9 Review of Literature

The relationship between working-class indigenous activists and the upper-class technocratic government is similar to the one implied in Marx’s idea of the Bourgeois and Proletarians. Although indigenous movements in Ecuador did not explicitly incorporate the works of Marx in their ideology and social activism, the essence of their work is Marxist. As Marx explains in the Communist Manifesto “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Marx et al 1847). In Ecuador, no longer are indigenous people forced to live on haciendas but are forced into sections of society where they have no autonomy over their lands and education. They are subjected to a post-neoliberal government whose extractivist economic models take no notice of the agreements made in the 2008 Constitution.

To understand the relationship between former President Correa and Indigenous peoples, one would have to look to Weber’s legitimization of domination. In his work, “Politics as a Vocation” Weber explains that there are three basic forms of legitimization of domination.

Firstly, the authority of the ‘eternal yesterday,’ i.e. of the mores sanctified through the unimaginably ancient recognition and habitual orientation to conform. This ‘traditional’ domination was exercised by the patriarch and the patrimonial prince of yore; there is the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace (charisma), the absolutely personal devotion, and personal confidence in revelation, heroism, or other qualities of individual leadership. This is ‘charasmatic’ domination, as exercised by the prophet or — in the field of politics– by the elected war lord, the plesbiscitarian ruler, the great demagogue, or the political party leader; finally, there is domination by virtue of ‘legality,’ by virtue of the belief in the validity of a legal statute, and functional ‘competence’ based on rationally created rules. In this case, obedience is expected in discharging statutory obligations. This is domination as exercised by the modern ‘servant of the state’ and by all those bearers of power who in this respect resemble them (Weber 1919: 2).

In Ecuador, Correa’s post-neoliberal government represents the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace. His electoral promises mimicked that of a savior to indigenous peoples. During his presidency, his lack of implementation of these promises paired with his failure to adequately include indigenous people during the deliberation of policy exposes Correa’s method of domination.