Finally, the fourth point is related to the assessment of the impact of social movements. In order to cope with the difficulty of this task the scope has been limited to two areas; Political factors and cultural and behavioural impact. The former is related to the recognition of the movement as a spokesperson in the political and social sphere by its “enemies” and material rewards - economic, social and judicial issues -. The latter is concerned with cultural and social values within national society.[128] The more institutionalised Colombian indigenous movements have achieved important legal and economic rewards from the government whereas their counterparts, the indigenous movements in Ecuador, have followed a strategy of confrontation leading to increased social and political pressure but with little material reward.

On the other hand, indigenous movements are threatened by the disintegration of the movement itself in two ways. One is the sheer variety of concerns within the organisation and the other is policy strategies which try to nullify and marginalize the movement in order to avoid social pressure. In this sense, CONAIE and ONIC are trying to keep a balance among their members. As has been said above, CONAIE united the interests of the indigenous people of the rainforest and the sierra region. The former have been more concerned with the recognition of territory in order to manage their own natural resources and to expel the oil-companies which are poisoning their soil. Self-determination is their main objective. On the other hand, the quechua from the Sierra are more concerned with land productivity and technological improvement. CONAIE’s discourse represents both demands; territory, and traditional economic management of the land but underlines the claim of self-determination. The unity of the movement could break down if the indigenous people of the Sierra fall to achieve material rewards and tire of being just a protest movement. As Bebbington et al. stress “the indigenous campesinos are interested not only in land but also in economic proposals that will stand the test of time....[therefore Indians] leaders must propose solutions as well as make protests”.[129] By contrast, ONIC’s problem is quite the reverse. Its institutionalised behaviour has made some sectors of the indigenous communities so angry that they want to develop an indigenous project without the collaboration of the government, and do not feel represented by the Organización Nacional de Indigenas. Therefore the challenge for the indigenous movements is how to shift from confrontational tactics to a more negotiated and compromised position without losing their autonomy.

Moreover, both organisations face a conflict between the progressive and the traditional sectors of the indigenous communities. Again a balance has to be achieved between the more indigenist position and the more integrationist one, otherwise it could lead to a lack of leadership within the movement itself. Also they have to face government’s attempts to disunity the movement by promoting dialogues with different communities and partial solutions. In order to face these problems, indigenous movements have to taken on the most suitable structure to represent the interests of their members. In short, “indigenous organisations are being asked to become development organisations”.[130]

The challenge that indigenous movements represent to Latin American governments is similar to the claims of other social movements; economic, social and cultural rights in an environment in which social and political exclusion has been underpinned by the clientelist system of traditional political parties. Today, the balance of Latin American governments is between the need to open-up the political system to marginalized sectors of the population or to remain isolated from the society.