Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton
University
http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm
Commentary No. 33, Feb. 1, 2000
In the first month of the twenty-first century, a small drama
was enacted in Ecuador, a country whose politics seem obscure to most
people elsewhere in the world. This small drama however illustrated one
of the key issues of the next fifty years. If the last half of the twentieth
century was a period of so-called decolonization everywhere - that is,
the end of colonial rule by European powers over non-European territories
- it is now the turn of the "internally colonized" to make their
voices heard.
What happened in Ecuador can be briefly summarized. In a country suffering
from the highest inflation in Latin America and very high unemployment,
the President, Jaime Mahaud, announced his solution - further integration
into the world market via "dollarization," that is, pegging
the Ecuadorian currency to the U.S. dollar. The cup of discontent overflowed.
An organization representing the "indigenous peoples" of Ecuador
(CONAIE) announced a march on the capital. After about a week, a large
number of persons had arrived. A group of "populist colonels"
in the armed forces supported them. Suddenly, a peaceful coup occurred.
A junta of three persons assumed executive authority. The three-person
junta was comprised of a populist colonel, the head of CONAIE, and a former
Justice of the Supreme Court (representing presumably middle-class urban
professionals). The junta thought it had the support of the army, at least
their passive support. In about a day, the populist colonel was replaced
by a less populist general. The U.S. sent envoys to make "suggestions"
to this general, threatening the economic isolation of Ecuador. And one
day later, he resigned, dissolved the junta, and convened the Congress
not in order to reinstall the President (who had always refused to resign)
but to make the Vice-President President. The populist colonel in the
junta was arrested; the head of CONAIE and the justice of the Supreme
Court went into hiding.
The Vice-President, now President, announced that he would continue the
economic policies against which CONAIE was protesting, and that he would
seek to punish the army rebels. The U.S. government promptly recognized
the new government. The head of CONAIE emerged from hiding briefly to
announce that the army had betrayed CONAIE by breaking their solemn promises,
that he would seek to negotiate with the new President, but that if, within
3-6 months, there were no changes, the situation might well deteriorate
into civil war.
A tempest in a teapot? Or a harbinger of things to come? How could a group
of indigenous peoples overthrow a President? What are populist colonels?
And why was the U.S. government so exercised about the events and so prompt
to intervene? Let us start with the "indigenous peoples" - who
are they? In Latin America, the answer is rather clear: this term refers
primarily to populations called Indians who lived in the Americas before
the European conquest. In a series of countries along the long Cordillera
that runs from Mexico to Chile, such peoples are a large percentage of
the population - almost always largely rural, very poor, and not allowed
to participate actively in the political life of the countries.
In Ecuador, such peoples are about 40-50% of the population. Ecuador is
divided into three geographic zones: the Altiplano, where Quechua-speaking
peoples live; the Amazonian region, with other peoples; and the Coast
which has relatively few Indians but a Black population of ex-slaves.
CONAIE had been able, over the past decade, to build a fairly strong organization
with strength in all three zones, even if their greatest strength was
in the Altiplano. They had been involved in local elections, and had been
beginning to win some of them.
Ecuador was one of four Andean countries, which have all had different
forms of popular revolt in recent years. Colombia has been the scene of
a almost 30-year long civil war, in which the rebels (FARC) have been
waging a relatively classic insurrection and now control a good portion
of the country. Peru was the scene of a civil war, led primarily by a
less "classic" organization, using far more radical tactics
than FARC - Sendero Luminoso. This organization has been largely suppressed
by the Peruvian army after a ruthless campaign by President Fujimori.
Venezuela was for a long time the most "parliamentary" of the
four countries. Its politics were a battle between two centrist parties,
one of Christian Democratic coloration and one claiming a Social-Democratic
past. A few years ago, a revolt of a populist colonel was suppressed.
Last year, this populist colonel, Hugo Chávez, swept the elections
and moved quickly to suspend all the traditional structures, using an
anti-intellectual rhetoric, and replacing them with a new Constitution
and new structures, and won overwhelming popular support in a referendum
(to the dismay not only of the middle classes but of the traditional left
intellectuals).
Ecuador had been the quiet spot, relatively speaking. It is quiet no longer.
One can see why the U.S. government was so exercised. After a long struggle,
Peru may be back in line for the moment, but in Colombia the government
is in a shaky position, and in Venezuela, a populist colonel of uncertain
trajectory is solidly in power. The U.S. obviously felt that an Ecuadorian
junta could only weaken the U.S. position throughout the region.
And the populist colonels, who are they? In Latin America, as in many
parts of the world, the army is a means of upward social mobility. Many
of the officers, from lieutenants to colonels, are from popular backgrounds
and have not yet cut their ties to them. But such persons seldom make
general. Generals tend to come from more oligarchic backgrounds. So every
once in a while, these colonels (or lieutenants) make the leap to become
"revolutionary." They are not reliably so, as CONAIE found out,
but they can cause trouble, as the U.S. well knows. Some of the Ecuadorian
colonels have now taken refuge in Venezuela.
But the most serious problem was that the "indigenous peoples"
were so well organized. They were the real threat. They demanded "more,
sir", like David Copperfield. And they were quite clear that "globalization"
was making their demands less, not more, possible. CONAIE had learned
well from their brothers elsewhere - the Mayans who had been so brutally
suppressed in long wars in Guatemala and El Salvador, the Chiapas Indians
who have been using such intelligent tactics in their long struggle with
the Mexican government (and who were denounced, just this week, by President
Zedillo as persons with whom one couldn't negotiate).
CONAIE knew that it couldn't undertake itself an armed rebellion - not
yet, at least. They needed support, and turned to the army. They have
been burned. They will try again. And they are being watched by others.
Spokespersons for the Mapuche Indians of northern Chile said that the
events of Ecuador was "a great experience from which we must all
learn." And in Guatemala, the Defensoría Maya warned the government
that they were tired of the systematic oppression and were going to take
a lesson from what happened in Ecuador "in their untiring struggle...to
end poverty, discrimination, and corruption."
Will anyone listen to such words? Probably not, but then the "indigenous
peoples" will simply continue to organize, and perhaps soon we may
have more surprises like that of Ecuador. While this was happening, at
the other end of the world, in India, President K.R. Narayanan made a
nationwide television address on the eve of the 50th Anniversary of India
as a constitutional republic. The President is the first "untouchable"
(India's equivalent of Ecuador's "Indians") to serve in this
ceremonial post. It is a post without power, but it is a symbol, and it
was thought symbolic to have elected an untouchable. What did he say?
"One-half of our society guzzles aerated beverages while the other
has to make do with palmfuls of muddied water....Our giant factories rise
from out of squalor; our satellites shoot up from the midst of the hovels
of the poor." His conclusion? "Beware the fury of the patient
and long-suffering people."
© Immanuel Wallerstein
iwaller@binghamton.edu
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to
post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the
essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate
this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial
Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu
or fax: 1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections
on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the
immediate headlines but of the long term.]
Reproduced with gratitude to Immanuel Wallerstein by The Global Aware
Cooperative
Contact cooperative@globalaware.org
