After the 2021 elections, Pachakutik (PK) was at the best moment in its history: its presidential candidate, Yaku Pérez, was close to the second round election, became the second force in the National Assembly and received the best vote since its creation in 1996. The joy did not last long. They lost the presidency of the legislative body, and several members of the assembly were in the public eye for controversial statements or political moves without the consent of the party.

PK is once again in the public spotlight due to the division over the impeachment of President Guillermo Lasso, a representative accused of rape, arrested in flagrante delicto, and the election of a new coordinator marked by divisions, disputes and accusations of irregularities in the process.

the end of innocence

In this crisis, multiple divisions were revealed. One of them is the division/tension between Conaie and PK, as the representative of the former wants legislators, leaders and followers to adapt to their discourse, practices and decisions. But this tension is not new. If you look at the PK investigations, since its establishment in 1996, it has raised suspicions among the same domestic actors. At the same time, scholars of social movements have concluded and/or warned of a probable break between the two, since the logic of their function has radically changed with their involvement in the democratic institutional system, since they remained on its margins until then. With PK they became part of the system. Undoubtedly, this required different practices in terms of negotiating with other political sectors and civil society, limiting anti-systemic discourse, and a different attitude towards the state and its institutions.

The earthquake that Pachakutik is living through will pass due to the holding of the presidential elections in 2025

(…) The current crisis reflects that it is time to build leadership and space for participation beyond the hegemony of PK and Conaia.

The current friction explains the claims of Leonidas Iza, who, under the pretext of calling to defend Conaie’s political project, wants PK to submit to his plans. Faithful to the teachings of the communist experiences in the world, it intends to cancel the political motley in its ranks. But aside from this conflict, what lessons has PK learned in his 27 years? What have its most visible leaders and actors learned? What thoughts are there on the oft-rejected “Conaie History Project”? Hardly very few, and some are starting to point out that the reality of indigenous peoples is not the same as it was in the 1990s. And, in fact, the political project of 1994 was based on the experience of the 1980s. After 30 years, it would be worth asking whether it does not need to be radically adapted or changed.

The Conaie Governing Council denies that there is a split in the indigenous movement

Marlon Santi, the outgoing PK coordinator, points out that he does not believe “in Indo-American socialism or the failed left”; Yaku Pérez used a more center-left discourse in his campaign. Could it be that the main lesson is that in order to govern, a consensus must be reached with different sectors and that radicalisms are useless for such a goal? It would be necessary to ask whether PK still respects the representation of indigenous peoples. Perhaps what some of its main actors have highlighted and the current crisis reflect is that it is time to build leadership and space for participation beyond the hegemony of PK and Conaia. It would be healthier for its leaders and voters. Introducing greater competition would be more democratic. (OR)