Institutionalised Indigeneity: The Unravelling of State Power in Bolivia
How Evo Morales’s political project reshaped and restricted indigenous identity in unexpected ways
When Evo Morales became president of Bolivia in 2006, many observers saw his victory as a historic turning point.
Morales was the country’s first indigenous president, and his rise followed years of protests led by indigenous and working‑class movements. For many Bolivians, this seemed to mark a new era in which the state would finally reflect the identities and demands of the country’s majority indigenous population.
A recent academic article examines this moment of change using the idea of the indio institucionalizado, a term that may sound technical but captures a simple idea: the Morales government promoted a particular, officially approved version of indigeneity that helped it build political power but also created significant tensions.
Understanding this concept makes it easier to see why the MAS government enjoyed such strong support for so long, why cracks later emerged, and how these dynamics contributed to Bolivia’s recent political turmoil.
To start, it is important to understand why indigeneity mattered so much in Bolivia’s politics.
For decades, indigenous people faced marginalisation from political institutions despite making up most of the country’s population. The social movements of the early 2000s changed this. These movements, which protested issues like water privatisation and natural gas exports, relied heavily on indigenous forms of organisation and identity. Morales rose to prominence within this environment, and his presidency became strongly associated with indigenous pride and political participation.
The MAS government then used this momentum to reshape the state. The 2009 constitution recognised 36 official languages, expanded local autonomy, and declared Bolivia a plurinational state, meaning that the nation was made up of many distinct cultural and political traditions. These shifts were significant, and they reflected the hopes of many indigenous communities.
Yet, as the article shows, not all forms of indigeneity were embraced equally. The indio institucionalizado became the model of the ‘ideal’ indigenous citizen under the MAS. This figure supported the government’s development agenda, was incorporated into state institutions, and appeared in public ceremonies and national symbols.
On the surface, this looked like progress. But it also meant that other expressions of indigenous identity, especially those that criticised government policies, were increasingly sidelined.
This tension became visible during conflicts such as the TIPNIS dispute, when the government pushed for a major road through an indigenous territory. Communities who opposed the project were dismissed as misinformed or manipulated, rather than recognised as legitimate political actors. The government used the language of indigeneity to defend its plans, while portraying dissenting groups as obstacles to national progress. In practice, this meant that the state decided which indigenous voices were valid and which were not.
These contradictions intensified over time. While the MAS remained popular, controversies around development projects, allegations of corruption, and debates over Morales’s re‑election eroded the broad coalition that had sustained the government.
By the time of the disputed 2019 election, indigeneity had been so closely tied to the image of Morales himself that anger against the government spilled over into racist attacks on indigenous people more broadly. This revealed the risks of building political identity so tightly around a single leader and a single authorised form of indigeneity.
After Morales left office, the MAS returned to power under President Luis Arce, but without resolving these deeper issues. Internal divisions grew, and attempts to revive the indio institucionalizado no longer had the unifying effect they once did. By the 2025 election, the MAS suffered a dramatic collapse, suggesting that its previous hegemonic identity had reached its limits.
What comes next for indigenous politics in Bolivia remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: indigeneity is not a fixed category. It is shaped by struggle, debate, and constant reinvention. The MAS government attempted to institutionalise one version of it, but Bolivia’s diverse indigenous movements have always resisted being reduced to a single political identity. As the country continues to face economic and political pressures, these movements will no doubt remain central to shaping its future.
Ikemura Amaral, A., & McNelly, A. (2026). Institutionalised Indigeneity, State Formation and Crisis: Lessons From the indio institucionalizado in Evo Morales’ Bolivia. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 45:e70076. https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.70076
Dr Aiko Ikemura Amaral is based in the Department of International Development at King’s College London and researches state power, violence, and indigenous politics in Latin America.
Dr Angus McNelly is also based in the Department of International Development at King’s College London and works on political economy, hegemony, and social movements in Bolivia.