In Ecuador, like in Bolivia, the indigenous movement gave birth to a political party in the mid-1990s. This party, the Movimiento Unidad Plurinacional Pachakutik – Nuevo País (MUPP-NP), performed surprisingly well from the start. In the 1996 elections, for example, its presidential candidate, Freddy Ehlers, finished third with 20.6 percent of the valid vote and it won eight seats in the legislature. Its most important breakthrough, however, came in the 2002 elections when the candidate it supported, Lucio Gutiérrez, was elected president, and Pachakutik took control of four cabinet ministries in the new government. Thus, in less than a decade, Pachakutik emerged as a major player in Ecuadorian politics.

The success of the MUPP-NP, like the MAS, was due in part to its ethnic appeals. Pachakutik used a variety of symbolic and substantive appeals to win the support of Ecuador’s indigenous population. It ran numerous indigenous candidates, it campaigned extensively in indigenous areas, and it embraced traditional ethnic demands. Pachakutik also benefited significantly from its close ties to Ecuador’s powerful indigenous movement, which provided it with organizational legitimacy as well as human and material resources. These appeals and resources helped Pachakutik capture much of the indigenous vote beginning in 1996.

The emergence of powerful indigenous parties in Latin America has been greeted by some observers with trepidation. National security analysts in Washington and elsewhere have feared that such movements will be a breeding ground for extremist, anti-capitalist, and racially exclusionary ideas (“A political awakening” 2004, 37; Madrid 2005b; Oppenheimer 2003, 16A). Peruvian novelist and Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa has gone so far as to argue that Latin American indigenous movements have disturbing elements that “appeal to base instincts, to the worst instincts of people, like distrust of people who are different” (Olmos 2003). These attitudes, he suggests, “sooner or later will drag us to barbarism.” Indeed, there is an extensive academic literature that suggests that ethnic parties lead to ethnic conflict and the breakdown of democracy.

What impact has the rise of indigenous parties in Latin America had on democracy in the region? Have indigenous parties led to ethnic conflict and exclusion or have they deepened democracy in the region, as some of their supporters would expect?

Although ethnic parties are commonplace in much of the world, there is still little consensus on what leads them to emerge and thrive. Scholars have proposed theories that focus on a wide range of explanatory variables, from institutional factors to primordial ties. These theories shed much light on the recent emergence of indigenous parties in Latin America, but they cannot explain why some of these parties have fared well while others have performed poorly. Nor can they explain why some indigenous parties in the region were able to win support across ethnic lines.

This study has argued that the successful indigenous parties in Latin America have won by combining inclusive ethnic and populist appeals. They have wooed indigenous voters by recruiting indigenous candidates, maintaining strong ties with indigenous organizations, invoking indigenous symbols, and adopting traditional indigenous demands. These appeals have worked particularly well where the indigenous population is relatively large, well-organized, and ethnically conscious.