcontinent.

Emerging ndigenouselites in contactwithsuch social scientific currentshave been able to use "community" s a powerful tropein an "alternativepoliticalproject"CONAIE,1997).Inthe officiallanguageof themovement,communityis characterizedby "reciprocity, olidarity,and equality"anddefinedas a "collectivesocioeconomicandpolitical systemin which all itsmembersparticipate" CONAIE, 1997: 10-11). Such a descriptionis, ofcourse,toogoodto be quitetrue.While notdenyingthevirtuesof indigenousmoraleconomies, we should be awarethatcommunitiesare,like all places,characterized y numerousdivisionsandasymmetries,manymore than thediscourse of community suggests. In interviews with leaders of non-CONAIE organizationssuch as the Cotacachi Union of PeasantOrgani-


20/27


zations(Uni6ndeOrganizacionesCampesinasdeCotacachi-UNORCAC),one is quicklydisabusedof any utopiancommunitariannotions. Recallingwhy he beganto work with UNORCAC,its formerpresidentwas explicitaboutthe class differences n thenearbymarket own of Otavalo,notingthat"there s nothingworsethan whenone Indianexploitsanother"Pedrode laCruz, interview,Quito,August 8, 1999).I shouldbecarefulhere.I do not meanto declareCONAIE's eadersdisin-genuous utopiansorUNORCAC'shardheaded ealists.Aside fromtheprob-lems-methodological and political-of such a comparison,my point ismoremodest. The"indigenous ommunity"became a subjectof representa-tion notthroughaprocessof faithfully ranslatingwhatwasreally"out here"but ratheras a partof a widerset of politicalandideological constructionsthat reflect aspirationsas much as experiences (Seitz, 1992). Similarly,"nationality" ecame a legitimateunit of indigenouspoliticsnot because thetermaccurately eflecteda multiethnicandmultiorganizationalocial move-mentfield of actors.Indeed,"nationality" as not been usedsuccessfully byindigenousorganizations utsideEcuador.Rather,nationalitybecamepartofthe Ecuadoriananguageof indigenouscontentionbecause ndigenousactiv-ists were able to insert tintomovement, tate,and nternational iscourses.Inclosing, I wouldliketo makethreegeneralpoints regardinghegemony,political representation,nd ndigenousactivism.First, hehegemonyof cer-tain forms and languages in a given field of political action should notobscure the fact thatthey aredeployed in a varietyof ways (Lears, 1985)."Community"an thus be at one time theorganizingprincipleof indigenistapaternalismand social control and at another ime the discursive terrainonwhich alternativepoliticalprojectsare constructedand egitimated.The ideaof "nationality"anemergeas awaytobring ogethervariousdifferent ndig-enousgroupsbutcan laterchange nresponse otensionsbetweenthose sameindigenous groups.The languageof membershipandbelonging is also, asGramsciandRoseberryhave suggested,the languageof contention.Second,and nthe samevein,we mustbe aware hatsocialmovementsnotonly disruptpreviousordersbut also reproducemportant lementsof them.Indianscan organizeandchallengethe nation-state,butthey often becomepoliticallyarticulateprecisely throughstate categoriesandprocesses: theyregisterwith theright ministry, n accordancewith the appropriateaw, andtheyorganizeas stateelites do throughandaround"regions"hatarenatural-ized objectsof loyalty.Indianactivistsin Ecuadorandbeyondhave becomepoliticallyarticulate.Theyhave learned he languagesof the state,of socialscience, and of developmentandareundoubtedly ransforming ll of them.


21/27


But articulateness as its dangers.TheanthropologistRayMcDermott 1988:67) explains:What hen sarticulatenessut herightospeaknway hatothers anhear? tbeatsmuttering,ut tthreatenss with hedangerf total onformity,ith hedanger f reproductions a wayof life. Withgreatbreakthroughs,herearenew hings aid.Wemust reasurehemand mulatehem.But f we donotusethem o organize ewwaysof putting ur ivestogether urgreatest reak-throughsaneasilybe erased.A recentexampleof these dangers s instructive.WhenCONAIE oinedelementsof themilitary nJanuary 000 indeposingthe neoliberalpresidentJamilMahuad,tspresidentdeclaredagreatbreakthroughshejoinedagen-eral anda formerSupremeCourt ustice in a Triumvirate f National Salva-tion(Collins,2000; Lucero,2001). However, hetriumvirateasted less thana dayandrepresentedess abreakthroughhanadeparturerom thelong andsteadyorganizationalwork andcontestation hathaddeepeneddemocracy nEcuador.Rather hancontributingo the"alternative olitics"thatCONAIEhasalwaysespoused,the closed-doormeetingswithcolonels markeda returnto an all-too-familiarpast of elites (from left and right) makingdecisionswithout the participation f the popularsectors.Finally, as students and supportersof indigenous activism, concernedsocial scientistsshouldnotshy awayfrompointingout thecomplicationsandinconsistencies that hide within the projectsof community,nationality,or"national alvation."Like all ourwords,these are,as Bakhtin(1981 [1934-1935]:294) explained,"overpopulatedwith the intentionsof others."Beingawareof thepowerandknowledgerelations hatproduce hese intentionsand

concepts,as all the contributors o this issue are,makes us sensitive to theirlimitationsandrisks.Communityandnationality an beused,asMcDermottsays, to find new ways of puttingour lives together,buttheycan also maskinjusticesandinequalities.Social scientists can (andshould)pointout theseproblemsnot to undermine ndigenouspolitical projectsbut to contribute othe transformative rocessesthatindigenous people themselves have set inmotion.

NOTES1. All translations romSpanish-languageourcesaremy own.2. On themethodologyof critical unctures ee Collierand Collier(1991). Forotherviewsof criticaljuncturesin Indian-state elationsin Ecuadorsee Almeida et al. (1993), Andolina(1999), AyalaMora(1992), Bebbingtonet al. (1993), Becker (1997), Clark(1997), Guerrero


22/27

Lucero LOCATINGTHE"INDIAN PROBLEM" 43

(1993; 1994),Le6n(1994), Ram6n(1993), SanchezParga 1992), Yashar 1998), andZamosc(1994).3. The units ofcommunityandnationalitybecomehegemonic nthe sense of beingdiscur-sive frameworkshatareacceptedby important lementsof bothdominantandsubalternectors(see Roseberry,1996). Illuminatingdiscussions of local communitybuildingandstateforma-tion can be found n theessays collectedinJosephandNugent(1994),especiallythechaptersonejidos by NugentandAlonsoandonChiapasbyRus. See alsothearticlebyGarcia n this issue.4. Most worksof politicalscience seem to forgetthatrepresentations a termof bothpoli-tics andculture,of organizationandart(butsee Pitkin, 1967; 1969;Schwartz,1988). Formoreon how the cultural and political dimensions of representation an be broughttogetherseeGuerrero 2000), Lucero(2002), andSeitz (1992).5. We should also note that the very ideaof "indigenous erritory,"which RichardChaseSmitharguesfirstemerged n the UN WorkingGroup orIndigenousAffairs,was first used inthe contextof ecology.Environmentalists ndactivistssaw the creationandtitlingof indigenousterritories s awaytoprotectecosystems,and ater ndigenousactivistssaw thepotential or cre-atingpoliticalspaces.For a discussion of the way in which the idea of territorywas diffusedthroughoutAndean and Amazonian ndigenousmovementssee Healy (2001).6. Of course,manyscholarsand activistsemphasizecolonial legacies andcontinuities,asdoesGaloRam6n(1993), whoselonguedureehistoryof indigenousorganizinggoes from 1540to 1998.Eveninthosenarratives, owever, he 1930sareacriticalmoment.Otherswhomakethe1930s a landmark f not a startingpoint include Moreno Yafiez and Figueroa(1992), Le6n(1994), SanchezParga 1992), and Becker(1997).7. Concertaje was replaced by the huasipungo system, wherein indigenous peasantsreceived landand in exchangeowed laborandloyaltyto the hacendado.8. The focus on "freecommunities"meant thatthe legislationdid notapplyto haciendas,the otherpoliticalformation hatwas a long-standingpartof Ecuadorian thnicadministration.twas not until agrarianreform in the 1960s and 1970s greatly diminished the power ofhacendados that significantnumbersof ex-haciendahuasinpunguerosbegan to organize ascomunas.9. Guerrero uggeststhatthis is only one of severalmechanisms, ncludingeducationandmilitaryservice, forcreatinga certainkind of Ecuadorian.

10.Franciscode Mirandadeclaredafterthe Haitian nsurrection f 1791: "MuchasI desirethe independenceandlibertyof theNew World,I fearanarchyand revolutioneven more. Godforbid hatothercountries uffer hesamefate asSaint-Domingue.... Better heyshouldremainanothercenturyunder the barbarousand senseless oppressionof Spain" (quotedin Pagden,1990: 12).11. For a useful discussion of corporatism s a structure f representationn LatinAmericasee Chalmerset al. (1997). Examplesof these kinds of political arrangement reof course notlimited to Latin America.12."Classist,""Indianist,"eligious,andregional ndigenousdiscoursesare sometimespit-tedagainsteach otherand sometimescombined.Inthe 1940s,under hetutelageof the Commu-nistparty, heFederationof Ecuadorian ndiansspokein the nameof peasantsandIndiansbutstill with a class-heavydiscourse.Inthe 1960s theShuar,withhelpfrom the Catholic Salesianclergy,founded a federation inkingvariousShuarcenters n the Amazonregion.Inthe 1970s,the Federaci6nNacional de OrganizacionesCampesinos NationalFederation f PeasantOrga-nizations-FENOC) andECUARUNARI hared henationalspotlightwhen itcame topeasant/Indianorganizing.And in 1980, only six yearsbefore CONAIE was founded,the Federaci6nEcuatoriana eIndigenasEvangelicos(Ecuadorian ederation f Evangelical ndians-FEINE)


23/27


was foundedwith exceptionallystrong support n Chimborazo, he provincewith the largestindigenous population n thecountry.13."Hegemony"s a term hatseveral nformantsusedto describe hestrengthof CONAIE,thoughit took on differenthues.For rivalorganizations,CONAIEhadan"exclusionaryhege-mony"(Pedrode la Cruz, interview,Quito, August 19, 1998). For multilateraldevelopmentagencies,CONAIEhad a "necessaryhegemony" JuanPabloPerez, interview,LaPaz,Bolivia,November10, 1999).14.Anexception s reportedbyIbarra1999), who notedthat he PeruvianCommunistpartydrew on Stalin to speakof "QuechuaandAymaranationalities."15. Mill was pessimisticabouttheprospectsof representative overnment n multinationalsettings.He shared he idea thatdominatedhe nineteenth entury andhasyetto fadeaway)thathomogeneity s animportant ackgroundondition ordemocraticgovernance.See the conclud-

ingchaptersof his Considerations nRepresentativeGovernment1993 [ 1861]).Anillustrationof thelingeringnineteenth-centuryoncernwithhomogeneity s found n Rustow(1970).Excel-lent discussions of the needto rethink his and other liberal mattersareO'Donnell (1993) andYashar 1999).16. The other national indigenous confederations,besides CONAIE, are FEI, FEINE,FENOC,FENOCIN,FENOCIN,and the Federaci6nNacionalde CampesinosLibresdel Ecua-dor(NationalFederationof EcuadorianCoastalPeasants-FENACLE).17. Article 2 of the 1998 Executive Decree recognizesthe following nationalities:Shuar,Achuar,Huorani,Siona, Secoya, Cofan,Zaparo,Chachi, Tsa'chila,Epera,Awa,andQuichua(or Kichwa in CONAIE'snew spelling).The Kichwapueblosare identifiedas the Saraguro,Cafiari,Puruha,Waranka, anzaleo,Chibuleo,Salasaca,Quitu,Cayambi,Caranqui,Natabuela,Otavalo,AmazonianKichua, Manta,and Huancavilca.18. Thepresidentsof the two largestconfederationsafterCONAIE,FENOCINandFEINE,wereallowedtoparticipatenthetransitional ouncilas membersof the Kichwanationality,butthey both registeredtheirdisagreementwith the new structureby not attendingCODENPEmeetings(interviews:Pedrode la Cruz,Quito,August8, 1999;MarcoMurillo,Quito,April7,1999).19. Duringone CONAIEassemblyI attended,an Amazonian eaderoffhandedlydeclaredthat she hada namefor "allthings incoherent:ECUARUNARI thehighlandconfederation]."20. "First-level"being community,"second"was the next supracommunalevel and the"third" rovincialorregional organizations.

REFERENCESAlb6, Xavier1991"Elretornodel indio."RevistaAndina9 (2): 312-332.Almeida,Ileana

1979 "Consideraciones obrela nacionalidadkechua,"pp. 11-48 in Ileana Almeida et al.(eds.),Lenguay culturaen el Ecuador.Otavalo:InstitutoOtavalefiode Antropologia.Almeida,Ileana et al.1991Indios: Una reflexionsobre el levantamiento ndigenade 1990. Quito:Abya Yala.Almeida,Joseet al.1993 Sismoetnico en el Ecuador.Quito:CEDIME.


24/27

Lucero LOCATINGTHE "INDIANPROBLEM" 45

Andolina,RobertJ.1999 "Coloniallegacies and plurinational maginaries: ndigenousmovementpolitics inEcuadorand Bolivia." Ph.D. diss., Universityof Minnesota.AyalaMora,Enrique1992 "Estadonacional,soberania,y estadoplurinacional,"p.31-50 inEnriqueAyalaetal.,Pueblos indios,estado,y derecho.Quito:Corporaci6nEditoraNacional.Bakhtin,M. M.1981 (1934-1935) The Dialogic Imagination.Austin and London: Universityof TexasPress.

Bebbington,Anthonyet al.1992 Actores de unadecada ganada. Quito:COMUNIDEC.Becker,Marc1997 "Class andethnicityin the canton of Cayambe: herootsof Ecuador'smodem Indianmovement."Ph.D.diss., Universityof Kansas.1999 "Comunasandindigenousprotest n Cayambe,Ecuador."TheAmericas 55 (4): 531-559.

Brysk,Alison2000 FromTribalVillageto Global Village:IndianRightsand InternationalRelations inLatinAmerica.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.Chalmers,DouglasA. et al.1997 "Associative networks: new structuresof representation or the popularsectors?"pp. 544-582 in DouglasA. Chalmerset al. (eds.), The New Politics of Inequality n LatinAmerica:RethinkingParticipationandRepresentation.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Clark,A. Kim1997 "Poblaci6n ndigena, incorporaci6nnacionaly procesos globales:del liberalismoalneoliberalismo, Ecuador,1895-1995," in Andres Perez Baltodano (ed.), Globalizacion,ciudadaniay politica social en America Latina: Tensionesy contradicciones. Caracas:Nueva Sociedad.1998 "Racial deologiesand thequestfor nationaldevelopment:debating heagrarian rob-lem in Ecuador 1930-1950)."Journalof LatinAmericanStudies 30: 373-393.CODENPE(Consejode las Nacionalidadesy Pueblos del Ecuador)2000 "Se nombr6nuevo DirectorEjecutivodel PRODEPINE."WillaPanka:BoletinInfor-mativedel Consejode las Nacionalidadesy Pueblos del Ecuador 2 (3): 1.Collier,Ruth Berins and David Collier1991 Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Juncture,the Labor Movement,and RegimeDynamicsin LatinAmerica. Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Collins,JenniferN.2000 "Asense of possibility:Ecuador's ndigenousmovementtakes centerstage."NACLAReporton theAmericas 33 (5): 40-49.CONAIE1997Proyectopolitico de la CONAIE.Quito:CONAIE.

CONAIE(Confederaci6nde NacionalidadesIndigenasdel Ecuador)1998 Las nacionalidadesindigenasy el estadoplurinacional.Quito.1999 Movimiento ndigena: proyectopolitico, decentralizacidn,y poderes locales. Quito.Figueroa,Jose Antonio1996-1997 "Comunidadesndigenas:artefactosde construcci6nde la identidad6tnicaenlos conflictos polfticosdel Ecuadorcontemporaneo." evista ColombianadeAntropologia33: 186-216.


25/27


Gramsci,Antonio1971(1949) "Noteson Italianhistory,"nQuentinHoareandGeoffreyNowell Smith(eds.),Selecionsfrom thePrison Notebooks.New York:International ublishers.Guerrero,Andres1993 "Ladesintegraci6nde la adminstraci6n6tnica en el Ecuador,"pp. 91-112 in Jos6Almeidaet al., Sismo etnico en el Ecuador.Quito:CEDIME.1994 "Una magenventnlocua:el discurso liberalde la 'desgraciada aza ndigena'a finesdel siglo XIX," pp. 197-253 in Blanca Muratorio (ed.), Imdgenes e imagineros:Representaciones elos indigenasecuatorianos, iglosXIXyXX.Quito:FLACSO-Ecuador.2000 "El evantamientondigenanacionalde 1994:discursoy representaci6n olitica(Ecua-dor)."Boletin Americanista Barcelona)50: 123-151.

Healy,Kevin2001 Llamas,Weavings, ndOrganicChocolate:MulticulturalGrassrootsDevelopment nthe Andes andAmazonof Bolivia. NotreDame, IN: Universityof Notre Dame Press.Ibarra,Hemrnn1999 "Intelectuales ndigenas, neoindigenismo,e indianismo en el Ecuador."EcuadorDebate48 (December):71-94.JaramilloAlvarado,Pio1922 (1980) El indio ecuatoriano: Contribuci6nesal estudio de la sociologia nacional.Quito:CEN.

Joseph,Gilbertand Daniel Nugent(eds.)1994EverydayFormsofStateFormation:Revolutionand theNegotiationofRuleinMexico,Durham:DukeUniversityPress.Karakras,Ampam1990 Las nacionalidades indias y el estado ecuatoriano. Quito: Editorial TINCUI-CONAIE.2001 "Los planteamientosde los pueblos 'indigenas'al estado Ecuatoriano."Paper pre-sentedat the conference"Beyondthe Lost Decade:IndigenousMovementsand the Trans-formationof DemocracyandDevelopment n LatinAmerica,"PrincetonUniversity,March2-3.Kymlicka,Will

1995 MulticulturalCitizenship.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Lears,T.J. Jackson1985 "Theconceptof culturalhegemony:problemsandpossibilities."AmericanHistoricalReview90 (3): 567-593.Le6n,Jorge1994 De campesinosa ciudadanosdiferentes.Quito:CEDIME/AbyaYala.Lucero,JoseAntonio2001 "Crisisand contention n Ecuador." ournalof Democracy12 (2): 59-73.2002 "Artsof unification:political representationnd ndigenousmovements n Bolivia andEcuador." h.D. diss., PrincetonUniversity.Maldonado,Luis1992"Elmovimiento ndigenay lapropuestamultinacional," p. 151-163 inEnriqueAyalaet al., Pueblos indios, estado,y derecho.Quito:CorporacionEditoraNacional.Mariategui,Jose Carlos1979(1928)Sieteensayosde interpretaci6n e la realidadperuana.MexicoCity:EdicionesEra.


26/27


McDermott,R. P.1988 "Inarticulateness," p. 37-68 in Deborah Tannen (ed.), Linguistics in Context.Norwood,NJ: Ablex.Mill, John Stuart1993(1861) Considerations nRepresentativeGovernment.London:Everyman'sLibrary.MorenoYafiez,Segundoand Jose Figueroa1992 El levantamientode IntiRaymide 1990. Quito:AbyaYala.O'Donnell, Guillermo1993 "On hestate,democratization, nd someconceptualproblems:aLatinAmericanviewwith some glances at some postcommunistcountries."WorldDevelopment21 (8): 1355-1369.

Pagden,Anthony1990SpanishImperialism nd thePoliticalImagination.New Haven:YaleUniversityPress.Pitkin,HannahFennel1967 TheConceptof Representation.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.Pitkin,HannahFennel(ed.)1969Representation.New York:AthertonPress.PRODEPINE Proyectoparael Desarrollode los PueblosIndigenasy Negrosdel Ecuador)1998 "Informeacerca de los resultatosde la consultoriasobre el indice institucionalde laOSG, OTGs,y nacionalidades."MS, Quito,Ecuador.Ram6n,Galo1993El regresode los runas.Quito:COMUNIDECand Fundaci6n nterAmericana.Ram6n,Galo and Elba Gamez Barahona1993",Haynacionalidades ndiasenel Ecuador?" p. 187-206 inJoseAlmeidaetal.,Sismoetnico en el Ecuador.Quito:CEDIME.

Roseberry,William1996"Hegemony,power,and anguagesof contention," p.71-84 in EdwinN. WilmsenandPatrickMcAllister eds.),ThePoliticsofDifference.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Rustow,DankwartA.1970 "Transitionso democracy: owarda dynamicmodel."ComparativePolitics 2 (April):337-363.SanchezParga,Jose1992 "Comunidadndigena y estadonacional,"pp. 61-78 in EnriqueAyalaet al., Pueblosindios, estado,y derecho.Quito:Corporaci6nEditoraNacional.Schwartz,NancyL.1988 TheBlue Guitar: Political Representationand Community.Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress.Seitz, Brian1992 The Traceof PoliticalRepresentation.Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress.Ster, Steve J.1992"Paradigms f conquests:history,historiography,ndpolitics,"JournalofLatinAmer-

ican Studies24 (QuincentenarySupplement):1-34.VanNieuwkoop,MartinandJorge Uquillas2000 DefiningEthnodevelopmentn OperationalTerms:Lessons romthe EcuadorIndige-nous and Afro-EcuadoranPeoples Project. World Bank LCR SustainableDevelopmentWorkingPaper6.Viteri,Carlos1999 "Nuevosretosdel movimiento indigenaamaz6nico,"pp. 92-98 in MarcoRestrepo(ed.), Jornadas interacionales amazonicas.Quito:CEDIMEandUNICEF.


27/27


Wade,Peter1997 Race andEthnicity n LatinAmerica.London:Pluto Press.Yashar,Deborah1998 "Contesting itizenshipin LatinAmerica: ndigenousmovements anddemocracy nLatinAmerica."ComparativePolitics 31 (1): 23-42.1999"Democracy,ndigenousmovements,andthepostliberal hallengein LatinAmerica."WorldPolitics 52 (October):1-46.Zamosc,Leon1994"Agrarianeformandthe Indianmovement n the Ecuadorian ighlands."LatinAmeri-can ResearchReview 29 (3): 37-68.1995 Estadistica de las drea de predominioetnico de la sierra ecuatoriana.Quito:AbyaYala.

locating the indian problem_community, nationality, and contradiction in ecuadorian

Documents