The Story of CONAIE: Assessing Social Movement Narratives & Redefining Movement Success
With a growing economic crisis and declining trust in political parties throughout the 1980s in Latin America, indigenous parties and movements emerged as leaders in developing economic and political solutions to the crisis. Among these groups was the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE) in Ecuador. CONAIE attempted to unite a diverse range of social organizations under one movement for transformative sociopolitical and economic change. CONAIE’s mobilizing frames were successful at developing a broad movement; however, these frames were less successful at incorporating CONAIE’s policy demands into legislation, as evidenced by the promulgation of the 1998 Constitution in Ecuador. Though CONAIE did not implement all the specific demands in their political project, they managed to implement core policy demands, and achieve political inclusion. CONAIE’s achievements exemplify two key insights about social movement theory: (1) mobilizing frames in the coalescence stage of a social movement are not always as effective in the bureaucratization stage, and (2) social movement success can be defined by both the degree to which movement demands were implemented in policy and by political inclusion of the movement.
Social Movement Theory
Social movement theory is useful for breaking down a movement to understand the various actors, how a movement changes over time, and strategies movements use to mobilize people. Social movements are made up of actors and organizations that aim to create broad, significant social change through average citizens’ mobilization. The theory investigates the evolution of social movements. This evolution begins with the emergence of the movement, which is defined by a group of people or individuals with a shared idea. The next phase is coalescence, or when these groups and individuals begin to organize, develop resources, and bring others into the movement to develop a broad base of support and organization. As the movement gains momentum in the coalescence stage, a countermovement that disagrees with the movements goals and objectives will most likely form. Next, the movement will bureaucratize. In other words, it will develop a concrete organizational structure and become a part of the existing institutions the movement originally intended to change. This life cycle comes to an end with the decline of the movement, either because it has become incorporated into the dominant culture or it has been unable to achieve change, and actors are no longer as active.
Mobilization structures identify the factors that impact policy success and failure. They are the key components that make up a movement: leadership, movement actors and networks, and the framing processes or narratives. Movement actors and networks are primarily defined by whether they are informal and non-movement, formal and non-movement, informal and movement, and formal and movement. These actors influence the movement’s evolution as they organize and mobilize, each for their own political objectives. For example, as I discuss later in the essay, in the case of peasant organizations and indigenous organizations, which both mobilized under the CONAIE banner for slightly different policy objectives.
Framing processes are the narratives social movement leaders use to mobilize a wide array of actors, as well as define and propose their solutions and problems to a specific policy problem. A powerful, broad narrative can draw in actors that would not have otherwise mobilized for the movement. A narrative creates a story and conveys a message, or a moral, that reflects the movement’s policy objectives. This story creates villains, victims, and heroes to frame the movement’s objectives to appeal to movement actors and mobilize them. Therefore, different mobilizing frames work better at different phases of the movement and within different contexts. The frames used to mobilize a broad base to coalesce a movement are not as effective during the policymaking, electoral, or legislative phase when a movement aims to legislate a specific policy goal. Different strategies work at different phases of the social movement evolution.
Though the success and failure of a movement depends on whether the movement achieved a policy change, this does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the lasting impact of a social movement. In fact, several scholars have postulated additional criteria to determine the success of a social movement. For example, the inclusion of new groups and interests in the policy process can add to the conversation about a policy or change the dialogue altogether. This constitutes success for a movement. Success and failure can also be redefined in terms of collective benefits and goods. Collective goods shape the identities of individuals and movement actors which impacts future advocacy; they change the social values of society orienting societal values and norms to those of the movement.
CONAIE & the Typology of the Movement
CONAIE was originally developed in the 1980s to create a national organization for indigenous groups in the Amazon, Highlands, and the coast of Ecuador. This united several diverse indigenous groups: The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONFENIAE), The Confederation of Peoples of Quichua Nationality (ECUANARI), and Coordination of Indigenous and Black Organizations of the Ecuadorian Coast (CONAICE). The movement eventually developed to create a broad coalition for all indigenous organizations, as well as other various organized social sectors, like peasants, workers, women, students, professionals, intellectuals, and religious workers. It sought to unite these groups on issues about land, economic development, education, and recognition of indigenous nationalities through popular protest.
CONAIE’s mobilizing narrative was based on creating a plurinational state, which was also their central policy goal. Supplementary policy goals were included in CONAIE’s policy objectives, but they were all hinged on the development of the plurinational state. Plurinationalism calls for a political, social, and economic transformation of society. It is posed as an alternative economic and state model to capitalism and Western conceptions of the state. In quite simple terms, a plurinational state creates multiple nations within a single, unitary nation. This was a powerful narrative because it denounced and confronted complex issues: colonialism, imperialism, neoliberalism, marginalization, racism, oppression, and discrimination.
CONAIE’s narrative coalesced a wide range of movement types within one movement. CONAIE’s primary policy goal, a plurinational state, sought a large change for society. It constituted a revolutionary movement which consisted of a radical change for everyone in society. Other revolutionary aspects for everyone included developing a new economic model, intercultural policies, demands for social justice and equality, recognition of indigenous languages as official languages of the state, and indigenous language instruction in education. Other aspects of the movement were redemptive. Redemptive movement typology means the movement sought to create radical changes aimed at specific individuals or groups. For example, CONAIE’s goals for indigenous territorial autonomy and self-government were redemptive because they were large, influential changes that only targeted indigenous groups. With a narrative that addressed a wide range of social, economic, and political issues, CONAIE could coalesce elements from various types of movements, both revolutionary and radical types.
Narratives that Mobilize: Victims, Villains, and Morals (of the Story)
The moral of CONAIE’s policy narrative was that the national government solely served the elite’s interests, and it continually perpetuated injustice, oppression, and discrimination. This strongly emphasized that the government was anti-democratic, corrupt, repressive, authoritarian, and that its systems had to be dramatically changed. CONAIE advocated for creating a state model based on inclusion, equality, and social justice to right the wrongs of the government and elite. The 1990 Indigenous uprising was CONAIE’s first major protest, which proved the saliency of this mobilizing narrative. Local indigenous groups, peasants, and workers occupied churches, namely the Santo Domingo church in downtown Quito, blocked several major highways, and engaged in land invasions. Local groups that originally did not know of CONAIE joined the protests. The mobilization culminated with a massive march to Quito to present a 16-point plan. As described in the section above, social movement scholars would refer to this as the coalescence stage of a movement.
The moral of the story appealed to varied types of movement actors because it addressed a wide range of issues. At the coalescence stage of the movement, CONAIE’s formal movement actors were comprised of the three regional indigenous associations. Informal movement actors were often affinity groups like student activists, peasant organizations, and loosely affiliated indigenous organizations, like the Ecuadorian Federation of Evangelical Indians (FEINE), the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of Pastaza (OPIP), or the National Confederation of Peasant, Indigenous and Negro Organizations (FENOCIN). Non-movement formal actors included churches and workers unions, such as the National Agrarian Coordinator (CAN), Unified Workers Central (CUT), and Unified Workers Front (FUT).
Later mobilizations illustrate how these groups mobilized behind aspects of the narrative relevant to their goals. For example, OPIP, a CONAIE affiliate, organized a mobilization in April 1991 for titling to collective land claims. While this mobilized CONAIE members and affiliates around the issue of territory, OPIP’s specific land reform goals diverged from CONAIE’s. The 1994 Mobilization for Life against the Agrarian Development Law was another successful CONAIE mobilization for territorial issues. Peasant organizations in CONAIE, however, mobilized for slightly different reasons than indigenous organizations. Peasant organizations mobilized for the rights of small farmers to farm their land. Indigenous organizations sought to reestablish their ancestral territorial rights and territorial autonomy, which could negatively impact small farmers territorial rights. The broad framing of territorial rights united these groups in this mobilization, but it was not as effective while developing legislation.
Consistent with the theory, CONAIE’s mobilizing narrative was successful because the movement made a clear, powerful distinction between villains and victims. It captured growing sentiments about misrepresentation, corruption, and exploitation, aimed directly at the government and elites. The victims were historically marginalized and oppressed groups, which included indigenous peoples, Afro-Ecuadorian peoples, and peasants. The victims in this narrative were severely impacted by the national government’s neoliberal reforms and exclusionary practices. The government and elites were depicted as the villains that had perpetuated violence, repression, and discrimination against the victims; in the case of indigenous peoples, the narrative emphasized suffering and oppression at the hands of the government since the Spanish conquest. Mobilization against the 1994 Agrarian Law illustrates the representation of victims and villains in CONAIE’s narrative. The passage of this law threatened to take land and water rights from smallholder indigenous farmers. CONAIE mobilized against a villainous government that would encroach on poor farmers’ basic necessities for the profit of the national government and the elites. It is a stark picture of good and evil, victim and villain.
When Narratives Fail
The mobilizing narratives that created a broad base of supporters for CONAIE, damaged CONAIE’s political success and their ability to implement their specific demands in legislation. The promulgation of the 1998 Constitution reflected this issue. CONAIE was unable to include the demand for a plurinational state and compromised for inclusion of a “pluricultural” state in the constitution instead. Specifically, the broad narrative that had united CONAIE’s movement actors now divided them. This ultimately diluted CONAIE’s demands in the legislation. FENOCIN, a CONAIE affiliate, advocated for interculturality and diversity over plurinationalism. Meanwhile, FEINE rejected plurinationalism entirely. This debate about the plurinational state, CONAIE’s principal movement goal, was amongst affiliates that had mobilized for CONAIE and its narrative. More specific mobilization frames were required to maintain a unified movement in creating legislation and in policymaking.
Redefining Success: Subsidiary Goals, Collective Goods, and Political Inclusion
CONAIE still successfully implemented its primary and supplementary policy goals, though to a limited degree. These achievements constitute a successful movement. First, the incorporation of language about “collective identities” was included. Many actors within CONAIE considered this the foundation for future legislation that would bring the plurinational state to fruition, with or without the implementation of the specific term into law. The 1998 Constitution also established special electoral districts for indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian communities corresponding to “sectional autonomous governments,” or self-governing indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian territories. This also potentially supports future legislation for the plurinational state. Though they did not achieve specific policy goals, these changes created a framework for future legislation that would fully implement CONAIE’s specific goals for a plurinational state.
Some of CONAIE’s supplementary demands also succeeded, creating a collective good for indigenous and other marginalized groups. The success of these supplementary goals bolstered movement member identities, as well as political recognition and respect. Indigenous languages were made official in indigenous-populated areas. Also, the constitution recognized the right of indigenous peoples to practice customary law. National recognition of language bolsters the identities of movement and nonmovement members alike because it brings a degree of respect to indigenous communities that were nonexistent prior to this legislation, even if it is symbolic. The right to practice customary law also bolsters identity and gives political recognition to indigenous practices in government and politics. This type of legislation reinforces movement members’ identities and motivates them to continue organizing and mobilizing for their policy demands.
CONAIE’s greatest movement success was political inclusion. Though CONAIE’s movement members were becoming more involved in politics throughout the 1990s, the creation of Patchakutik cemented political inclusion for CONAIE. Patchakutik was an electoral organization created from CONAIE members and affiliates. It gave CONAIE members the opportunity to engage in electoral campaigns, while CONAIE maintained the movement’s civil society organizing. CONAIE’s mobilizing narratives launched it as a national movement with a broad base of supporters, garnering political visibility and inclusion for the movement. The creation of Patchakutik and official involvement in politics signified significant development, change, and success for the movement since its coalescence.
CONAIE’s movement also brought about broader political inclusion and social change for indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian communities. The 1998 Constitution established special electoral districts for indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian communities. Throughout the early 1990s, indigenous leaders were running for local and regional office, and winning. By 1996, indigenous organizations were fully active in politics. They supported and nominated candidates for office, and in 1996, nominated their own candidate for the presidency. CONAIE’s broad mobilization efforts were part of a process that opened political space for indigenous actors to participate in politics, whether or not they were affiliated or a part of CONAIE.
CONAIE employed a powerful policy narrative to successfully mobilize a diverse set of groups around indigenous demands. Their narrative gave a voice to the victims of colonialism and oppression, which is why it was incredibly successful at garnering a massive body of support from all sectors of society. Though this narrative was advantageous at the beginning of the movement, it adversely impacted CONAIE’s ability to implement its specific policy goals about plurinationalism. This was evident as CONAIE’s policy demands were diluted in the 1998 Constitution. Notwithstanding, CONAIE’s movement still implemented their subsidiary policy goals, setting the stage for future movement legislative efforts. The movement successfully created a political opening for indigenous, afro-Ecuadorian, and peasant groups throughout the country. In defiance of 500 years of abuse and suffering, CONAIE created a collective good for various groups, communities, and individuals, catapulting their demands and their vision for a just society to the forefront of the political landscape.
