Plurinational States and Legal Pluralism: An Impossible Mission?

Abstract

Almost fifteen years ago, Bolivia and Ecuador endorsed the most radical constitutions globally regarding indigenous issues. Both nations established plurinationality as the guiding principle for interactions between the state and indigenous peoples. In theory, plurinationality aims to replace the modern and liberal state with a decolonized and post-liberal indigenous state. However, in practice, Bolivia and Ecuador have significantly restricted the self-government of indigenous peoples, contradicting and nuancing the original meaning of plurinationality, even within the same constitutional provisions that ostensibly promote it. One institutional arrangement reflecting the numerous limitations to the autonomy of indigenous peoples is legal pluralism and the severe constraints indigenous justice systems face. 

All these contradictions cast severe doubts on the plurinational character of Bolivia and Ecuador, the only plurinational states at the constitutional level worldwide. Throughout this essay, I explore some features and effects of this paradox. Firstly, I delve into the concept of plurinationality and examine how the constitutional courts have shaped plurinational political projects in both countries. Then, I analyze the limitations of legal pluralism in Bolivia and Ecuador. In the final section, I discuss the implications of the contradictions in plurinational political practice and its diffusion in Latin America.