AN EXERCISE IN WORLDMAKING 2009 - ISS

30 JONATHAN CONNOR
cent, which “requires the central government to transfer 15 percent of its
total income to the provinces and cantons” (Keese and Argudo, 2006:
117). It should be noted, however, that Ecuador’s decentralization policies
have not necessarily led to municipal democratization. As John
Cameron (2005: 372) notes, “Decentralization policies in Ecuador, which
were still incipient in the early 2000s, had almost no impact on municipal
democratization. Decentralization legislation lacked any clear requirements
or incentives for municipal governments to operate more transparently
or to foster citizen participation”. Indeed, many Ecuadorian
municipalities continue to be marked by high levels of socioeconomic
inequality, “clientelism” and exclusion (Cameron, 2003: 165). In this context,
the municipality of Guamote stands out as a relatively successful
case of decentralization and municipal democratization. The following
section outlines the region’s transformation in greater detail.
GUAMOTE: LAND REFORM AND PEASANT-INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATION
Located in the Andean highlands of central Ecuador, Guamote is a predominantly
rural canton with a population of approximately 30,000.
Ninety percent of the municipality’s inhabitants are indigenous Quechua
people spread across small, rural communities. According to official statistics,
Guamote is one of the poorest cantons in Ecuador, with close to
90 percent of its population living in poverty (Bebbington, 2007: 58;
Cameron, 2003: 169). Until the latter half of the twentieth century, the
region was dominated by the traditional hacienda—“large rural estates
characterized by a system of tied Quechua labor… and abusive labor
relationships between owners/managers and the local Quechua population”
(Bebbington, 2007: 58). These local estate owners dominated
Guamote’s social, economic and political scene until the mid-1970s, often
operating “with the acquiescence of municipal officials and local
priests” (Cameron, 2003: 170). Under these circumstances, political and
socioeconomic relations in the region were highly “skewed against the
Quechua population” (Bebbington, 2007: 59).