Indigenous social movements and political institutionalization: a comparative case study

ABSTRACT

Why do some indigenous social movements integrate into political institutions, i.e., political parties, and some do not? This study compares the impact that indigenous social movements have had on existing political institutions in Peru and Guatemala, theorizing about the effects that framing and experiential commensurability can have on the success of a social movement of a marginalized group transitioning into a political party. That is to say, in the case of Indigenous social movements which have expressly signaled their interest in participating in mainstream political institutions, what factors contribute to making gains in representation or legislative change? Indigenous social movements in both Guatemala and Peru have faced significant opposition from existing political institutions and dealt with additional issues such as a lack of physical infrastructure and a deficit of centralized organization within the movements themselves. This study compares the process of Guatemala’s indigenous social movement in its transition to a nationally and municipally representative political party in contrast with a continued lack of mobilization and representation of indigenous interests in the national political institutions of Peru.

KEYWORDS:

• Peru
• Guatemala
• Latin American politics
• indigenous politics
• social movements
• framing

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 An example of this cementing of the idea of Indigenous as a singular stakeholder is present in the census categorization of “Indio,” which translates to Indian and is implied to mean indigenous, on Latin American countries census’, despite many different ethnic groups that are indigenous and self-identify as separate from one another. For example: Achi, Akatek, Chuj, Ixil, Jakaltek, Kaqchikel, K’iche’, Mam, Poqomam, Poqomchi’, Q’anjob’al, Q’eqchi’, Tz’utujil, and Uspantek are all Mayan peoples who live in the Guatemalan highlands, but identify as distinct groups.

2 For her argument regarding the incompleteness of primordialism, instrumentalism, and poststructuralism, please see the article Contesting Citizenship: Indigenous Movements and Democracy in Latin America.

3 See Van Cott (2005), Rice and Van Cott (2006) for more on the negative case of Peru.

4 A significant reason for this is the genocide of indigenous peoples committed by the Argentine government during late state formation. For more, see Feierstein (2014) and Trinchero (2006).

5 One of Van Cott’s conditions for success is a organization that has existed for more than 14 years. Find page number.

6 Centrality indicates how significant or essential “beliefs, values, and ideas associated with movement frames are to the lives of the targets of mobilization” (Benford and Snow 2000). The third factor is narrative fidelity. “To what extent are the proffered framings culturally resonant? To what extent do they resonate with the targets’ cultural narratives?” (Benford and Snow 2000, 622). Together, these three dimensions contribute to the likelihood of mobilization. While these two are central factors, this paper focuses specifically on experiential commensurability.

7 It is important to note that the movement towards this shared experience was an endeavor that spanned multiple generations (at least three) of Quiche people.