Indigenous Representation and Political Parties in Canada and Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Indigenous movements in Canada and Latin America have adopted contrasting stances in relation to electoral politics. Whereas Indigenous peoples in Latin America have generally made demands on the state through electoral and legislative means, Aboriginal peoples in Canada have tended to reject the electoral process, relying instead on the courts and legal system to press their demands. What explains the variation in Indigenous movement strategies in Canada and Latin America? How effective have the respective strategies been in reintroducing the Indigenous Question into national political debates? This chapter explores the common challenges and pitfalls associated with electoral participation for Indigenous peoples. The chapter contrasts the experiences of Aboriginal peoples in Canada with their counterparts in Ecuador and Bolivia, home to Latin America’s most nationally successful Indigenous-based parties to date. The central argument of the study is that institutional rules and arrangements create incentives for social actors to work from within or outside of the formal political system. Permissive institutional environments, such as the proportional representation systems in Ecuador and Bolivia, create ample opportunities for Indigenous groups to form their own political parties and contest elections. Canada’s “first past the post” electoral system raises significant barriers to new party formation and minority representation. In Ecuador and Bolivia, Indigenous movements entered into mainstream politics in the mid-1990s after electoral reforms created a more favorable set of institutional opportunities. In Canada, voting system reform campaigns have largely been unsuccessful. The chapter also suggests that in areas where Indigenous groups tend to be more isolated or remote from the state and the dominant society, such as the Amazonian lowlands of Ecuador and Bolivia and portions of northern Canada, Indigenous peoples are more likely to engage in electoral politics. In such cases, electoral participation serves as a means for excluded groups to gain a political foothold, advance Indigenous agendas, and obtain resources for community development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".