Paper short abstract:

This paper explores why the constitutional recognition of cultural diversity in Bolivia is insufficient, resulting in protests by some indigenous groups. This can be explained by limitations in the language of modern constitutionalism adopted and the existence of competing demands over recognition.

Paper long abstract:

The election of Evo Morales as the first indigenous president of Bolivia, in December of 2005, brought about the greatest increase in the recognition of indigenous peoples' rights in the country's history. The constitution of 2009 includes the right of self-determination to indigenous peoples, defines the Bolivian State as Plurinational, and grants all indigenous languages the same official status as Spanish, among other recognitions. In spite of those changes, some indigenous groups have expressed dissatisfaction through demonstrations and marches, asserting their rights over the land, and arguing for the necessity of decolonizing society. This paper explores the grounds of those criticisms and the reasons why the recognition of cultural diversity in the constitution fell short. My argument is that there are two elements that can explain it: the limitations of the inherited language of modern constitutionalism to include alternative indigenous ways of thinking; and the existence of competing demands over recognition that involve the whole society in what James Tully calls continuous 'processes of mutual disclosure and acknowledgement'. The case of Bolivia challenges liberal and multicultural approaches to the struggles over recognition whose objective is to find a just and definitive solution; and it makes us consider alternative approaches that point out to constant possibilities of dialogue, interaction and negotiation between the actors as necessary conditions to achieve just and stable multicultural democracies.