Destabilisation of Indigenous governance under neocolonial legal pluralism: the Zongo case in Bolivia

Abstract Indigenous movements in Bolivia have long struggled for legal recognition and autonomy, culminating in constitutional reforms that formally recognise Indigenous jurisdiction as a key dimension of self-determination. This article argues, however, that the practical operation of legal pluralism in Bolivia is shaped less by constitutional design than by the institutional weakness of the Constitutional Court. Through analysis of the Zongo case, it examines how the Court’s pluralist rulings, while doctrinally affirming Indigenous jurisdiction and advancing intercultural and decolonial reasoning, remain ineffectively enforced, producing two interrelated consequences. First, Indigenous communities are continuously criminalised for actions undertaken within constitutionally recognised Indigenous jurisdiction. Second, criminalisation compels them to engage defensively with ordinary jurisdiction, generating juridification that destabilises collective authority. Together, these dynamics show how legal pluralism, when selectively enforced, operates in practice as neocolonial governance: Indigenous autonomy is formally affirmed yet subordinated by the persistent supremacy of ordinary legal power.