“Aqueles que lutam para viver”: the State’s re-fundation by “the Horizon of Pluralistic Constitucionalism”

Abstract

The formation of the national States by the national criolla-mestizo elites in Latin America represented one more systematic and historical form of exclusion and subalternization of all organizational possibilities of the native people. This formation, that, in the constitutionalism, was operated by silencing, besides the non-recognition of ethnic diversity and its autonomies front to the mono-ethnicity, the monoculturalism, the uni-nationalism, the homogenization and the legal monism of the Nation-State. The 1980s is the precursor in the constitutional change of indigenous rights, “the horizon of pluralistic constitutionalism”, which is divided into three cycles: multicultural, pluricultural and plurinational. The objective of this paper is to present the institutional-legal changes that happened in these pluralistic constitutional cycles, since the ideologically/legal-institutional surpassing until its ruptures with the “National State” myth, so to describe the consolidation of the national State myth before and after the 1980s landmark, the most important indigenous rights that were conquered during the referred cycles, besides the influence of the international and national documents to the native people. Therefore, it was used as landmark the decolonial studies and the “critical interculturality”. It was worked with the question of how did the legal-institutionals changes occurred in each pluralistic cycle according to the time mark with regard to the indigenous rights. At the end, it presents that the multicultural cycle represented the recognition of indigenous rights, although it only ideologically surpassed the hegemonic thought of its time – the integrationism; about the posterior cycles - the pluricultural and the plurinational – both allowed the decolonial rupture in the State’s structures, even though that one has had its achievements neutralized by the neoliberal politic. The last one re-founded the State on its own bases, these ones coming from decoloniality, and based on critical interculturality, however, always making necessary to recognize the limits of making effective what was guaranteed in the constitutions.