Mechanisms for Success: Understanding the
Maya Land Rights Movement in Southern
Belize
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences
Samuel Jones 11125810
International Development Studies Master’s Thesis
ii
“The struggle for our rights is not the struggle of a day, or a year, or a
generation. It is the struggle of a lifetime, and one that must be fought by every
generation” (Senator Bernie Sanders, 2015)
“Self-determination does not come from Court victories; self-determination
comes from when you recognise and understand that you are worthy of being
iii Abstract
In Southern Belize, an indigenous social movement has emerged over the past few decades with the aim of getting recognition for land rights and customary land tenure. They have been successful in winning multiple Court battles against the State, and the case was the first time the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was used in a Supreme Court decision. However, while the case has been analysed in depth, there is a lack of research on the Maya movement and the mechanisms that have contributed towards their success; therefore, this thesis aims to contribute to the body of literature by discovering what mechanisms have been used at the leadership and the community level. The reality on-the-ground in Belize is that there is a lack of implementation of these land rights on the part of the State, which means Maya groups are still utilising these mechanisms to mobilise resources. Leadership within the Maya Land Rights Movement can be categorised into traditional and non-traditional leadership. Traditional leadership is the local indigenous governance system known as the Alcalde system. The Alcalde have been vital in organising communities and are paramount to the success of the social movement. Non-traditional leadership is manifested through the Maya Leaders Alliance, which offers technical support to Alcaldes and successfully engages with international bodies to highlight rights violations that occur in Belize.
However, the Alcalde at the community level is a representative position: the authority to make decisions lies with the community itself. This occurs through the village meeting, which becomes an important mechanism in determining the success of the Maya Land Rights Movement. The leadership get their mandate from the communities, which places the community at a level above the leadership in protecting customary land tenure. However, a real strength of the Maya Land Rights Movement has been the unity between the communities and the leaders, which is embodied through the Maya concept of “Se Komonil”, which incorporates ideas of community, unity and strength.
Key Words: Indigenous social movements, customary land tenure, self-determination, local governance, land rights
iv Table of Contents
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
Acknowledgments vi
List of Figures vii
List of Abbreviations vii
1. Introducing the Debate: Indigenous Peoples and Ancestral Land 1
1.1 Fitting into the International Development Paradigm 2
1.2 Defining ‘indigenous’ at the Global Level 2
1.3 Indigenous at the National level- Maya Struggles in Belize 5
1.4 The Maya Land Rights Case 5
1.5 Research Rationale 6
2. Framing the Debate 7
2.1 Social Movement Theory 8
2.1.1 Leadership in Social Movements 10
2.1.2 Indigenous Social Movements 12
2.2 Customary Land Tenure 14
2.2.1 Traditional Leadership 16
2.3 Self-determination 18
2.3.1 Self-determination and Indigenous Peoples 19
3. Framing the Context: The Post-Colonial Nation of Belize 22
3.1 The Nation-State of Belize 22
3.2 Governance and Democracy in the Political Sphere 23
3.3 The Colonial Discourse of Economic Development in 24
Contemporary Belize 3.4 Case Study: The Maya Social Movement for Customary 25
Land Tenure in Toledo 3.4.1 Governance of Customary Land Tenure- The Alcalde System 27
3.4.2 Punta Gorda 29
4. Framing The Research 31
4.1 The Conceptual Scheme 31
4.2 The Research Question and Sub-Questions 32
5. Methodology 33
5.1 Unit of Analysis 33
v
5.3 Sampling 33
5.4 Research Methods 33
5.4.1 Semi-structured, Key-Informant Interviews 33
5.4.2 Biographical or Life-history interviews 34
5.4.3 Participant Observation 34
5.4.4 Field Notes 35
5.5 Methodological Reflection and Research Limitations 35
5.6 Ethical Considerations 36
5.7 Primary Data Analysis 37
6. Categorising Leadership within the Maya Land Rights Movement 38
6.1 Traditional Leadership- The Importance of the Alcalde 38
within the Maya Land Rights Movement 6.1.1 Institutionalising Traditional Leadership: The Toledo 40
Alcaldes Association 6.2 Non-traditional leadership: The Maya Leaders Alliance 41
6.3 Leadership engagement at the International Level 45
7. Community Decision-Making and the Role of the Alcalde: Analysing 49
Customary Land Tenure in Toledo 7.1 The Importance of the Alcalde in the Community 49
7.2 Defending the Customary Decision-Making Mechanism: The 51
Village Meeting 7.3 Customary Land Tenure in Toledo 53
8. “Se Komonil”: Maintaining Unity between Leadership and Communities 57
8.1 “Se komonil”: The Underlying Concept Behind the Success 59
8.2 Challenges to the Maya Land Rights Movement 62
8.3.1 Imposed Leadership 62
8.3.2 The Youth 64
9. Concluding Remarks 67
9.1 Ideas for Future Research 69
10. Bibliography 70
Appendix A- List of Respondents 77
vi Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Enrique Gomezllata, for his kind words, support, ideas, criticisms and feedback over the course of both the research and writing stages of the thesis. Secondly, I would like to thank members and leaders of the Maya Leaders Alliance and Toledo Alcaldes Association for their help in gathering data to write this thesis, for being open and welcoming to me, for allowing me into their circle for interviews and for continuing to fight injustice for the Maya people of Southern Belize. Thirdly, I would like to thank the staff at the University of Amsterdam, especially Dr Mirjam Ros-Tonen and Dr Courtney Vegelin, for their feedback, criticisms and advice offered during the Thesis Seminar Module. Likewise, I would like to thank my fellow International Development Studies classmates for their support, solidarity and peer reviews over the past year. Fourthly, I would like to thank my family for their encouragement and support, and for putting up with me during the writing period. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Quetzal Tzab for all of his work and accommodating nature in Isla Mujeres while I was preparing for fieldwork, and for providing insights into indigenous struggles in Mexico and the rest of Central America.
vii List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1- Map of Belize Figure 2- Map of the Toledo District
Figure 3- Conceptual Scheme
Table 1- Distribution of Ethnic Groups in Belize
Table 2- Description of different types of leadership within the Maya Land Rights Movement and the Toledo district
List of Abbreviations Used ACP- Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries
ASM- Anti-Systemic Movements CARICOM- Caribbean Community CCJ- Caribbean Court of Justice
CEDAW- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women CELAC- Community of Central American and Caribbean States
CERD- Committee of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination FPIC- Free, Prior and Informed Consent
GOB- Government of Belize HRC- Human Rights Committee
IAHCR- Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
ICESCR- International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ICPCR- International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights
ILO- International Labour Organisation
ILPP- Indigenous Peoples Land and Policy Program IMF- International Monetary Fund
JCS- Julian Cho Society
MCF- Maya Consultation Framework MLA- Maya Leaders Alliance
NSM- New Social Movements
OAS- Organisation of American States OSM- Old Social Movements
SATIIM- Sarstoon-Temash Institute for Indigenous Management SIB- Statistical Institute of Belize
SICA- Central American Integration System SMO- Social Movement Organisation TAA- Toledo Alcaldes Association
TIDE- Toledo Institute of Development and Environment TMCC- Toledo Maya Cultural Council
UN- United Nations
UNDRIP- United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UPR- Universal Periodic Review
WB- World Bank
1 1. Introducing the Debate- Indigenous Peoples and Ancestral Land
There are approximately 300-500 million people around the world who self-identity as being ‘indigenous’ (Göcke, 2013). A commonality between indigenous peoples around the world is their deep-rooted connection to ancestral land and territories (Göcke, 2013; Shelton, 2013; Gilbert, 2013; Northcott, 2012; Wiessner, 2011; Wainwright, 2009). Moreover, Gilbert asserts that, for indigenous communities, land and territories “are the basis not only of economic livelihood but are also the source of spiritual, cultural and social identity” (Gilbert, 2013:119). Therefore, for indigenous peoples, land is seen as more than just property; it contributes to a way of life and is paramount to the survival of different cultures around the world, which indigenous communities have fought to be recognised by the international community (Northcott,2012). This is no different for the Maya communities in Belize (Shoman, 2011). However, neoliberal economic policies and globalisation processes threaten the lands which form the identity of indigenous peoples around the world (Vidal, 2016; Belton, 2010). Historically, indigenous communities have been left on the peripheries of society, and continue to be among the poorest and most marginalised groups around the world (Bellier & Préaud, 2012), often at risk from experiencing human rights abuses (Northcott, 2012). The magnitude of problems that indigenous peoples face is summarised by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues: “Indigenous peoples worldwide continue to suffer from the intergenerational trauma of colonization, assimilation, loss of language, culture and traditional knowledge and the disintegration of families... collectively, these problems are linked to the lack of recognition and respect for the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples” (United Nations, 2015:7).
Periods of Western expansion and colonialism led to the forced assimilation of indigenous peoples into ‘mainstream’ society (Göcke, 2013; Bellier & Préaud, 2012). State assimilation policies, prevalent in countries such as Australia and Canada (Bellier & Préaud, 2012), led to what has been referred to as ‘cultural genocide’ (Ellinghaus, 2009), which has wiped out whole populations, languages and cultures (Sanders, 1991). Indigenous social movements have emerged around the world as a direct response to the widespread and historical abuses that they have suffered (Bowen, 2007). The majority of these have been centred around land (Shelton, 2013), with some specifically focusing on the recognition of both customary land tenure (Wainwright, 2008) and indigenous institutions of governance (Merlan, 2005).
2 1.1 Fitting into the International Development paradigm
Academic conversations regarding indigenous peoples and social movements fit into the international development paradigm in numerous ways. First of all, it contributes to discussions concerning concepts of ‘citizenship’ and ‘democracy’ within the confines of the state (Yashar, 2005). Secondly, as indigenous communities are among the most marginalised in society
(Bellier & Préaud, 2012), social movements that have centred around the empowerment of indigenous peoples contribute to the growing literature regarding ‘inclusive development’ (Gupta et al, 2015).
However, the relationship that indigenous peoples’ have with their ancestral lands promote the system of customary land tenure, which not only challenges statutory land tenure systems, but also the wider neoliberal crusade that dominate discussions in international development (Yaro, 2012). The ‘commodification of the commons’, in which indigenous peoples’ ancestral, communal lands become subjected to market fluctuations and privatisation (Ward, 2013), has been a major outcome of capitalism (Öztürk et al, 2014). The absorption of capitalism into the concept of development has created the effect that capitalism is development, which is fundamental to world order (Wainwright, 2008). Therefore, as indigenous peoples’ customary land tenure is an answer to alternatives to capitalism, it is also an alternative to development.
Before this thesis can progress, it is important to analyse definitions of ‘indigenous’ at the global level because it frames the context of policies and practices at the State level. This is fundamental in order to determine the different mechanisms through which indigenous peoples can assert their right to self-determination. This thesis introduction begins with defining ‘indigenous’ at the global level, before exploring the case study of Maya Land Rights Struggles in Belize and concluding with the research rationale and overview of the thesis.
1.2 Defining ‘indigenous’ at the Global Level
Providing a globally accepted definition of what is meant by ‘indigenous’ has been a controversial task, with some of the major bodies that have worked to promote indigenous rights in favour of not providing a restrictive definition in International Conventions and Declarations (Northcott, 2012). This is because the concept of being ‘indigenous’ is a social and historical construct (Smith, 2006). For example, the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) does not explicitly include a definition (Bellier & Préaud, 2012) at the request of indigenous rights advocates and representatives around the world. However, certain conditions can be found in the preamble, which qualify certain societal groups to be considered
3 as indigenous, “Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests” (UN,2007:2). The preamble to the UNDRIP is quite explicit in its mentioning of the cultures and histories of different indigenous groups as fundamental to their identity and cultural survival. Subsequently, for a group to be considered indigenous at the United Nations (UN) level, dispossession of pre-colonial territories must have occurred which prevented the group from developing according to their own interests. Dispossession of lands resonates with histories of imperialist expansion in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in which alien land tenure systems were imposed on peoples that often led to their own subjugation and oppression (Göcke, 2013). Many of these systems remain in place today. Indeed, the majority of these land tenure systems stripped indigenous peoples of their cultural identity, while assimilation policies have contributed to what has been called ‘cultural genocide’ (Ellinghaus, 2009).
Another key convention relating to indigenous peoples is International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169. This is, to date, the only legally-binding international instrument for indigenous rights (Anaya, 2013; Wickeri & Kalhan, 2009). Despite only being ratified by twenty-two countries, it is an important legal instrument for securing land rights for indigenous peoples (Gilbert, 2013). It was written to remove the principles of assimilation that were prevalent in previous legal instruments (ILO, 1989) and referred to the collective rights of ‘peoples’, as opposed to the rights of an individual as ‘indigenous’ (Anaya, 2013). Indeed, terminology of what is meant by ‘peoples’ and ‘indigenous’ has become one of the troubling aspects of the indigenous rights debate, due to the vast political, cultural and geographic diversity of indigenous communities around the world (Northcott, 2012). This Convention, however, does state certain determinants of whether peoples can be qualified as being ‘indigenous’. Article 1.1 (a) states that the Convention applies to “tribal peoples in independent countries, whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs and traditions or by special laws or regulations” (ILO, 1989: 32). From this preliminary qualification, it is clear to see that indigenous peoples and communities must have a completely distinguishable identity compared to the national community. In this instance, however, it could also be applied to other groups, such as ethnic minorities within a multicultural state. Subsequently, Article 1.1(b) adds that the Convention applies to: “peoples in independent
4 countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country […] at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries, and who […] retain some or all of their own social, economic and political institutions” (ILO, 1989:32).
The subsection of Article 1 is important in addressing the historical dimension of indigenous identities. Evidence of pre-colonial land tenure systems and the retaining of the social, economic and political institutions is no easy task to prove in a court of law, especially following centuries of colonial assimilation policies. However, the most important dimension of the definition is addressed in the following subsection, Article 1.2: “self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply” (ILO, 1989:33). The self-identification aspect is crucial to defining what it means to be considered indigenous. Some peoples prefer not to self-identify as being indigenous because of the associated social stigma, which had led to economic and social marginalisation (Yashar, 2005). In countries which have acknowledged indigenous status, it can be an ‘asset’ and bring economic, social and political benefits (Smith, 2006). Moreover, self-identification is central to the right to self-determination (Kosko, 2013; Flint, 2009), which has been at the core of indigenous movements around the world (Shelton, 2013).
Indeed, many of the defining criteria in Article 1 have been influenced from the widely-accepted definition provided by José Martinez Cobo, the Special-Rapporteur of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, from his Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations, in which he states:
“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems” (José Martinez Cobo, 1986:29).
Therefore, in my research, for purposes of clarity, I will be using José Martinez Cobo’s working definition because every aspect of the definition applies to the specific context of Maya struggles for self-determination in Belize. The Maya are an ethnic minority which has
5 historically been marginalised, signifying that they form a non-dominant sector of society and are working to preserve and transmit ancestral lands through their own social institutions and customary land tenure.
1.3 Indigenous at the National Level- Maya Struggles in Belize
With around thirty Maya languages and hundreds of dialects spoken today across Central America, there is sufficient evidence to state that there is not one homogenous Maya culture; indeed, the term is considered a Western imposition, not one that that people indigenous to Mesoamerica historically used to identify themselves (Rogal, 2012). The small country of Belize, the least densely-populated country in Central America, has four main indigenous groups: Q’eqchi, Mopan and Yucatec Maya, and the Afro-Caribbean descendant Garifuna (Minority Rights Group International, 2009). Indigenous peoples have been afforded some protection since an amendment to the constitution in 2001 (Shoman, 2011), which is the supreme law of Belize. Part E of the preamble states, “Whereas the people of Belize... require policies of state... which protect the identity, dignity and social and cultural values of Belizeans, including Belize’s indigenous peoples” (Belize Constitution, 2012: 2). The country is scattered with Ancient and Classic Maya ruins that prove to be very popular tourist destinations (Rogal, 2012). However, despite all this evidence of pre-colonial society, contemporary Maya groups have been engaged in a lengthy legal battle with the Government of Belize (GOB) to have their customary land tenure system recognised. This dispute has become “an important precedent in the struggle worldwide of indigenous peoples to secure rights in land and natural resources” (Campbell & Anaya, 2008:277).
1.4 The Maya Land Rights Case
The Maya Land Rights Case arose following the GOB granting logging and oil extraction concessions on Maya land without obtaining the consent of the Maya communities (Page, 2004). The granting and consolidation of land holdings by foreign investors is not a new phenomenon in Belize, as it has occurred during centuries of hardwood extraction (Babcock & Conway,2000). The seventeen logging concessions were granted for lands totalling 480,000 acres, while the oil exploration concession, which would automatically turn into a concession for oil extraction if commercially viable quantities of oil were found, was for approximately 750,000 acres of land in the Toledo district of Belize (Anaya, 2008). Legal proceedings started in 1997 when the Toledo Maya Cultural Council (TMCC), Toledo Alcaldes Association (TAA) and several Maya individuals filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court to have the logging
6 concessions ruled in violation of Maya customary land tenure rights (Campbell & Anaya, 2008).The GOB’s defence denied the existence of Maya property rights based on customary land tenure by reaffirming the historical position that the land had belonged to the ‘crown’ under British colonial rule and therefore now belonged to the State (Campbell & Anaya, 2008). When nothing happened in the National Courts, the TMCC petitioned the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) who started negotiations between the government and Maya representatives. The IACHR is particularly concerned with defending the rights of indigenous peoples (Freeman, 2014). The IAHCR ruled in favour of the Maya but because the resolution was not legally-binding, there has been a lack of implementation from the state (Wainwright, 2009). Subsequently, a further lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of Belize and in October 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Maya (Shoman, 2011; Anaya, 2008). The historical significance of the Supreme Court ruling was that it was the first to apply the norms and principles of UNDRIP in its decision, of which Belize was a signatory (Anaya, 2013; Campbell & Anaya, 2008). The political engagement with the State has partly led to the lack of implementation by the GOB; this is best summarised by Wainwright, who states “this gap- between the magnitude of the legal decision, the State’s failure to respond accordingly to the law and the absence of a spirited response from the communities- reflects the political history of the case” (2009:167). The Case had been back-and-forth between the Courts up until April 2015, when the Maya communities won at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the highest Court of Appeals that Belize is a party to (Muhamed, 2015). This recognition led to the TAA and the Maya Leaders Alliance (MLA) winning the Equator Prize 2015, an international award that recognises outstanding local achievement in advancing sustainable development solutions for people, nature and resilient communities (UNDP, 2015).
1.5 Research Rationale and Thesis Outline
While there is extensive literature focusing on the key mechanisms through which indigenous communities can exert their rights, most notably the right to self-determination and autonomy, there is a lesser focus on the social movements for the rights themselves. In Belize, there is a strong social movement presence through several groups that work to promote Maya interests and self-determination over their own development. These social movements have been heavily engaged in the legal disputes, and are, by all means, successful at multiple levels. Indeed, the networks of indigenous movements in Latin America have become very important in redefining where state sovereignty and modes of governance meet (Bellier & Préaud, 2012). The case has become an important precedent for indigenous struggles worldwide (Anaya, 2008; Campbell &
7 Anaya, 2008) and both the MLA and TAA were winners of the Equator Prize 2015 (UNDP, 2015). These reasons support the rationale behind doing the research in Belize.
Therefore, this research aims to contribute to the literature and academic debates by analysing an indigenous social movement for recognition of customary land tenure in Belize, which fits into the wider global context of indigenous struggles for self-determination. This research will focus on the mechanisms that have used in order to be successful in getting their customary land tenure recognised. The research site will be the Toledo District in Southern Belize. As outlined above, the Toledo district is predominantly comprised of Maya communities, where they practice their own form of local governance through the Alcalde system. The majority of Maya organisations relevant to this study are headquartered in Toledo’s capital, Punta Gorda. This first chapter has introduced the debate around indigenous peoples and land and briefly described the specific case-study in Southern Belize. The next chapter will examine the literature around my three main concepts: social movement theory, customary land tenure and self-determination. Chapter three will examine the case-study of Belize in more detail to provide a contextual overview and heavy description of the study site. In chapter four, I will present my main research question and sub-questions, as well as a methodological reflection of the data collection. Chapters five and six will present my findings and answer my research questions. Chapter seven is a discussion chapter which provides a space to combine some of the seemingly problematic findings of my results and contribute back to the literature. Following on from this discussion, my main findings will be highlighted once more in a concluding chapter, with ideas for future research and recommendations for policy and practice.
8 2. Framing the Debate
The Maya Land Rights Case, as it has been referred to in Belizean Court documents1, has primarily been concerned with recognising and protecting customary land tenure systems in the Toledo District in Southern Belize. This litigation has been the result of Maya individuals and communities forming a social movement around the issue of land rights. Moreover, this movement has been much more than winning or losing in the courts: it is about a movement of peoples demanding recognition and respect. As a prominent Maya leader and activist stated, “self-determination does not come from Court victories; self-determination comes from when you recognise and understand that you are worthy of being respected”2. The Maya Land Rights
Case, then, contributes to wider theoretical debates around social movement theory, customary land tenure and self-determination. This chapter addresses these three concepts in turn. Each concept will be framed into wider debates and discussions within international development studies. To start with, theories around social movements will be presented. Leadership within social movements and indigenous social movements will comprise prominent portions of this section. Thereafter, theories around customary land tenure will be examined, especially exploring traditional leadership as being central to customary land tenure. Finally, theories around the right to self-determination as a concept will be presented, with a specific focus on indigenous peoples right to self-determination.
2.1 Social Movement Theory
Social movements organisations (SMOs) fit into the International Development paradigm in numerous ways. Firstly, it is an expression of civic and- when NGOs are involved- civil society governance (Snow et al, 2004). Secondly, they have grown rapidly as a response to adverse processes of globalisation (Dellacioppa, 2012). Thirdly, they embody the empowerment of marginalised peoples which are central to theories of inclusive development (Gupta et al, 2015). The inputs and agendas of SMOs are vital when designing development interventions at different levels, especially under emerging theories of inclusive development; indeed, “inclusiveness includes the knowledge and aspirations of local people in the development process and enhances their participation in decision-making” (Gupta et al, 2015:546). The plurality of actors in participation (Merlan, 2005) supports theories of interactive governance (Torfing et al, 2012). Moreover, the entire concept of inclusive development is about “gaining
1 Maya Leaders Alliance and Toledo Alcaldes Association Vs the Attorney General of Belize and the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment (2010), Claim No. 366 of 2008, Supreme Court of Belize
9 mastery over one’s affairs” (Gupta et al, 2015:548), effectively empowering marginalised societal groups to assert their right to self-determination through social movements.
Smith (2006) categories three different types of social movements: old social movements (OSMs), new social movements (NSMs) and anti-systemic movements (ASMs). OSMs include the labour movement, with its organised trade unions and political parties which was taken to be the norm in social movement theory (Nash, 2000). As such, NSMs are considered new because they have emerged as fundamentally different to labour or socialist movements; they make “limited, non-negotiable demands, politicise everyday life, do not mobilise along class lines, are organised in a non-hierarchical and democratic ways, engage in novel political tactics, and are not united by one over-arching organisation” (Smith, 2006:7). ASMs work outside the world system and seek significant changes to the capitalist world system (Murray, 2016). As such, social movements emerge to challenge the dominant political discourse, regardless of what form they take.
Chartock (2011) states five indicators that measure social movements’ strength, which are: mobilisation capacity, endurance/institutionalisation, numbers, unity and geographic scope/links on the ground. Chartock used these indicators to analyse the strength of indigenous social movements in Ecuador and Peru. Moreover, these indicators fit into wider conceptualisations of collective action, which “entails the pursuit of a common objective through joint action – that is, people working together in some fashion for a variety of reasons, often including the belief that doing so enhances the prospect of achieving the objective” (Snow et al, 2004:6). Furthermore, the mobilising capacity through links on the ground comes in the form of local community organising; this is, “the foundation of social movement success and longevity” (Weber, 2012:179)
Theories behind the political aspirations and dimensions of SMOs are presented by Walder (2009), who argues that paradigm shifts in political sociology have contributed to scholars changing from the political aspirations of SMOs to the mobilisation processes underlying these movements. Of course, SMOs, as key actors in the mobilisation process, have to be familiar with the political process in order to get their demands met (Meyer & Minkoff, 2004). Moreover, the popular support and the claim of representing a large proportion of the population validates the claim that SMOs believe they have a legitimate right to a role in leading the agency that will be charged with its implementation (Chartock, 2011). Indeed, SMOs overcoming prevailing patterns of resource inequality and becoming successful in pursuing social change goals is at the heart of resource mobilisation theory (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004).
10 Furthermore, resource availability is paramount to the success of social movements (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004; McCarthy & Zald, 1977). Indeed, they state that the “concept of resources is indispensable in any analysis of power and conflict relations” (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004:125) and argue that societal relations are intrinsically found within neoclassical economic models, in which “the distribution of resources is treated as the natural outcome of market activities” (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004:120). Within this, there is an uneven distribution of resources and hence, an uneven distribution of power. They argue that the five types of resources are: moral, cultural, social-organisational, human and material (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004:125). Leadership in social movements is both a human and social-organisational resource, which was an original focus of resource mobilisation theory (Rootes, 1990). Resource mobilisation has been perhaps the most widely-used approach to social movements because of its focus on political action being socially-constructed and resources are distributed accordingly (Rootes, 1990).
One of the most important resources in recent years is access to technology. Technological innovations have played a huge role in the effectiveness of SMOs, causing seismic shifts in the methods of participation (Edwards & McCarthy, 2004) Indeed, the internet has become the dominant method of disseminating information and co-ordinating activities by social movement actors, utilising its worldwide social infrastructure for massive participation, support and solidarity (Turner, 2013; Gillham 2003). This has been supported by the rise of social network websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, which provide people around the world with up-to-date news on proceedings.
2.1.1 Leadership in Social Movements
Theories around social movements have tended to focus on organisational dynamics and mobilisation strategies at the social base of the movement, while leadership is an equally important factor in explaining the success of a particular social movement (Petras & Veltmeyer, 2003). Leadership of social movements has been theorised in depth over the past decades. Gusfield (1966) analyses the function of a leader twofold: as a ‘mobiliser’, who inspires participation in the movement, and as a ‘articulator’, who links the movement to wider society. By articulating demands to wider society, leadership can become politicised; this can have a detrimental effect on the original goals of the movement and places the leaders within the political elite class (Michels, 1962).
11 Morris and Staggenborg define movement leaders as “strategic decision-makers who inspire and organise others to participate in social movements” (Morris & Staggenborg, 2004:171). Moreover, they argue that leaders are not a representative assortment of individuals chosen at random from the population as they generally originate from the educated middle and upper classes and are disproportionately male, citing the examples of Lenin, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr (Morris and Staggenborg, 2004). Furthermore, education capital is highlighted as the key resource that social movement leaders derive from their privileged background because “a whole host of social movement activities- writing, orating, debating, interacting with media, devising strategies and tactics, formulating ideologies and creatively synthesising informed gleaned from local, national and national venues- are intellectual tasks” (2004:175). Gordon (2002) frames leadership in democratic social movements as a battle between two opposing forces: mobilising and organising. Mobilising “allows those normally excluded from politics to demonstrate their political power” (Gordon, 2002:104) while organising is “a different vision of what freedom and democracy can mean: an organiser tends to self-destruct as a leader […] to build leadership in others” (Gordon, 2002:105). Her work focuses on the challenges between structure and leadership of the Women’s Liberation Movement in the United States. As a movement conducting a direct democracy approach, it excelled at organising, while it “led the movement to revere the principle of “every woman a leader”” (Gordon, 2002:113). However, by rejecting patriarchal styles of leadership through adopting an emphasis on group decision-making, it eventually led to certain individuals coming to the forefront of decision-making processes and strategies, causing “great resentment among the feminist movement” (Gordon, 2002:113). This stopped the space for new leaders to come through, for fear of causing more problems. However, Gordon states, “even in their worst moments of political-correctness paralysis, their inability to find a balance between democracy and leadership, they were doing something we all need to learn from: trying to reinvent democracy” (Gordon, 2002:116). Therefore, finding a balance between organising and mobilising remains a challenge for social movements with a decentralised leadership.
Moreover, local-level organising guarantees a large enough base to build the social movement on and generates a space for the development of new leaders (Stall & Stoecker, 1998). Leaders who have emerged from poor or working-class communities are likely to share the same interests as the social base, and can utilise their advantage in mobilising communities that an outsider would have problems undertaking (Morris & Staggenborg, 2004). Moreover, Weber’s theory that charismatic styles of leadership are more likely to be influential in decision-making
12 processes by playing the community’s emotional character (Weber, 1968). Wilson (1973) expands on Weber’s approach and distinguishes between pragmatic, ideological and charismatic types of leaders and the associated types of movement organisation. The leadership type affects both the centralisation of decision-making and the division of labour within the movement (Morris and Staggenborg, 2004). Charismatic leaders focus on a future-oriented vision of a shared experience and shared future as they appeal to the masses (Bedell-Avers et al, 2009). Ideological leaders differ by operating from past-oriented vision, in which they develop traditional-oriented visions emphasising a shared collective past; in this way they gain a base of followers willing to make strong commitments to the cause (Bedell-Avers et al, 2009). Pragmatic leaders tend to focus on the present and use rational persuasion as their communication strategy, while targeting elite individuals interested in the problem and the solution (Bedell-Avers et al, 2009).
The concept of ‘leadership’ within social movements can be reframed as a service in which leaders are comfortable with the social power they have earned and accountable for the social power that they weave (Kishtan, 2015; Eisenstein, 2015; Starhawk, 2015). As leaders are arguably the most visible aspect of an organisation, any acts they do become symbolic of the social movement (Gusfield, 1966). This can inspire participation from communities, but can also expose them to assassination attempts; this can either strengthen or weaken a movement depending on the type of leader, the movement’s ideology of martyrdom, the leader’s embodiment of a shared group identity, and the movement’s pre-existing unity (Bob & Nepstad, 2007).
2.1.2 Indigenous Social Movements
The last decades have seen the emergence of Indigenous social movements across the world which promote Indigenous epistemologies, knowledge, ideas, rights and governance systems (Merlan, 2005). This has been a response to over 500 years of dominant groups in society designing tools for excluding indigenous people from access to political or economic power; this means that indigenous social movements must “negotiate their political, economic and cultural role in society with a dominant class that is reluctant to give up its privileges” (Bowen, 2007:101). Extraction industries have also contributed towards the upsurge of indigenous movements, highlighting indigenous peoples’ exclusion from political processes and decisions (Bellier & Préaud, 2012). Latin America has been the region which has witnessed the rise of powerful indigenous movements. These range from the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) movement, which was the first national indigenous movement that had existed in
13 Mexico (Mattiace,2012), to the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), the country’s largest and strongest indigenous SMO (Chartock, 2011). Moreover, the EZLN argued that society could only be transformed from below at the community level, challenging the established notion that a movement must engage with the state and reorganise society from above (Dellacioppa, 2012).
Smith (2006) argues that indigenous movements fall outside the scope of OSMs and incorporate many features of NSMs. Some defining features of NSMs include a “focus on identity, autonomy and self-realisation […] and forms and style of movement actions exemplify the values of the movement” (Smith, 2006:8). However, indigenous movements are distinct in that they are seeking both change from the political system and freedom from colonisation (Smith, 2006). In this way, they “embody anti-systemic movements in an age of transition” (Smith, 2006:9), in which values of community and culture are the most important priorities and reject the capitalist notion that maximising economic profits is the most important goal in development (Smith, 2006). Therefore, indigenous movements fall into their own unique form of social movements, as a hybrid between NSMs and ASMs, but cannot be categorised in each separately.
Across Latin America, advocates of indigenous rights have been concerned with challenging prevailing conceptions of citizenship and democracy (Yashar, 2005). Yashar connects citizenship, democracy and indigenous movements by stating that “citizenship is at the core of democracy and indigenous mobilisation in Latin American and beyond” (Yashar, 2005:31). This is manifested in the positioning of indigenous movements constituting their agenda around principles of self-determination and differentiated citizenship. This advances the crucial argument that indigenous movements pose a postliberal challenge by “challenging the homogenizing assumptions that individuals unambiguously constitute the primary political unit […] they call instead for more differentiated forms of citizenship and political boundaries- ones that grant individual rights as citizens but also grant collective rights and political autonomy” (Yashar, 2005:298). Moreover, social movements often emerge within indigenous institutions through which “social movement leaders often have prior lives that are deeply imbedded in community institutions (Morris & Staggenborg, 2004:184).
While SMOs all around the world differ in their objectives, indigenous rights movements at the global level are united by a common objective: “to secure indigenous peoples’ ability to own, occupy, use and control their traditional lands and natural resources” (Shelton, 2013:981). As indigenous SMOs demonstrate their capacity for mobilization, some leaders have turned to
14 engage with the political dimension (Pallister, 2013) to promote their own procedures of governance. However, Yashar’s (2005) work on indigenous movements in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia focuses on democratic participation in the political process and concludes that “as indigenous leaders engage in partisan politics, indigenous movements are more likely to fall prey to partisan competition, therefore exposing themselves to the kinds of political cleavages that can divide movements” (Yashar,2005:305).
Long periods of colonial and postcolonial abuse have laid the groundwork for the emergence of land rights movements around the world; from the Anjuman-e-Majareen Punjab movement in Pakistan (Sayeed & Haider, 2010); to the Australian Aborigines’ League in Australia (Merlan, 2005); and to the Maya Land Rights Movement in Belize (Anaya, 2008). Moreover, indigenous movements have “increasingly demanded that the state recognise territorial boundaries in which social relations are regulated by indigenous authority systems and customary law” (Yashar, 2005:294). Indeed, the Maya Land Rights Movement in Belize has been concerned with protecting their customary land tenure (Anaya, 2008; Campbell & Anaya, 2008). The concept of customary land tenure is central to the identity and culture of indigenous peoples around the world, which will be theorised presently.
2.2 Customary Land Tenure
The concept of customary land tenure fits into the international development paradigm by contributing to discussions and discourses around land governance (Benjaminsen & Lund, 2002; Clark, 2000), legal pluralism (Bellier & Préaud, 2012; Nwauche, 2011; Prill-Brett, 1994) and poverty reduction (Muza, 2016; Yaro, 2012; Weiner & Glaskin, 2007; Deininger, 2003); to name but a few. Moreover, land tenure policies are important to “establish the rights of people who reside on private and communal lands” (Turner, 2013: 517). Furthermore, the vast majority of the literature around the concept of customary land tenure has a strong focus on the community or collective right to land (Pienaar, 2012; Yaro, 2012; Weiner & Glaskin, 2007). Subsequently, the promotion of collective rights in international legal frameworks challenges the predisposition towards the individual in discourses surrounding human rights (Anaya, 2013; Jovanovic, 2010). While the emerging rhetoric among land-rights movements places land rights within the international human rights framework (Gilbert, 2013), the right to land is currently not codified in international human rights law (Wickeri & Kalhan, 2009). The exception is ILO Convention 169’s Article 14.1 which recognises collective rights to ownership over traditional lands (ILO, 1989). As international human rights law up until then had been almost exclusively articulated in terms of individual rights, ILO 169 represented a substantial innovation and
15 departure from the norm (Anaya, 2013). Invoking the principles of human rights and international law, as well as customary law, are indispensable tools for strengthening articulation for minority groups (Prill-Brett, 1994). While collective rights for communities form a significant part of customary land tenure, there are numerous other aspects to look at. To begin with, what do we mean by ‘customary land tenure’? The emergence of customary land tenure came about as population growth led to increased competition over land, and so individuals merged together as communities to facilitate order (Kalabamu, 2014). Moreover, Kalabamu states that, “Through chiefs, clan heads or other leaders, communities were then able to define rules and guidelines for regulating access, use and transfer of land rights; enforce these rules; and penalise those who failed to observe the rules. These unwritten rules and procedures constitute what is popularly known as indigenous, traditional, tribal or customary land tenure. It is at this stage that we note communal land ownership (many co-owners) with individual land rights to specific parcels of land” (Kalabamu,2014:475). This definition reveals numerous interesting aspects to communal land tenure. Firstly, customary land tenure is administered through traditional forms of leadership who regulate access and enforce rules and procedures. Secondly, each individual in the community has their own parcel of land within the communal ownership of the land. Therefore, individual rights are placed within the context of collective rights, and individual rights cannot be pursued, in this instance, without a prior respect for collective rights (Yashar, 2005).
Moreover, it places the community at the centre of debates around land. Indigenous communities around the world define themselves as guardians of the land; previous generations protected and passed the land down for them, and the same must be done for future generations (Haugen, 2014; Göcke, 2013). That is not to say that indigenous communities have constantly occupied the areas that they use now, but have kept similar land tenure and agricultural practices, as well as traditional forms of governance. Although customary land tenure systems often have strong ties with culture, tradition and community structures (Pienaar, 2012), it is not a static and unchanging system: it is highly flexible and mutates with societal changes (Ward, 2013; Yaro, 2012). Moreover, customary law borrows customs and ideas from both the traditional and non-traditional, the formal and the informal, in what has been referred to as ‘institutional bricolage’ (van Leeuwen, 2014; Benjaminsen & Lund, 2002; Cleaver, 2002). Moreover, what is defined as ‘customary’ may in reality be a product of colonial epistemologies and the acknowledgement of certain traditional land regulations (van Leeuwen, 2014; Yaro,
16 2012). Moreover, “customary law did not consist of indigenous rules per se, but was a product of colonisation, whereby the colonial power accepted certain versions of the recorded indigenous traditions” (Benjaminsen & Lund,2002:2). The typical characteristics of indigenous customary law include the tradition of passing knowledge down from generation to generation (Pienaar, 2012). As knowledge is passed down orally from generation to generation, the original system may have been corrupted by the colonial state, who, traditionally, have been the proprietors of knowledge generation and have a long-held occupation with written traditions. While it is important to look at the literature around customary land tenure, it is equally important to state what it has been a response to. The opposite side to the literature regarding customary land tenure focuses on statutory tenure systems (van Leeuwen, 2014). The Western, colonial model of promoting individual rights within the confines of liberal economic exchange directly challenges suggestions for more collective rights to land, which includes customary land tenure systems (Sanders, 1991). Communal customary land tenure has been viewed by governments around the world as an obstacle to economic development (Larmour, 2013; Chand & Duncan, 2013; Weiner & Glaskin, 2007). Moreover, the formalisation of property rights has been seen as a direct route out of poverty because it improves the asset-base of rural poor farmers, encourages incentives for investments and provides better access to credit services (Muza, 2016; Yaro, 2012; Deininger, 2003). Furthermore, Clark argues that “tenure security has been equated with the promotion of privatization, seen as necessary for the introduction of capital intensive technology and mortgage financing into local agrarian systems” (2000:16). The movement towards protection of customary land tenure systems can therefore be understood as a reaction to neoliberalist approaches to economic development (Yaro, 2012) and as a response to imposed colonial land tenure systems (Benjaminsen & Lund, 2002). Indeed, the privatisation of the commons and institutionalisation of new property of rights over land is a direct consequence to becoming ‘developed’ (Rist, 2006). Customary land tenure through a common property promotes, but does not guarantee, egalitarianism within the community (Clark, 2000) but the alternative, obtaining property land title through statutory models, is often a costly process, often beyond the means of the rural poor (Benjaminsen & Lund, 2002). Moreover, it should be considered as a moral obligation for indigenous communities to protect their customary land tenure systems, regardless of whether any legal or political system is willing to recognise that claim (Newman, 2007). Providing legal protection for indigenous communities that rely on woodland or forest areas is crucial as a means to help slow down the detrimental effects of climate change (Muza, 2016). However, recent land tenure policy reforms
17 have sought to increase security and protect vulnerable populations by formally recognising customary land rights and management systems (Turner, 2013). The mechanism through which customary land has been managed has customarily been through traditional leadership in indigenous communities.
2.2.1 Traditional Leadership
Central to customary land tenure is traditional leadership in communities; indeed, “chiefs are the custodians of customary law, and the managers of customary lands according to customary law” (Muza, 2016:42). Traditional leadership has played a prominent role in demarcating and resolving disputes centred around land, basing their decision on ‘custom’ (van Leeuwen, 2014). Therefore, customary authorities are “considered far more legitimate catalysts for development and change […] traditional authorities are thus largely regarded as custodians of local traditions and culture including land” (Muza, 2016:43). This suggests that traditional leadership is integral in community development plans because of the legitimacy and authority derived from their position. Additionally, traditional leaders often keep a register to track changes in land tenure in the area, which can be used in the event of a dispute (Benjaminsen & Lund, 2002). Moreover, traditional leadership is fundamental to theories of indigenous governance. The typical oral nature of passing down traditional knowledge of indigenous governance is perhaps the most significant departure from Western governance models (Warner & Grint, 2012). Significant characteristics of indigenous governance include the communal ownership of lands and distributed use, the leadership abiding by consensus decision-making, individual rights intrinsically linked to communal rights and the teaching of gender-specific roles and responsibilities (Warner & Grint, 2012:975). Of course, traditional leadership systems differ around the world, with leaders taking on more authoritarian roles in some cultures.
An example of the problematic and conflicting nature of traditional leadership can be found in the post-apartheid policies in South Africa, which have been built upon the apartheid framework as opposed to transforming it (Turner, 2013). Moreover, the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act of 2003 privileged a place-bound definition of community membership by retaining apartheid-era tribal boundaries (Turner, 2013). Turner states that these policies empower the chief, headmen and other members of the traditional council, while marginalising other members of the community. However, Mashele (2004) argues that traditional leadership is still a relevant concept in rural areas of South Africa, but the institutions themselves need to become more democratic. This would be achieved by not participating actively in politics, through promoting the status of women in society and principally focusing
18 on preserving the customs of their respective communities. Historically, traditional leadership was considered to be a system of indirect rule used by colonial administrations through which authority was delegated to ‘chiefs’ because they believed that the traditional rulers could maintain law and order at a lower cost, which provides a prerequisite for trade and production (Yaro, 2012; Moberg 1992). This was the case in Belize, in which the Alcalde system of governance, which derived from Mesoamerican precedents, was incorporated as a system under British colonial rule as a way to control and negotiate with self-appointed indigenous leaders (Moberg, 1992). As customary land tenure is inherently tied into ancestral lands (Göcke, 2013; Shelton, 2013), a direct relationship emerges between land, and resources, and self-determination. Moreover, “the lack of access to ancestral territory prevents the exercise of indigenous and tribal peoples’ right to self-determination” (IACHR, 2011:379). This thesis will now go onto theorise the right to self-determination.
2.3 Self-determination
The right to self-determination has become integrated into mainstream discourses in international development studies in numerous ways that is beyond the scope of this thesis. However, a few examples are provided here. Firstly, it enables the participation and agency of otherwise marginalised actors in discussions around developments that affect them (Kosko, 2013). Secondly, it places freedom of peoples at the centre of development (Sen, 1999). Lastly, it centres around decolonisation, in which former colonies are able to express themselves politically and develop according to their own culture and norms (Klabbers, 2006).
So, what is self-determination? Summers states, “the right of peoples to self-determination is their right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development (Summers,2012:1). This definition has a heavy focus on the freedom aspect of self-determination, as well as development being central to political agendas. A slightly different definition is provided by Flint, who defines self-determination as “the perceived right of a cultural group who identify with a particular piece of territory to control their political future” (Flint, 2009:676). This identification with a particular territory has been the source of indigenous movements for self-determination around the world. The principle of the right to control determines participation to be the key process aspect of self-determination (Kosko, 2013). Moreover, Kosko argues that “the spirit of the norm of self-determination, whatever a group’s political aims, emphasises freedom, participation and reasonable control over one’s life and destiny” (Kosko, 2013). The determining principle of self-determination is
19 to be used in conjugation with peoples; it is inherently a collective right because an individual cannot exercise a right to self-determination (Bellier & Préaud, 2012).
The right of peoples to self-determination is considered to be a foundational principle of international law (Northcott, 2012). However, Haalboom (2012) argues that this right is only recognised and outlined within a limited number of governing bodies and legal instruments. One of these governing bodies is the United Nations (UN). The purpose of the UN, as enshrined in Article 1.2 of the UN Charter is “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” (UN, 1945). Indeed, the UN has presided over the “diffusion on the principle of national self-determination to the world as a whole” (Fulcher, 2000). Furthermore, the first article of two UN Covenants, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (ICPCR), state “all peoples have the right of self-determination” (UNGA, 1966).
However, while the right of self-determination was a founding principle of the UN at its inception, it has its origins in the French and American revolutions, which challenged hierarchical and aristocratic structures of the State and implied that the State belonged to the people (Mayall, 2013). However, it was in Africa in the 1960s when a conventional interpretation of the political meaning of self-determination emerged, through which “state succession was a once-and-for-all event tied in space and time to European decolonisation” (Mayall, 2013:543). This had been an event almost two decades in the making; the Atlantic Charter in 1941 outlined the Allies’ plan for a post-war world, in which they stated “the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live”; however, this was in relation to countries living under Nazi rule (Ibhawoh, 2014).
However, it has evolved from its de-colonial origins to become more of a procedural right; in this way, entities have a right to see their position taken into account when their futures are being decided (Klabbers, 2006). Moreover, the participation and engagement of indigenous peoples in self-determination has been at the centre of social movements that have emerged around the world in the last few decades (Yashar, 2005).
2.3.1 Self-determination and Indigenous Peoples
The UNDRIP, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13th September 2007 (Anaya, 2008), is the instrument though which indigenous peoples have gained global recognition; it was based on the principle that “indigenous peoples are peoples… rather than a second-class category of
20 citizens” (Bellier & Préaud, 2012:475). Therefore, this reflects the discourse on peoples prevalent in earlier UN Covenants. The UNDRIP includes a couple of articles directly related to self-determination. Article 3 states: ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’ (UNDRIP, 2007:4). This is followed up by Article 4, which states: ‘Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions’ (UNDRIP,2007:4-5). This was the first time that self-determination was explicitly included in global institutional frameworks regarding the rights of indigenous persons. Similar language had been used in previous legal institutions, for example Article 7.1 of ILO Convention 169:
‘
The peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development’ (ILO, 1989:35).UNDRIP’s specific focus on self-determination contributed to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States initially rejecting the Declaration, as they viewed it as directly undermining their sovereignty (Anaya, 2013; Bellier & Préaud, 2012). Moreover, following the rejection of UNDRIP, the New Zealand ambassador criticised the wording of self-determination as it could be misinterpreted as a unilateral right to succession (Haugen, 2014). However, Klabbers (2006) argues that the right of peoples to self-determination does not amount to a right to secede or even a right to autonomy or self-government, but it does amount to a right to be taken seriously and demand respect. This is supported by the examples of Bolivia and Ecuador, who have incorporated indigenous concepts into their constitution (Gudynas, 2011), where the self-determination process through the state is highly bureaucratic and complex, deliberately designed to impede access to Indigenous determination and self-governance and preserve the unitary state (Tockman et al, 2015). However, by placing processes of self-determination within the Constitutional Framework, the principle of Free, Prior and Informed consent (FPIC) and consultation has been adhered to: if this principle has been properly developed, then indigenous communities know the benefits and risks of participation (Rosenthal, 2006). If the principle of FPIC is strictly adhered to, then it encompasses the overall right to self-determination (Haalboom, 2012).
21 Essentially, the right to self-determination is concerned with empowerment of marginalised actors in society by including them in processes of participation at the state level (Gupta et al, 2015). Indigenous peoples have distinct cultures and preferences compared to the national population but historically they have lacked the power to effectively challenge these structures (Volmert, 2010). Moreover, Volmert asserts that ‘indigenous peoples have substantial rights to self-determination because they can credibly claim that their members are subject to a greater degree of rule than the non-indigenous members of the states within which they have been forcibly incorporated” (Volmert, 2010:55). Following this, indigenous peoples feel that they have to assert their rights collectively in order to be recognised.
This chapter has framed the debates and theories of social movements, customary land tenure and self-determination. It has examined the different types of social movements, explored theories around leadership in social movements and provided a theoretical focus on indigenous movements as a hybrid form of social movement. Subsequently, customary land tenure was presented, with a specific focus on traditional leadership being fundamental to customary land tenure systems. It also presented how customary land tenure is a direct response to capitalist and colonial models of land tenure. Finally, self-determination was theorised and I will incorporate the two definitions of determination into a new one. Henceforth, I define self-determination as the right of a peoples who identify with a particular piece of territory to freely determine their economic, social, cultural and political development.
All three of these concepts are important in analysing the Maya Land Rights Movement in the Toledo District. However, these concepts, so far, have been general and not specific to the location and history of Belize. Therefore, the next chapter will address the context of the Maya Land Rights Movement within the nation-state of Belize.
22 3. Framing the Context: The Post-Colonial Nation of Belize
This chapter frames the research within the specific context of Belize. To begin with, a brief overview of Belize and its demographics are outlined. This is supported by a description of the political system at play in Belize, followed by an outline of the economic history and industries that have come to define development in Belize. Following on from this, I will explore how the Maya social movement has come about as a response to colonial and post-colonial pressures. In this section I will describe the Alcalde system of governance, using research respondents’ experiences of the system to better inform my own research.
3.1 The Nation-State of Belize
The most culturally diverse nation in Central America (Minority Rights Group International, 2009), Belize is a former British colony situated south of Mexico and east of Guatemala, on the Caribbean coast. Belize has a population of just over 350,000 people (SIB,2014), making it one of the least-populated countries in Central America. It has a 0.715 score on the Human Development Index, ranking higher than Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador in the region (UNDP, 2015). Figure 1 (p.23) is a map showing the location of the six districts. Belize is a member of several international institutions: Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (CELAC), Organisation of American States (OAS), Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP) and Central American Integration System (SICA). Being considered both as a Caribbean and a Latin American country is testament to the diverse ethnic groups prevalent in Belize. Although it has a small population, it contains numerous different ethnic groups, namely: Mestizo, Creole, European, East Indian, Chinese, Mennonite, Garifuna and three different Maya groups. Table 1 shows the ethnic distribution across all districts and how it has changed since 2000.
Table 1: Distribution of Ethnic Groups in the Districts. From GoB & Caribbean Development Bank ‘Country Poverty Assessment’ 2010.
