The indigenous party is still an important political force

The Economist

THOUGH Latin America's millions of indigenous peoples have many campaigning groups, they have few political parties. And none has had the influence or the roller-coaster ride of Ecuador's Pachakutik. From rabble-rouser to government coalition member to feisty opposition in four years, it helped overthrow Jamil Mahuad, Ecuador's president, in 2000, and elect Lucio Gutiérrez to the post in 2002. Party leaders feared that it might have alienated supporters when it left Mr Gutiérrez's coalition, in which it had little say, in 2003. And so it seemed, when protest marches called earlier this year fizzled after a few days, instead of driving out the president as promised.

So the party was relieved when local elections last month gave it—thanks partly to other party alliances—about the same number of mayors and provincial prefects as in its earlier heyday, mostly in the highlands and the Amazonian region where the country's estimated 4.8m Indians tend to live. Its leaders say it is respected for sticking to its guns when Mr Gutiérrez turned from a populist left-winger into a disciple of macroeconomic orthodoxy.

And its momentum against the president is reviving. Besides helping block some of his bills in Congress, it is a member of a coalition that tried to impeach him for allegedly using state property and funds to support his own party, which nonetheless performed disappointingly in the elections. This week the coalition tried to create a congressional “very special commission” for impeachment, though it gave up after six legislators failed to show up for the vote.

Still, even Pachakutik's leaders have admitted that simply opposing the president is not much of a political platform. The group's challenges include changing from an “Indian party” to a multicultural one and including other disenfranchised racial groups, such as blacks. While several Ecuadoreans who classify themselves as mixed-race mestizos hold important positions in the party, most of its support base remains indigenous.

Pachakutik will have to make inroads in larger cities and coastal areas if it is to become more than a regional party. It has to iron out differences with the CONAIE, the national indigenous body from which it sprang. It suffers from breaches between Amazon and highland Indians, Catholics and Protestants, and the remaining supporters of Mr Gutiérrez and his detractors. Some Pachakutik and CONAIE members have been criticised for wearing “golden ponchos”—ie, succumbing to elitism.

Despite Pachakutik's political savvy, Indians continue to be among the poorest in a poor country. They rank lower than the national average on education and most other indicators of wellbeing. And although they have won legal protection in the constitution and in international agreements, it is not always fulfilled.

The party's greatest successes continue to be more local. For example, the Indian mayor of the highland town of Cotacachi, Auki Tituaña, has earned international praise for innovative health and welfare programmes. Pachakutik recently helped push approval through Congress for an “intercultural university”, which will include traditional as well as modern teachings. Whether such efforts spread could be a better pointer to Pachakutik's future than any election or impeachment.

Source: The Economist