NINA AGRAWAL, RICHARD ANDRÉ, RYAN BERGER, AND WILDA ESCARFULLER Political Representation, Policy & Inclusion
National Assembly, 2000–2004
The general election of 1999 was the
first after the 1996 Peace Accords. Thir-
teen of the 113 congressional seats
went to Indigenous representatives
( 11. 5 percent). During this period, the
one bill coauthored by Indigenous
representatives that related to Indig-
enous peoples was the Ley de Idiomas
(Law of Languages) of 2003. The law
mandates that all Maya, Garifuna and
Xinca languages can be used without
restriction in both public and private
spheres. Health, education, legal, and
security services, as well as all laws
and other government documents,
must be available in the appropriate
24 recognized languages. It is the re-
sponsibility of the executive branch
to budget for these regulations. The
law also requires that the government
identify any languages in danger of
extinction and take steps to protect
and develop them.
National Assembly, 2008–2012
In the 2007 election, 22 of 158 con-
gressional seats went to Indigenous
representatives. The principle leg-
islative victory for Indigenous rep-
resentatives was the 2003 Ley de
Generalización de Educación Bilingüe
Multicultural e Intercultural (Law of
Generalization of Bilingual, Mul-
ticultural and Intercultural Educa-
tion). In recognition of Guatemala’s
diverse population, the law requires
all primary and secondary schools
to incorporate a multicultural cur-
riculum and to offer classes in more
than one language. The law also man-
dates that public- and private-sector
institutions make a commitment to
multiculturalism so their services are
more accessible.
THERE, BUT NOT REALLY THERE
In the cases studied above, the concrete legislative output by In- digenous and Afro-descendant legislators has not been insignificant, but
it hasn’t been dramatic. This is manifest in a number of ways. First, while
there has been a trend toward increased representation of Indigenous
and Afro-descendants in national legislatures, it still has not reached proportions that reflect their population
in society. This, by itself, is not surprising; in the U.S., for example, women
and African-Americans’ representation still lags far behind demographics.
Yet, in countries in Latin America
where Indigenous peoples represent
close to, or more than, the majority (i.e., Bolivia and Guatemala), the
gap between demography and formal representation is stark—
particularly after decades of elections
and institutional reforms often intended to increase their participation. Even in Bolivia, only 25 percent
of the legislators in the lower house
are Indigenous in custom, language
and self-identification, compared to
62 percent of the general population.
Second, even the small increase
in Indigenous and Afro-descendant
populations in our case-study coun-
tries has not resulted in a dramatic
increase in legislation or constitu-
tional norms in their favor. During
the 12 congressional periods and
two constituent assemblies in the
four countries studied, only 22 of the
103 bills sponsored by Indigenous or
Afro-descendant legislators dealing
with issues related to their commu-
nities have been approved into law.
[See Figure 1]
These low levels do not necessarily
stem from open opposition to Indigenous and Afro-descendant initiatives, but are in part related to the low
number of bills presented by the Indigenous and Afro-descendant representatives themselves. Except in the
case of Colombia, Indigenous and
Afro-descendant legislators or constituent assembly members never
generated a flurry of race- or ethnicity-based initiatives. In Colombia,
where they were notably more active, the failure rate of their legislative initiatives was spectacular ( 97
percent for Indigenous and 92 percent for Afro-descendants).
Third, the 15 laws or constitutional
norms approved in the case-study
countries are all remarkably similar.
All four cases have a law or constitu-
tional norm related to consulta pre-
via, or prior consultation on matters
of natural resource extraction on In-
digenous lands (Bolivia, 2009; Colom-
bia, 1991 and 2009; Ecuador, 2008; and
Guatemala, 1997). While the scope
and authority vary (as do mecha-
nisms for implementation), in each
case the laws reflect a longstanding
effort to achieve territorial integrity
by Indigenous and Afro-descendant
communities—in effect, a demand
for respect of what they consider their
cultural heritage: their land.
AMERICASQUARTERLY.ORG
103 Americas Quarterly SPRING 2012
