Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline

Thu Oct 24 10:19:47 2019

Citations:

Bluebook 20th ed.

Jose Almeida Vinueza, The Ecuadorian Indigenous Movement and the Gutierrez Regime:
The Traps of Multiculturalism, 28 PoLAR 93 (2005).

ALWD 6th ed.

Jose Almeida Vinueza, The Ecuadorian Indigenous Movement and the Gutierrez Regime:
The Traps of Multiculturalism, 28 PoLAR 93 (2005).

APA 6th ed.

Vinueza, J. (2005). The ecuadorian indigenous movement and the gutierrez regime: The
traps of multiculturalism. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 28(1),
93-111.

Chicago 7th ed.

Jose Almeida Vinueza, "The Ecuadorian Indigenous Movement and the Gutierrez Regime:
The Traps of Multiculturalism," PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 28,
no. 1 (May 2005): 93-111

McGill Guide 9th ed.

Jose Almeida Vinueza, "The Ecuadorian Indigenous Movement and the Gutierrez Regime:
The Traps of Multiculturalism" (2005) 28:1 PoLAR: Political & Leg Anthropology Rev
93.

MLA 8th ed.

Vinueza, Jose Almeida. "The Ecuadorian Indigenous Movement and the Gutierrez Regime:
The Traps of Multiculturalism." PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, vol.
28, no. 1, May 2005, p. 93-111. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Jose Almeida Vinueza, 'The Ecuadorian Indigenous Movement and the Gutierrez Regime:
The Traps of Multiculturalism' (2005) 28 PoLAR 93

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
Use QR Code reader to send PDF to your smartphone or tablet device
May 2005 Page 93

Jos6 Almeida Vinueza

Research Scholar
Latin American & Iberian Institute
The University of New Mexico

The Ecuadorian Indigenous Movement and the Guti~rrez

Regime: The Traps of Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism, "interculturalism,"and "plurinationalism" are central concepts
used by the Ecuadorian indigenous movement in its struggle to achieve political,
social, and economic justice. However,these same concepts have also been appro-
priatedby the Ecuadorianstate, by internationaldevelopment agencies, and even
by transnationalcorporations.As a result, the indigenous movement has become
diluted through its participationinformal democracy,and thus has been unable to
achieve many of its demands. Since its briefparticipationin the Gutijrrez admin-
istration, the indigenous movement has become divided in debates over cultural
fundamentalism and the "creative destruction" of neoliberalism. Key words: in-
terculturalism, plurinational state, neoliberalism, indigenous movement, agency

For most governments of so-called "Third World" countries, "culture" has be-
come the concept that explains their problems as well as the panacea for these
same difficulties. As George Ytidice observes, "culture is invoked to solve prob-
lems that previously were the province of economic and politics" (2003:1).
Although it is true that the cultural diversity of a population entails a rich poten-
tial, it is pertinent to ask what happens when this diversity is appropriated and
manipulated by the state.
One of the problems of "multiculturalism" as a state-sponsored ideology is its inter-
pretion of politics, which obscures its economic roots and issues of power. Although
multiculturalism proposes a critical vision of the contradictions of modem society, its
analysis of cultural values rathen than economics diminishes its ability to resist the
status quo. This analysis erodes the importance of its supposed "revolution of iden-
tity and sense" (Mardones 1996:23). Social movements co-opted by multiculturalism
have been undermined by their own efforts to obtain cultural rights rather than radi-
cal socioeconomic transformations. In practice, their mobilization has resulted in lim-
ited improvement in the economic status of culturally diverse populations. The
Ecuadorian indigenous movement is an example of the limitations social movements
face when they establish policies that fail to take into account economic change.

PoLAR: Politicaland Legal Anthropology Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 93-111, ISSN 1081-
6976, electronic ISSN 1555-2934. © 2005 by the American Anthropological Association.
All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce ar-
ticle content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website,
at http://www.ucpress.edu/joumals/rights.htm.
Page 94 POLAR: Vol. 28, No. 1

In Ecuador, this movement earned national and international acclaim for its
success in obtaining state recognition of indigenous cultures (Macdonald
2003; Barrera 2001). This success, however, has been virtually neutralized by
a state strategy that tends to separate indigenous peoples from a crucial com-
ponent needed to realize their demands: access to national-level decision mak-
ing regarding the distribution of economic resources (Gledhill 2000). Cultural
diversity has been stripped of its contentiousness and rendered into a simple
"factor of development"-a factor useful to the market. Although indigenous
peoples control specific state programs designed for their benefit,' they have
abandoned some of their deeper convictions. For example, the quest for a
plurinational state has been postponed indefinitely in order to achieve more
immediate objectives related to electoral politics and the control of indigenous
state agencies.
In general, the state as political form constitutes the greater part of the institu-
tionality constructed by dominant sectors to protect their own interests, which
they represent as if they were a matter of "public interest." This is precisely the
context that motivates subaltern sectors to create counterhegemonic strategies to
oppose total domination. Today, subaltern sectors, motivated by the current ap-
peal to universal values, have every right to access the privileges retained by
dominant sectors. In this way, the state becomes the scene upon which diverse
social forces converge to secure these benefits. Concrete policies are a result of
this interplay. Success depends on the subalterns' own internal Vigor as on the
weakness or decadence of their opponent. This is precisely the situation in which
the Ecuadorian indigenous movement finds itself; a critical moment in which
both the state and the hegemonic elites have been weakened by the country's de-
ficient application of the neoliberal model.
Although the indigenous movement's use of governmental channels has obtained
surprising results (Lucas 2000), its ability to participate in formal democracy is
limited. The brief participation of indigenous groups in the current government
of President Lucio Guti6rrez Barbdia (elected for the term 2003-2007) did not ad-
vance their original demands. On the contrary, several analysts consider indige-
nous support for Guti6rrez a mistake that adversely affected the political
legitimacy of the indigenous movement. It may be that this failure has more to
do with the weakness of the Ecuadorian political system than with the internal
limitations of the indigenous movement. Such an analysis might focus on enu-
merating how indigenous peoples and their demands were manipulated, be-
trayed, or co-opted by the Guti~rrez government. It is also important, however,
to analyze how the strategies and goals of the indigenous movement affected its
own collaboration with the Guti6rrez government. To do so, it is necessary to re-
turn to the paradigm that the Gutierrez government and its supporters have at-
tempted to dismantle in theory and in practice: the relationship between culture,
policy, and the economy.
May 2005 Page 95

The perspective of this analysis of the Ecuadorian case reflects current trends
within the social sciences. First, it assumes that all social movements are located
within the conflicting tension between the global and the local. Second, it recog-
nizes that within either of these contexts, social movements are agents of change.
Finally, it emphasizes that social movements' dynamic generally plays a game of
power and counterpower (Giddens 1990:278). Although no social movement es-
capes its historical and structural constraints, these restrictions are not insur-
mountable. Rather, these factors can be appropriated and transformed by the
different social agents involved in the process. Each of these factors has a unique
political and cultural role in the social structure, forming a constellation of local
situations deeply marked by the games of power and counterpower. Although
Ecuador appears to be "underdeveloped" and without the ability for independent
"economic reproduction" (Evers 1981), it retains multiple forms of social life
with which to confront "modernity." Within the indigenous population and its so-
cial movements there exists an alternative project, found in such concepts as
"cultural diversity," "interculturality," and "plurinationality." This multifaceted-
ness is the essence of Ecuador's potential within the international context.
Availing itself of the guidelines of the World Bank and other international agen-
cies, Ecuador has sought to utilize the potential of cultural diversity in favor of a
globalizing modernity. In this sense, the practice of multiculturalism requires
both the recognition and implementation of new models of capitalist develop-
ment, based not only on the cultural values of indigenous peoples but also on
their traditional economic organization. Because both the cultural and economic
bases of indigenous communities were traditionally seen as obstacles for national
development, the apparent shift in governmental attitude toward the recognition
and promotion of non-Western forms of community ostensibly appears as an ad-
vance for indigenous peoples. However, if old systems of economic accumula-
tion and political domination are not addressed, multiculturalism easily becomes
a compensatory tool used to depoliticize social movements. Ultimately this "in-
clusion" of culturally different societies within the frame of mainstream culture
is simply a new rhetoric to justify the continuation of the status quo (Glazer
1997; Kivisto 2002). Governmental claims io recognize the value of cultural di-
versity through a mere discourse of cultural equality tend to effectively erase or
avoid issues of political domination and social inequality (Grilner 2003).
As awareness of these issues increases, the indigenous movement attempts to
overcome the limitations of "multiculturalism" through the political use of "in-
terculturalism." This theory focuses both on the recognition of cultural diversity
and on the unequal validation of cultural difference, which originated during
colonialism and continues in current neocolonialism. Any legitimate recognition
of indigenous culture must necessarily be combined with an understanding of
the historical and current structural inequalities that pervade society (Walsh
2002). Such recognition must address these structural issues while creating a
Page 96 POLAR: Vol. 28, No. I

new political order that effectively incorporates the diversity of the Ecuadorian
population through respect and mutual enrichment. This perspective was em-
braced from the beginning by the current indigenous movement. In this sense,
although this perspective constrains and limits the participation of indigenous
peoples in formal democracy, it is crucial to their long-term political project.
During the neoliberal crisis, as an effect of the gradual decrease in social policies
implemented by the Ecuadorian government, multiculturalism was embraced as
a political and economic counterhegemonic project leaded by the indigenous
movement. In fact, indigenous communities held resources that were wideley
used to support self-sufficient initiatives based on their own cultural patterns of
subsistence and social life (CEDIME 1993; Cornejo 1991).
The results of these nongovernmental community projects were surprising and
impressive. There were thousands of communitarian initiatives or alternative mi-
croprojects that gave communities a remarkable counterpower to official domi-
nation (Selverston-Scher 2001). In fact, in the midst of this period of economic
transition, it became clear that despite discrimination, oppression, and exploita-
tion, indigenous peoples maintained control over their productive resources. This
control was implemented through the use of communal practices and policies
and the intellectual and spiritual preparation of their members. Simultaneously,
the political movement allowed indigenous peoples to challenge the local, re-
gional, and national structures of power (Gerlach 2003; Lucas 2003).
It is this empowerment that neoliberalism and its Ecuadorian allies attempt to un-
dermine in order to control and appropriate the resources of the nonconformist
indigenous groups. Indigenous leaders and other social movements that support
them are well aware of this dynamic. They are profoundly conscious of the fact
that they are immersed in a conflict of power and counterpower, expressed in the
tension between "neoliberal modernity" and "pluriculturality" (Whitten 2003). It
is within this conflictive space that indigenous peoples play out their "life proj-
ect" in order to confront the disruptive effects of neoliberalism.
The indigenous demand for a national pluralism has had an impact on Ecuadorian
society through its appeal for an integral notion of culture. There is no social
sphere that escapes the indigenous critique: schemes of development, political ap-
paratus, educational system, ideological formation, or identity construction. By its
intervention, something has arisen that, to adapt the terminology of other scholars
(Bartra 2002), we could call a "post-Ecuadorian condition"-that is to say, a sense
of national membership that is no longer constructed negatively in opposition to
the indigenous but, on the contrary, is related to the recognition, respect, and
rearticulation of Ecuador's internal cultural diversity (Almeida 2000). This new
approach to identity politics has also had an impact on the sense of nationalism
for Ecuadorians who were forced to migrate for economic reasons. Many of them
are suffering an identity change, known as "flexible citizenship," which is chal-
May 2005 Page 97

lenging their older national feelings or traditional notions of territoriality (Ong

1999). Significantly, this new formation of national identity requires a rethinking
of economic and power relations among Ecuadorians within a frame where local
and global dimensions converge with extreme flexibility.
As a result, the dispute between "neoliberalism" and "pluriculturalism" is at the
center of programs and policies initiated by the state as well as by nongovern-
mental and international financial organizations (Walsh 2002). The government's
use of the "culture card" as "expediency" is today the main trend among inter-
national development agencies (Yddice 2003.) However, the Ecuadorian indige-
nous movement finds viability in establishing both "interculturality" as a
doctrine and "plurinationality" as a political means of achieving its goals of
"recognition" and "liberation."

Among the various social sectors whose efforts have converged towards the in-
digenous position, one has shown itself to be especially fruitful in terms of gain-
ing access to power: the alliance between indigenous peoples and the military.
Given this alliance's interaction with the Gutirrrez administration that followed
the January 2000 coup, the formation and trajectory of this alliance merits de-
tailed examination.
The Indigenous Movement and the Military: A Marriage of Convenience
On January 21, 2000, thousands of indigenous Ecuadorians, led by the
Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), took over the
streets of Quito, the Legislative Palace, and the Presidential House, and over-
threw President Jamil Mahuad. Once the president was deposed, a Junta of
National Salvation, composed of civilians and military, went on to a brief occu-
pation of power. The Junta leaders were Col. Lucio Gutirrrez Barbda, now the
president of the republic; Antonio Vargas Guatatuca, the Indian leader who was
at that time president of the CONAIE; and Carlos Sol6rzano Constantini, a pop-
ulist lawyer from Guayaquil. This exercise of power was brief. A few hours later,
the aforementioned Junta was dissolved and power was turned over to Vice-
President Gustavo Noboa Bejarano (El Comercio 2000).
With this coup, a cycle of desperation and disillusion with Ecuadorian democ-
racy closed, and there opened up a new period of expectation for what the pro-
tagonists of the coup d'6tat would do. The objectives of their participation in the
coup were not very clear, but few could deny that they had ample motives and
"moral authority"(Lucas 2000).

In effect, the indigenous population, considered the quintessential oppressed and

exploited sector of Ecuadorian society, gained considerable ground in terms of
organizational headway. Led by the CONAIE, its basic organizations had ad-
vanced from an agrarian position to a general struggle against the socioeconomic
and cultural model prevailing in Ecuadorian society (Black 1998). With this
Page 98 PoLAR: Vol. 28, No. 1

twist, the indigenous movement had achieved an impressive level of alliances

and solidarity with other popular sectors of Ecuador. For indigenous leaders, in
order to overcome the enormous problems of Ecuador, they would have to dis-
pense with the colonial logic that forms the foundation of the Ecuadorian state
and society (Karakras 1988). The transformation of Ecuador into an intercultural
and plurinational country, the establishment of social justice, and the equitable
treatment of all its citizens became the principal objective of this social move-
ment (CONAIE 1994).
For the soldiers involved in the uprising, their reasons were centered on a plan to
strengthen the state and eliminate the defects that, in their view, corrupt the
smooth functioning of the country. Combating corruption, social injustice, and un-
employment were their priorities. Even though these solders were also battered by
the social and economic crisis (Santana 2004) and inspired by an authentic feel-
ing of national shame, they were not fundamentally motivated by a desire to chal-
lenge the system itself but rather by a profound indignation with the corrupt and
disloyal behavior of certain Ecuadorian citizens. In this way, both sectors were
quick to form an alliance and capitalize on the general disapproval that the erratic
behavior of Mahuad and his collaborators had inspired in the Ecuadorian public.
Initially, the coup had the expected effect: Thousands of people took to the streets
to applaud the military and indigenous occupation of the three branches of the
state. When the triumphant Guti~rrez, Vargas, and Sol6rzano stepped out on the
presidential balcony, the reception expressed by the crowd in Quito's Plaza
Grande was climactic; most of the observers could not believe it. Indigenous
communities were astonished after hearing on the radio or seeing on television
that an indigenous leader was seated in the President's chair and in a position to
address their concerns.
However, the final outcome was unexpected. The military high command, obey-
ing international pressures and wary of precipitating institutional division among
its own ranks, opted to withdraw its support of the Junta and conceded power to
Vice-President Gustavo Noboa Bejarano. With this, the social sectors and eco-
nomic groups that were alarmed by the Junta's proclamations heaved a sigh of
relief. They knew that the new president would follow the same line as the over-
thrown Mahuad and that consequently the fundamental framework of their soci-
ety would not be disturbed. In a certain sense, the "scapegoat" had been ritually
dispatched and all that remained was to await his successor's adjustments. As is
usual in these cases, and once calm is restored, there is no alternative but to sen-
tence the conspirators and lead their followers back to a democratic path.
Nevertheless, not everything remained calm. After this incident, the indigenous
movement was convinced that it had the capacity to lead the country toward the
creation of a plurinational state, by either democratic or other means. They were
undaunted by the "treason of the generals" and the campaign to discredit them.
May 2005 Pa e 99

One year later, between January and February 2001, and once President Noboa
had enacted the classic means of adjustment demanded by the International
Monetary Fund, the indigenous movement again occupied the streets of Quito and
went back to leading the effort to paralyze the country. Once again, the indigenous
peoples portrayed themselves as representatives of the general public in order to
confront the regime, which had no choice but to sit down to a dialogue with their
leaders "on an equal basis" in order to address the crisis (Acosta et al. 2001).
Thus, the indigenous groups again demonstrated that they were ready not only to
defend the concrete interests of the popular sectors but also to address fundamen-
tal national problems. Since the first national uprising of 1990 (Almeida 1993),
they had shown not only efficiency in terms of their methods of mobilization but
also clarity in their objectives and aspirations. Along with advocating the repeal
of joint economic measures and calling into question those measures' neoliberal
basis, the indigenous groups continued to insist on the urgency of marking a rad-
ical transition toward the creation of an intercultural and plurinational state.
The executive branch agreed to repeal the aforementioned measures, but in no
way did it prepare to address the deeper issues. As a result, the indigenous move-
ment saw no alternative but to direct its efforts toward the electoral process in
order to achieve the necessary changes. After all, the goal of getting indigenous
leaders elected to public office had been a major reason for which the Pachakutik
Plurinational Movement (Movimiento Plurinacional Pachakutik) was initially
formed.
The indigenous movement, through its electoral arm, did its utmost to form a
progressive front aimed toward the presidency. After a thorny negotiation with
leftist political parties, this front ended up being formed by the most radical left
parties. After the potential indigenous candidates withdrew their names to avoid
intensifying a long-standing internal division, the presidential candidacy of erst-
while Junta member Col. Lucio Guti6rrez Barbda emerged as the most conven-
ient and the most conducive to solidarity. It was also important that Guti6rrez
remain faithful to the principles that in the past had motivated so many uprisings
and revolts.
On the campaign trail, voters' lack of confidence in traditional parties and politi-
cians made it possible for Guti6rrez to become a finalist in the second round of
the electoral process. The voters' apparent rejection of the other candidate, the
banana millionaire Alvaro Noboa Pont6n, ultimately allowed Guti6rrez to win
the election. In January of 2003, and defying all predictions, the colonel who led
the coup of 2000 came to power, again affiliated with the indigenous movement.
The evocation of the January 2000 coup d'6tat made conservative Ecuadorians
shudder, since the social movements that participated in that coup expected
Guti6rrez to foster a substantial transformation in the political administration of
Ecuador. In particular, the popular sectors hoped that Guti6rrez would put a stop
Page 100 POLAR: Vol. 28, No. I

to neoliberal measures in favor of more democratic options linked to the indige-

nous notion of intercultural and plurinational state. However, the new regime set
out in the opposite direction.
Surprisingly, even before Gutifrrez assumed command, his rhetoric took on an ar-
tificially "neutral" style. Boasting of a well-worn populism, he defind his political
position as "neither left nor right," which in his view would permit him to "govern
for all" without "distinctions of any kind" (Lucas 2003). However, the first eco-
nomic measures adopted by Guti6frez's regime eroded this faqade of neutrality and
equitability. The country's finances were entrusted to well-known bankers with ne-
oliberal tendencies. As a sign of "balance" and "compensation," the administration
of certain social institutions and agencies was given to indigenous groups and their
closest allies. But, although Gutifrrez also ceded the Ministries of Agriculture and
Foreign Relations to two prominent indigenous leaders, he disrupted their admin-
istration by subjecting them to the guidelines of the regime, which by this time was
completely associated with the International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Embassy.
Unavoidably, the final outcome of this contradiction was the prompt dissolution
of the alliance between the military and the indigenous movement, as well as the
gradual withdrawal of the progressive contingents that the indigenous movement
had contributed. Without these hindrances, the president went on to seek al-
liances with right-wing parties in order to implement neoliberal projects that he
attacked during his campaign. Gutidrrez co-opted several of the indigenous
movement's leaders in order to fulfill his obligation to the indigenous population.
In reality Gutidrrez undermined the indigenous movement by fomenting internal
division among its principal organizations.
It is difficult to explain the reasons for this sudden and surprising change.
Although the indigenous movement did not hesitate to label Gutifrrez a "traitor,"
a focus centered on his personality is not sufficient. Rather, it is necessary to in-
vestigate motives based on the formation of state politics as well as the compo-
sition of the indigenous movement itself. One factor that each of the regimes
evaded or manipulated is found: the politicization of the sociocultural diversity
of the Ecuadorian population.
State Manipulation of Cultural Diversity in Ecuador
For dependent countries like Ecuador, the "Washington Agreement" of 1980
symbolized a transition into a new, yet familiar, stage of economic transition and
crisis. The worldwide crisis caused by capitalist overproduction and the simulta-
neous collapse of socialism pushed the world's powers toward "neoliberalism."
Fundamentally, this doctrine called for the adoption of two complementary
measures: freedom of the market at the global level and structural adjustment at
the local level. Without the opposition of either socialist or workers' unions, the
combined forces of dominant countries, transnational corporations, and interna-
May 2005 Page 101

tional financial organizations drove "peripheral" countries to accept "privatiza-

tion, deregulation, and fiscal and monetary stability" (Callinicos 2001:16). From
the perspective of dominant financial interests, these conservative fiscal meas-
ures were necessary to create a new world that would be interconnected, global-
ized, and multilateral.
The optimistic thrust of globalization clashed with reality. The clash came as a
result of the scant or nonexistent infrastructure, deficiency of capital, enormous
social inequalities, weak state organization, and the dissolution of Ecuador's civil
society. Although application of the neoliberal model could be initially advanta-
geous to multinational corporations and their local allies, its fiscal policies could
be disastrous at the national level.
Consequently, the "New World Order" and the complicity of national govern-
ments fomented dissent in large segments of civil society in this type of country.
Organized political mobilization emerged as well as spontaneous, grassroots-
level political resistance and economic survival movements antagonistic to the
neoliberal approach. In some Latin American countries, an unexpected response
to the intensification of neoliberalism consisted in the emergence of "alternative
economies," based on the indigenous modes of subsistence, as well as "clandes-
tine economies," linked to drug trafficking and corruption. In any case, the weak-
ening of the state provided the opportunity for the resurgence of social forces
long ago subjugated, several of which would become central factors in the strug-
gle against neoliberalism (Varesse 1995).
In the face of this unrest, the transnational enterprises and the central powers
had to secure and recuperate their investments. Prior to the evident failure of ne-
oliberalism, defenders of this model offered an explanation that ironically
blamed the disaster on the victims. Soon, politicians and investors began to
place blame on an exaggerated confidence in market self-regulation and in the
lack of social compensation policies. For this reason, many of them chose to dis-
tance themselves from the proposal of orthodox neoliberalism and instead posi-
tion themselves as "liberal reformists" (Held and McGrew 2002). This was the
opportune moment for humanitarian and cultural arguments. According to lib-
eral reformists, the cause of these problems was not the unequal access to re-
sources or the unjust distribution of surpluses, but rather the moral and cultural
deficiencies in the public sector. Consequently, the corrective measures would
have to address values such as democracy, governability, anti-corruption, and
human development. Some analysts did not hesitate to propose a new program
that combined the best virtues of capitalism and socialism (Callinicos 2001:42).
Since there was no viable alternative to capitalism, the only solution was to hu-
manize it. Proponents of this position argued that it would be necessary to re-
cuperate and deploy the underlying strengths and values of the nation's
2
culturally diverse population.
Page 102 POLAR: Vol. 28, No. I

Indeed, as has already been discussed, one of the most surprising effects of the3
application of neoliberalism has been the ironic empowerment of civil society.
In some Latin American countries, indigenous peoples have been the most con-
spicuous example of this change. For many scholars, they represent not only the
last reserve of morality, cultural identity, and integrity but also the best economic
option for limiting capitalism and runaway modernity (Mander 1994; Bengoa
2000). It is important to contextualize this power with the understanding that any
negligence could annul its potential and lead its immense capacity for change to
dissolve into isolated practices of "anti-modernity" (Held and McGrew 2002).
The issue is to determine which indigenous policies to promote or, on the other
hand, to determine in which global project to inscribe their potential. If one dis-
cards the intention to exterminate indigenous populations, three alternatives
arise: integration into modernity; retrenchment into primordialism or tradition; or
radical transformation. The first alternative appears reformist, the second con-
servative, and the third revolutionary. The Ecuadorian indigenous movement is
marked by the tension among these three trends.
The relation of Ecuador to the world economy has been and continues to be
marked by dependency and inequality; its resources, technology, and capital con-
centrated in a small circle of power. Although it is acknowledged internationally
as an exporter of bananas and petroleum, Ecuador is also known as a country with
limited capacity to produce goods and services for domestic consumption. The in-
ternal supply of food and raw materials is controlled to a great extent by small and
medium-sized farms, and because of the country's weak productive apparatus,
manufactured goods are almost entirely imported. Consequently, Ecuador is a
country that primarily offers abundant raw materials and inexpensive manual
labor. As a result, Ecuador appears to be an undeveloped society with consider-
able economic, social, ethnic, regional, and gender inequalities. In fact, "Ecuador
is among the countries with the greatest poverty and social inequality in South
America" (Larrea 2004:45). In this sense, the first neoliberal measures applied in
Ecuador favored external operations, such as the extraction of natural, resources,
finances, commerce, and speculation, over internal operations such as manufac-
turing and agriculture. These policies increased economic distortion by causing fi-
nancial speculation and flight of capital, as well as accelerated unemployment,
impoverishment, and emigration of the "surplus population."4
The Ecuadorian government's inability to prevent the economic and social col-
lapse of civil society caused some popular sectors to withdraw into "primordial
loyalties" (Alavi 1976) based on kinship, reciprocity, or mutual obligation. This
withdrawal was not a simple return to traditional communities; rather, it involved
a creative reinvention of community in local scenes. This strategy of local com-
munities challenged the establishment by providing new strategies of social par-
ticipation for marginalized sectors. As a result, indigenous communities were
reviled by elite sectors for reinvigorating traditional forms of solidarity and for
May 2005 Paze 103

using new strategies of adaptation and survival within a kind of "shapeless

modernity."
This strategy of community refashioning was not an exclusively indigenous af-
fair, nor was it limited to rural areas. Before the weakening of the state, several
emergent groupings, such as the silenced Afro-Ecuadorians, began to express
themselves as particular entities seeking recognition and rights within a new
Ecuadorian identity politics. These emergent groups sought participation on local
and national levels, and they shared many of the same problems as the indige-
nous communities, such as exclusion, abandonment, disillusionment, and dis-
crimination. In fact, these groups also struggled for basic needs, political rights,
and human dignity. The indigenous movement galvanized these groups and pro-
moted their convergence into a "unity into diversity," a transformation from the
concrete and daily human drama to the universal struggle for rights (Almeida
2003:132). Facing the risk of national disintegration, only the indigenous move-
ment offered a vision of reunification. This vision was based on the diversity of
Ecuadorian society and plurinationality of the state.
The strategic use of the concept of culture produced a certain effect: Seen as an
alternative lifestyle, it was a catalyst that served to challenge the fundamental
structure of Ecuadorian society. The mere mention of cultural diversity garnered
national and international support and understanding for the indigenous struggle.
The advances achieved by the indigenous movement, however, were too disrup-
tive for the hegemonic sectors. Thus, the only option was to co-opt multicultur-
alism into a "third path" located between capitalism and socialism (Callinicos
2002).
During the government of President Rodrigo Borja Cevallos (1988-1992), there
was a prior attempt to implement this alternative under pressure from the then-
incipient national indigenous movement (Almeida 1993). This effort began with
governmental support for the indigenous projects of intercultural bilingual edu-
cation and traditional medicine. Another important factor was the recognition of
territorial jurisdictions in favor of certain indigenous groups in the Amazon re-
gion. But not enough was done in terms of supporting projects autonomously ad-
ministered by the indigenous population or defending the natural resources in
other indigenous areas of the country. Similarly, transnational corporations con-
tinued to besiege and occupy indigenous territories with the aim of commercial
exploitation. The successive regimes, caught up in the vortex of neoliberalism,
took it upon themselves to promote the commercial interest.
Inevitably, this turn in state politics provoked renewed mobilization of the in-
digenous movement in defense of their resources and ways of life. Facing their
potential success, the succeeding administrations welcomed the suggestions of
the World Bank to embrace cultural diversity as a "component of development."
Although state and indigenous leaders sought to promote multiculturalism, the
Page 104 POLAR: Vol. 28, No. I

official ideology of cultural diversity served intentions diametrically opposed to

those endorsed by the indigenous movement.
In effect, the original perspective promoted by the indigenous movement con-
tained the notion of a "civilizing sense." What was needed was a radical trans-
formation of the existing model of development, which focused on privilege and
financial gain rather than on the welfare of human beings. In order to rectify this
situation, it was necessary to begin with the basic values of indigenous societies:
respect for nature, the balanced and sustainable use of resources, and the val-
orization of collective interest above individual interests. In contrast, the World
Bank's proposal was based on a vision derived primarily from a cultural mental-
ity of individualism. Although this perspective is based on respect and consider-
ation of each particular culture, ultimately its underlying values are those of the
hegemonic society. Within this context, the tendency is to transform these spe-
cific cultural characteristics into an implicit competitive advantage within the
global marketplace. The strategy of the World Bank consisted more in support-
ing the deployment of the social or cultural "capital" of the indigenous commu-
nities than in promoting the recuperation of their immanent values as cultures.
The application of these cultural politics in Ecuador consisted basically of re-
cruiting intellectuals and indigenous leaders for the implementation of a macro
project of indigenous development. Although the structural objectives of the in-
digenous movement were under discussion, the methodology focused on short-
term goals. Indigenous organizers concentrated more on the immediate productive
project than on its articulation within the plurinational project. Nevertheless, the
creation of proindigenous state agencies was a sign of progress. At the same time,
broader problems inherent to the structure of power remained untouched. These
initiatives, in spite of their good intentions, harbored a considerable risk of co-op-
tation and bureaucratization of indigenous demands. This was the legacy that
President Gutidrrez and his indigenous allies faced upon taking power.
In the beginning, Gutirrrez appeared sincerely devoted to promoting cultural di-
versity. After acquiring power, Gutirrrez's government demonstrated its weak-
ness and inconsistency. Above all, it did not seriously consider the indigenous
proposal of plurinationality as a method for building a new country. So the gov-
ernment could not surpass its limitations and became an odd mixture of nation-
alism and populism.
In effect, in the midst of his ostensible desire to appease, Gutirrrez remained
trapped between two contradictory positions: neoliberalism and pluriculturalism.
In the end, the former prevailed over the latter, since neoliberal ideology was en-
listed to neutralize any alternative related to the already-mentioned "third path"
(Callinicos 2002). Supported by special interests, the government became a tool
for the Ecuadorian economic elite, who ensured that government administration
was in accord with IMF and World Bank demands. The regime diverged rapidly
Mav 2005 Page 105

from the principles of autonomy and renovation that Gutirrez had proclaimed
during his electoral campaign and upon winning the election. Consequently, the
indigenous movement proclaimed that the government's radical change of course
was a "betrayal" and "frustrated opportunity for changes" (Lucas 2003).
After this episode, it was clear that the dominant sectors held immense resources
that enabled them to retain their influence.
Thinking Beyond Gutirrrez
From the perspective of dominant sectors, the Ecuadorian indigenous movement
has obtained a dangerous political and moral stature. The dominant sector is de-
termined to absorb a counteroffensive in order to control it. Ecuadorian elite un-
derstands perfectly well (as do transnational companies and international financial
organisms) that gaining control over the definition and use of "culture" is a suc-
cessful strategy and may be the best way to confront the indigenous movement.
With this objective, the consideration of indigenous leaders for cultural policies or
economic projects without confronting the issue of power has been successful.
This tactic has succeeded in breeding disputes among indigenous leaders who oc-
cupy bureaucratic positions that undermine the original demands of the move-
ment. The dominant sector has retained political and economic power without
resorting to violence. Its leaders have also managed to generate legitimacy on the
basis of their presumed "sensitivity" regarding "the indigenous question."
In order to confront the political exploitation of cultural diversity, the indigenous
movement has maintained a flexible relationship with other social sectors. Its in-
tercultural discourse not only recognizes and tolerates difference but also pro-
motes a dialogue between diverse sectors in their mutual search for solutions to
inequality and injustice. However, the disillusion caused by the brief sojourn in
the Gutirrrez government has generated within the indigenous movement a ten-
sion between diverse positions defined as "integrationist," "fundamentalist," or
"radical." In the midst of this dispute, the current withdrawal of the indigenous
movement from the political realm has allowed the elites to manipulate the ca-
chet of cultural diversity to its own advantage.
In Ecuador, indigenous peoples have established important local spheres of
power and have successfully developed alternative economies. However, their at-
tempt to translate their political and economic experience into practice on the na-
tional scale through the government of Gutidrrez failed. As a result, the
indigenous movement is wary of national politics and risks remaining isolated.
How, when, and from where to relaunch the movement's demands for plurina-
tionalism constitutes its present challenge.
Yet the economic, social, and political times are more complicated than before.
The diversity of Ecuadorian society has gone beyond simple questions of ethnic-
ity. Additionally, diversity has become "deterritorialized" as a result of the huge
Pa~ie 106 POLAR: Vol. 28, No. I

emigration of Ecuadorians. This forces us to rethink the polarization between

"indigenous" and "nonindigenous" and to breach the dualist framework of
Ecuadorian political reflection and action.
To a certain extent, this epistemological rupture stems from the changes that
Ecuador has experienced recently because of globalization. Ecuador is subjected
to a form of "primary capitalist accumulation" that is more flexible, heteroge-
neous, and diffused than conventional forms of capitalist accumulation. 5 This
capitalist system is subjected to a frantic internal struggle between groups that
goes beyond old dichotomies. However, it is still not clear what the resulting or
dominant rearticulations might be. Similarly, we would need to examine the sit-
uation of the middle classes and subaltern sectors, who are waiting to see what
this necessary and creative "disorder" might generate.
In any case, one thing is clear: the option of neoliberalism certainly does not co-
incide with nationalist agendas or radical culturalism. The neoliberal model fails
to incorporate political and economic reforms that meet the basic needs and as-
pirations of the Ecuadorian population. Neoliberalism seeks to destroy grassroots
economies in order to promote economic sectors deemed more competitive in the
global marketplace. In Ecuador, where there are few productive alternatives to
locally based economies, the government seems unconcerned with the develop-
ment of its "human capital." Successive governments have increasingly cut so-
cial programs and have precipitated millions of Ecuadorians towards the abyss of
poverty, unemployment, and international migration. If this corresponds to a pre-
meditated plan in favor of a neoliberal doctrine, then the best option to follow
would be to propose an alternative to current state policies. These alternatives
would center more on the recuperation and deployment of the country's ample
raw material and manual labor capacity. Definitively, neoliberalism is not an ad-
equate option for the subaltern sectors of the country.
For several analysts, the alternative to such "creative destruction" is a policy that
encourages emergent subaltern strategies. For the subaltern, the option is to sup-
port ethnic and cultural diversity as a mechanism for "the promotion of produc-
tive employment, the development of capital and human potentialities, and the
encouragement of redistributive policies" (Larrea 2004:74).
From a more radical position, the ideal option would consist of forcing a "rupture
with the logic of capital, and its substitution by something that, at least, gives pri-
ority to human necessities and puts the distribution of resources under democratic
control" (Callinicos 2002:165). This rupture from global powers is necessary, yet
it also requires a strategic connection to alternative forces that could support a dif-
ferent political system and symbolic order (Krohn-Hansen 2003). The framework
of "anti-globalization" movements could be the most relevant and adequate to aid
in this transition. Their appeal to local movements based on the rejection of
modernity and of a wild and unbridled capitalism constitutes an allure too power-
May 2005 Page 107

ful to resist. The problem is to know whether this worldwide movement will be
able to create a coherent and viable counterhegemonic alternative. In any event,
this aspiration reinvigorates the current Ecuadorian indigenous movement and
forms the space from which other social sectors reposition themselves in light of
their renewed demand for interculturality and plurinationalism.
The challenge is to assume a postnationalism that goes beyond questions of eth-
nicity without implying the exclusion or deferral of these questions. Ecuadorian
society is no longer driven by dichotomies. As a result, social movements need a
new focus to rearticulate more effectively the issue of cultural diversity and the
disruptive social effects of neoliberalism. A strategy of popular liberation with
renewed state participation is still necessary and possible. Apparently, the in-
digenous movement has both the capacity and the opportunity to exercise its in-
fluence in this direction.

Notes
1. In the 1980s, the indigenous struggle resulted in the creation of several gov-
ernmental offices focused on "Indian Affairs." After the first national in-
digenous uprising in 1990 (Almeida 1993), indigenous organizations gained
control of these governmental agencies. The indigenous movement, led by
the CONAIE (Confederation of Indian Nationalities of Ecuador), au-
tonomously assumed important pro-indigenous policies, such as intercul-
tural education and indigenous health. The CONAIE also gained control of
the indigenous offices CODENPE (Council for the Development of
Nationalities and Indian Peoples of Ecuador) and PRODEPINE (Project for
the Development of Indian Peoples and Nationalities of Ecuador), the latter
financed by the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Fund. The
exclusive focus of these departments on Indian affairs evidences the state's
trend to separate indigenous peoples from other popular sectors, such as the
Afro-Ecuadorians and even the mestizos (Walsh 2002:194).
2. Currently, companies and politicians are taking advantage of "social capital" by
producing goods for the market using mechanisms of solidarity or cooperative
association. They are also providing social services using resources owned by
popular sectors, without the intermediation of the state (Bret6n 2001).
3. A pattern is occurring: The more socioeconomic crises and reductions of
state size occur, the more space and power are opened up for social organi-
zations and nongovernmental institutions (Ydnez 1996).
4. The numbers on the matter are striking: Approximately 70 percent of
Ecuadorians live below the poverty line; 20 percent of the poorest are re-
ceiving only 2.16 percent of the national income; whereas the wealthiest
20 percent control over two-thirds of national wealth (Vdsquez and Santos
2002:243).
Page 108 PoLAR: Vol. 28, No. I

5. It is not simply a matter of alienating the direct producer from his means of
subsistence in order to turn him into a proletarian obliged to depend on wages,
as was the historical case of the peasantry in Europe and other industrializing
regions. Without there existing an equivalent offer of industrial employment,
in nonindustrialized countries the proponents of the neoliberal stance seek to
dismantle the economies of peasant or native communities in order to cause
them to lose control of their resources so that they may be appropriated by
multinational corporations. At best, what is expected of these communities is
that they can be reconstituted economically as mere consumers within a global
flow of goods and services. See Harvey 1990 and Hardt and Negri, 2000.

References Cited
Acosta, Alberto et al.
2001 Nada s6lo para los indios. El levantamiento indfgena del 2001:
Andlisis, cr6nicas y documentos. Quito: Abya-Yala.
Alavi, Hamza
1976 Las clases campesinas y las lealtades primordiales. Barcelona:
Cuadernos Anagrama.
Almeida, Jos 6
1993 El levantamiento indfgena como momento constitutivo nacional. In
Sismo dtnico en el Ecuador. Jos6 Almeida et al, eds. 7-28. Quito:
CEDIME/Abya-Yala.
2000 Regionalismo y movimiento indfgena en el Ecuador: Un reto a la
politica de la diferencia. In Derecho consuetudinario y pluralismo
legal: Desaffos en el Tercer Milenio. Memorias del XII Congreso,
Tomo II. 529-539. Santiago de Chile: Edici6n Conjunta
Universidad de Chile y Universidad de Tarapacd.
2003 Identidades en el Ecuador: Un balance antropol6gico. In Ciudadanfa
e identidad. Sim6n Pachano, ed. 83-142. Quito: FLACSO.
Barrera, Augusto
2001 Acci6n colectiva y crisis polftica. El movimiento indigena
Ecuatoriano en la d6cada de los Noventa. Quito: Abya-Yala.
Bartra, Roger
2002 Blood, Ink, and Culture. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bengoa, Jos6
2000 Emergencia indfgena en Am6rica Latina. Santiago de Chile: FCE.
Black, Chad
1998 The 1990 Indian Uprising in Ecuador: Culture, Ethnicity and Post-
Marxist Social Praxis. Paper presented at the 1998 meeting of the
Latin American Studies Association, Chicago.
May 2005 Page 109

Bret6n Solo, Vfctor

2001 Cooperaci6n al desarrollo y demandas 6tnicas en los Andes
Ecuatorianos. Quito: FLACSO.
Callinicos, Alex
2002 Contra la Tercera Vii: Una crftica anticapitalista. Barcelona:
Editorial Critica.
CEDIME
1993 Sismo dtnico en el Ecuador: Varias perspectivas. Quito: CED-
IME/Abya-Yala.
CONAIE
1994 Proyecto polftico de la CONAIE. Quito: CONAIE [Confederation
of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador].
Comejo, Diego
1992 Indios. Una reflexi6n sobre el levantamiento indigena de 1990.
Quito: Abya-Yala.
El Comercio
2000 21 de Enero. La vorigine que acab6 con Mahuad. Quito: Edici6n
C.A. El Comercio.
Evers, Tillman
1979 El estado en la periferia capitalista. Mexico City: Siglo XXI
Editorial.
Gerlach, Allen
2003 Indians, Oil, and Politics: A Recent History of Ecuador.
Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Books.
Giddens, Anthony
1990 El estructuralismo, el post-estructuralismo y la producci6n de la
cultura. In La teoria social hoy. Anthony Giddens and Jonathan
Turner, eds. 254-289. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Glazer, Nathan
1997 We Are All Multiculturalists Now. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gledhill, John
2000 Power and Its Disguises: Anthropological Perspectives on Politics.
London: Pluto Press.
Grfilner, Eduardo
2003 Diseminaci6n, dice mi naci6n. Memoria 178. Electronic docu-
ment, http://www.memoria.com.mx/l178/gruner.htm, accessed
March 10, 2005.
Page 110 POLAR: Vol. 28, No. 1

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri

2000 Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harvey, David
1990 The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Held, David and Anthony McGrew

2002 Globalization/Anti-globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers Ltd.

Karakras, Ampam
1988 Las nacionalidades indias y el estado Ecuatoriano. In Pensamiento
Indigenista del Ecuador. Claudio Malo Gonzdlez. 635--646. Quito:
Banco Central del Ecuador/Corporaci6n Editora Nacional.

Kivisto, Peter
2002 Multiculturalism in a Global Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.

Krohn-Hansen, Christian
2003 Into Our Time: The Anthropology of Political Life in the Era of
Globalisation. In Globalisation: Studies in Anthropology. Thomas
Hylland Eriksen, ed. 78-98. London: Pluto Press.

Larrea, Carlos
2004 Pobreza, dolarizaci6n y crisis en el Ecuador. Quito: Abya-Yala.

Lucas, Kintto
2000 La rebeli6n de los Indios. Quito: Abya-Yala.
2003 El movimiento indfgena y las acrobacias del Coronel. Quito:
Tintajf.

MacDonald, Theodore Jr.

2003 Ecuador's Indian Movement: Pawn in a Short Game or Agent in
State Reconfiguration? In The Politics of Ethnicity: Indigenous
Peoples in Latin American States. David Maybury-Lewis, ed.
169-198. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Mander, Jerry
1994 En ausencia de lo sagrado: El fracaso de la tecnologia y la sobre-
vivencia de las naciones indigenas. Santiago de Chile: Editorial
Cuatro Vientos.
Mardones, Jos6 Maria (Director)
1996 Diez palabras claves sobre movimientos sociales. Madrid:
Editorial Verbo Divino.

Ong, Aihwa
May 2005 Page I1I1

1.999 Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality.

Durham: Duke University Press.
Santana, Roberto
2004 Cuando las 61ites dirigentes giran en redondo: el caso de los lid-
erazgos indfgenas en Ecuador. Ecuador Debate 61. Electronic
document, http://www.dlh.lahora.com.ec/paginas/debate/paginas/
debate1 103.htm, accessed March 10, 2005.
Selverston-Scher, Melinda
2001 Ethnopolitics in Ecuador: Indigenous Rights and the Strengthening
of Democracy. Miami: University of Miami North-South Center
Press.
Varesse, Stefano
1995 Pueblos indfgenas y globalizaci6n en el umbral del Tercer Milenio.
In Articulaci6n de la diversidad y pluralidad 6tnica: Autonomfas y
democratizaci6n en Amdrica Latina. Georg Griinberg, ed.
123-159. Quito: Abya-Yala.
Visquez, Lola and Napole6n Santos
2002 Ecuador: su realidad. Quito: Fundaci6n Jos6 Peralta.
Walsh, Catherine
2002 La (re)articulaci6n de subjetividades polfticas y diferencia colonial
en Ecuador: Reflexiones sobre el capitalismo y las geopolfticas del
conocimiento. In Indisciplinar las ciencias sociales. Catherine
Walsh, Freya Schiwy, Santiago Castro G6mez, eds. 174-214.
Quito: Abya-Yala.
Whitten, Norman, ed.
2003 Millennial Ecuador: Critical Essays on Cultural Transformations
and Social Dynamics. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Ydnez, Hemrin, ed.
1996 El mito de la gobernabilidad. Quito: Trama Editorial.
Yddice, George
2003 The Expediency of Culture: Uses of Culture in the Global Era
(Post Contemporary Interventions). Durham: Duke University
Press.