There is surprisingly limited political science scholarship on indigenous political participation and representation in Latin America, per se. While research on Latin America’s indigenous peoples has experienced a boom in recent years—and has long been a staple among anthropologists and sociologists—most of that work takes a decidedly cultural, rather than institutional, approach. That is, there are relatively few works on “ethnic parties” (their electoral performance, their role in legislatures, etc.) of the kind familiar to those who study ethnic politics in India or Europe. Moreover, the existing literature is heavily concentrated in a handful of country cases. This presents a tremendous opportunity for future scholarship, as well as a challenge. The challenges derive primarily from the lack of data on many basic indicators of indigenous participation and representation beyond the aggregate level or from ethnographic studies. Another challenge comes from the thorny issue of how to address mestizaje (the centuries-old blending of European and indigenous cultures) which complicates racial and ethnic categories that drive most theories about “ethnic” politics. The fact that most Latin American countries have overwhelmingly mestizo majorities—and few have sizeable geographically concentrated indigenous communities—also complicate things. A key way in which political scientists have tended to study “ethnic” political participation and representation has been through the study of “ethnic” parties, which are rare in Latin America. Additionally, much of the scholarship on ethnic political mobilization has tended to focus on “successful” cases like Bolivia and Ecuador or cases with vibrant indigenous movements like Mexico or Guatemala, with few studies of ethnic or indigenous politics in other countries, especially countries with very small indigenous populations, such as Brazil or Argentina.
Indigenous Adoption of Internet Voting: A Case Study of Whitefish River First Nation