Peña Claros’s use of Laclau’s theory of populism frame the cruceño movement as change from above. This builds on the assumption that elite’s hegemony is still largely in tact as they maintain the position from above. This division between cruceño hegemony and the state’s power presents an interesting contrast for further …show more content…
Although social and ethnic movements are usually reserved for movements that are progressive in nature, Centellas highlights how social movements are often loosely defined in Bolivia, Using García Linera, Marxa, and Patricia’s (2004) definition for a social movement (“collective action that attempts to bring change to the established social systems or defend some material interest”) the right-wing cruceño movement meets the requirements to be considered an “’ethnic’ social movement.” The cruceño movement both opposes the state and its established relation with regional departments mobilizes to defend their material interests. Moreover, social movements are often blurred along the lines of political parties. As a result, interest groups can gain the status of a social movement. Centellas does not assert that the cruceño demand for autonomy is a social movement. Rather, he uses the cruceño movement to highlight the shortcomings of scholarly definitions of social and ethnic movements. This oberservation about the loose definition of ethnic social movements provides context for how the cruceño movement at its organizations—like Comité Pro Santa Cruz and Nación Camba—dawn the guise of progressive