I. El buen vivir and indigenous identity

Identity is a social construction of how people perceive themselves and how they are perceived within a given collectivity. This section will analyze good living as an expression of indigenous identity and development; then, it will explain interculturality and plurinationality as the foundation for reconciling heterogeneous societies and collective memory.

For ^{Bauman, identity is eminently negotiable and revocable (2004, pp. 32)}. He states that there is a freedom of identities, and now men and women as individuals can choose them, using their own means and intelligence (Bauman, 2004, pp.68). Although ^{Sachar (2001, pp. 68)} defends the idea of the existence of a right to exit³, which implies that people who identify as a member of a group can leave it anytime, Holzeleithner (2012, pp. 28) argues that belonging to a community is not optional, but there is a binding reason why people get to be part of that identity. The 169 Convention (International Labour Organization, 1989) seems to be more aligned with Holzeleithner's argument as it suggests that indigenous peoples, to whom the Convention applies, are peoples in independent countries who are descendants from populations that inhabited the country at the time of conquest or colonization and who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural, and political institutions (Article 1.1). This situation implies that indigenous identity, or way of perceiving oneself and others, is not deliberately acquired or rejected (^{Holzeleithner, 2012}, pp. 28).

Bauman also gives us other perspectives on identity. He argues that the idea of identity has been conceived as a social effort to build a bridge between what is and what should be, to bring to reality the ideals of the concept of identity (Bauman, 2004, pp. 20). These bridges, in indigenous communities, are the integrating vision of the human being and his immersion in the large earthly community. Indigenous identity not only includes the human being, but everything that surrounds him: land, air, water, mountains, trees, and animals. Indigenous identity bridges the human being with the natural environment. There is a parameter or principle in the relationship that Latin American indigenous communities have with their environment, especially with natural resources and the otherness. This parameter or principle is called good living⁴ or sumak kawsay (in Quechua). It is a fundamental component of indigenous identity that creates the bond between its being and the universal being: La Pachamama (^{Cortez, 2011}, pp. 7).

In addition, good living emerges as a critical approach to the modern world based on the premise of the human being as a subject, who is equally part of society and part of nature. For Adriana Sánchez, the concept of good living proposes alternative lines of thought on modern development, and has a cross-border political presence (2014, pp. 2) because not only is it an ethnic proposal by and for indigenous peoples (CONAIE, 2007, pp. 2), but also a philosophy that recognizes natural diversity to achieve unity beyond race or nationality. Good living is an expression of genuine indigenous self-determination (^{Altmann, 2019}, pp. 76), as it seeks the construction of a plural society through the recognition of different collective memory and knowledge.

This concept comes from a philosophy of life (Cresto, 2017, pp. 16) that rescues their knowledge by re-identifying their vision of the world. Based on the right to self-determination, indigenous communities today seek to reinforce their struggles and resistances to fight for their right to control their destiny.

For most native peoples in Latin America, maintaining their culture and idiosyncrasies has been a challenge within the current political and economic system. They defend their ways of thinking and their ancestral wisdom in a world of constant movement, in which cultural negotiation is continuous. The struggle to maintain an explicit indigenous identity has become a crucial instrument for the survival of this culture (^{Maddinson, 2013}, pp. 289). The challenge, then, is to affirm an identity committed to resisting globalization, taking roots in their culture and attachment to the land. Although good living might be interpreted differently by each Latin American indigenous community; it is important to acknowledge that the application of good living is an emancipatory indigenous practice that continuously contributes to the creation of the identity process because it constitutes one of the most powerful expressions of indigenous culture that is profoundly engaged with their land and development.

1.1 Reconciliation of heterogeneous societies and collective knowledge

The idea of Latin America was an European notion that eliminated the original denotations given to this land by first peoples. This process was a decultural phenomenon of material and spiritual dispossession. It was also an expression of the colonization of knowledge (^{Mignolo, 2005}, pp. 21). For Mignolo, this situation was the cause of the colonial wound (2005, pp. xii). The colonial wound is the feeling of inferiority imposed on human beings who do not fit into the model predetermined by those who created the classification parameters and granted themselves the right to classify (Mignolo, 2005, pp. 8). The colonial wound is an intergenerational and collective trauma that the victims of colonialism have suffered.

Indigenous repression in Latin America started in the colony in 1492, where more than sixty million indigenous peoples were killed by the colonizer (^{Pacheco, 2002}), producing the colonial wound. This colonial wound is currently reflected in the indigenous struggle to remain visible after centuries of repression of their identity and culture. The problem of the indigenous identity's permanence in the post-colony, leads us to scrutinize historical-social theories capable of responding adequately to structural needs for native cultures and their natural environment to survive. To reconciling heterogeneous societies, several proposals aim to protect indigenous identity within social diversity. In these proposals, differences are respected and accepted through customary or political systems that respond to the complexity of the periphery-center relationship. Without attempting to create an exhaustive list of proposals, this essay will delve into interculturality (^{Mignolo, 2005}, 118) and plurinationality (^{Schavelzon, 2015}, pp. 93).

Interculturality has social meanings related to the simultaneous existence of different cultures that respect the way of living and others' epistemological space. Interculturality does not mean to speak with the same logic in two different languages, but to achieve a collaborative conversation using the logic of two different languages for the good of the involved parties (^{Mignolo, 2005}, 118). This narrative coexistence does not reject the being nor the knowledge of others; on the contrary, it agrees to observe an unalike context from a heterogeneous cosmovision. That acceptance of social diversity is the base of inclusion of local stories aimed to reconstruct the coexistence of histories of the colonized and the colonizers. It allows critical analysis on the essence of different perspectives, rather than taking for granted ideas imposed by those who control and controlled power.

Interculturality is the recognition of the heterogeneity of social, economic, cultural, and political conformation for the sake of transforming current ideological structures on a foundation of acceptance and reconciliation. Interculturality can only develop in a framework of equity before the state, the law, and the otherness; where there is mutual respect for difference. It is a tool against the divisions imposed by colonizing ideas that have dispersed the social fabric. Interculturality, finally, becomes a tool for social reconciliation within diversity, pursuing the consolidation of a single society driven by the cooperation, participation, and commitment of all social sectors.

Plurinationality, on the other hand, relates to the system of the state organization. It is the principle that allows all nations within a state to be guaranteed full democratic participation. This principle is based on recognizing all different nations that are part of the same state (^{Schavelzon, 2015}, pp. 93). A nation is understood as a human collectivity that has similar characteristics in terms of culture, idiosyncrasy, interpretation of the world, language, traditions, and territory. In the concept of nation, indigenous communities are included by nature; however, plurinationality is not only circumscribed to these communities, but to all types of nations that inhabit a state. The concept of plurinationality causes indigenous nations, who have generally been marginalized, to exercise political participation by including ideas in state life without having to leave their worldview behind.

Plurinationality is a method of reconciliation in the modern world insofar as it advocates for the autonomous development of the cultural and political identity of each of the nations that make up a state. It guarantees the full exercise of civil, political, social, economic, cultural, and environmental rights, consolidating a state guided by the sovereignty of its peoples, the independence from its colonizers, and the democratic system as the best form of community construction. Plurinationality reaffirms unity in difference, does not impose ideas, recognizes the right to territory, the internal political and administrative autonomy of indigenous communities. It is a proposal of reconciliation based on a new form of organization: the construction of a new state with the participation of excluded nations.

Developed around interculturality and plurinationality, good living, has academic and real-life foundations. It becomes an instrument of resistance and reconstruction of the social fabric. Good living constitutes a legitimate path to reconciling today's heterogeneous societies and collective memory through (i) the strengthening of the acceptance for the difference in diverse societies; (ii) the assimilation of its meaning as an integrating and respectful action between human beings and their natural environment; (iii) indigenous political participation in policy-making and rule-making; and, (iv) the full exercise and protection of civil, political, social, economic, cultural, and environmental rights.

Interculturality and plurinationality are two proposals that promote the reconciliation of heterogeneous societies as they might impact decision-making in all State levels, creating inclusive public policies and ethnic rights-oriented judgments. Once implemented in society, these proposals might produce the acceptance of cultural differences and the social inclusion of minorities' ideals such as good living. Interculturality and plurinationality might also contribute to the reconstruction of identity of repressed indigenous peoples as they are the foundation of political participation, which strengthens their vision of the world and, therefore, their way of life.

II. Coloniality and development in the modern world

To frame the notion of good living in a coloniality and a development context, it is necessary to elucidate the concepts related to these topics. This section will define the concepts of coloniality and colonialism; and then, it will establish the modern understanding and application of the concepts of development and underdevelopment.

2.1 Coloniality and colonialism in context

For Grosfoguel, colonialism refers to colonial situations imposed by the presence of a colonial administration as in the period of classical colonialism (2010, pp. 74). In turn, the term coloniality is used to address colonial situations in the current period in which colonial administrations have almost been eradicated from the capitalist system (^{Quijano, 1991}, pp. 14). Grosfoguel uses the concept of coloniality of power to refer to a pattern of global and continuous domination (2010, pp. 73) with an effect of economic, political, social, and epistemological domination in the peripheral states.

Schiwy explains that coloniality is three-dimensional (i) it is a situation that encompasses the study of economic and political relationships in the constitutive role of the globalization process, emphasizing the qualitative difference that these relationships have introduced since the conquest of the Americas. (ii) Epistemic relations have given way to a hegemonic order of knowledge that, for many, continue to form the idea of how globalization is thought. And (iii) the construction of subjectivity has been thought as a naturalization of colonial relationships articulated around the idea of race (2010, pp. 273).

After the independence fights of the peripheral states, the colonial legacy remained highlighted by the narratives brought from the global north under the concept of modernity (^{Mignolo, 2005}, pp. 57). This modernity has been, and continues to be, used as a discourse of salvation addressed towards ex-colonies. Central hegemonies promise to bring modernity and development to ex-colonies if they follow all the economic, political, social, and epistemological instructions given by them (^{Hickel, 2018}). This is considered coloniality of power, the continuity of colonialism: seeking to control marginalized countries and their systems. From the global north view, coloniality of power is a favourable form of intervention for the less developed countries. From the satellite countries, the narrative is the opposite.

In this context, human relations between the land and indigenous communities in Latin America, have often been governed by ideas and knowledge external to indigenous communities. States of the periphery that achieved their independence have been imposed, liberal discourses regarding the economy, systems of government and relationships between the human being and the environment. According to the coloniality of power (^{Quijano, 1991}, pp. 19), Latin America still lives in a colonial world that needs to be broken to achieve freedom and independence from the economies and pressures from the global north.

2.2 Developed and developing in context

Internationally, the origin of development can be traced back to the United Nations Charter (United Nations [henceforth UN], 1945). In the Preamble and in Chapter XI, it referred to the need to promote social progress and raise the standard of living within a broad concept of freedom. This Charter, which creates a link between human rights, and economic and social progress, was of great importance in the emergence of the right to development (^{Gómez, 1999}: 20). Article 55 (a) contains the United Nations' commitment to promoting the right to economic and social development. Nevertheless, according to article 1, the Organization's main purposes are to maintain international peace and security and promote international cooperation among nations. Other purposes, such as promoting social progress, were linked to this goal.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948) takes up what was said in the United Nations Charter: promoting social progress and raising the standard of living in a wider margin of freedom. It also raised the need for the satisfaction of economic, social, and cultural rights as a sign of modern development. Besides being the positivization of customary law (^{O'donnell, 2004}, pp. 72), the binding nature of this document was recognized by the final act of the International Conference on Human Rights held in Tehran in 1968 under the auspices of the United Nations. It contains the following proclamation: "The Declaration enunciates a common conception among all peoples of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and declares it binding on the international community" (1968, para. 2). Although being part of the soft law, today, the legal value of the Universal Declaration might be considered unquestionable, and its provisions on human rights and modern development are a guideline to follow by all states.

There are several other documents issued by the United Nations and different international organizations addressing the issue of development. Even though they will not be further discussed in this paper, the following Declarations involve the concept of development as a core of their content: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976); The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1976); and The Declaration on the Right to Development (1986), among others.

The right to development entails the right of all individuals to have an active, free, and meaningful participation in development and fair distribution of its benefits. It rejected foreign domination, racism, discrimination, and all violations of human rights. It entrusted states with a duty to direct development for the well-being of all people and called on them to work together. The right to development supports people's right to self-determination and sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources. States have not always respected human rights in their development decisions, this has impaired development and contributed to growing inequalities. It has led to decisions that have denied fundamental rights such as food, water and sanitation, adequate housing, education, and health.

Under the idea of development (^{Constitutional Court, 2012}, C1051), the Colombian Government signed the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. Consequently, the Congress issued the implementing Law 1518, 2012. The Convention established a legal protection regime favoring the breeders of new plant varieties, granting them a right to dispose of the variety they create. With the implementation of this regulation, Colombian indigenous communities and their territories, where they develop agriculture, might be directly impacted as the production of plants would be restricted. This situation would affect their relationship with nature and, therefore, their subsistence and identity. The Colombian Constitutional Court (2012, C1051) declared these provisions unconstitutional because there was not indigenous participation in the way of prior consultation during the signing of the Convention process.

In 2019, an emblematic case related to prior consultation in Ecuador took place through a Protection Remedy. A Court of Criminal Guarantees, based in Pastaza County, protected the right to prior consultation of the Waraoni indigenous peoples with a court ruling in case No. 16171201900001. Through this decision the Court ordered, in the first and second instances, that the State must refrain from continuing with the oil extraction project in Waraoní territory because it had not complied with the standards for the application of prior consultation (Tribunal de Garantías Penales con sede en el Cantón Pastaza, 2019, pp. 60-104).

Before the Declaration on the Right to Development was issued, development was generally understood in relation to economics and Gross Domestic Product -GDP-. Moreover, even though the development conceptions have changed, states still put a high importance on economic issues. When implementing development projects on indigenous territories, it must be recognized what these communities understand as development. Often, they have more developed relationships with the natural environment, thanks to traditional farming practices and a lack of overconsumption. The same can often be said about community reciprocity and human-to-human relationships. Nevertheless, in many cases, indigenous communities have been threatened, and their identity jeopardized on behalf of development. The most vulnerable and marginalized populations bear the worst part of development policies when they go wrong.

When economic development is equated with economic growth only, it contributes to dominant economies' purposes and dismisses local development of satellite communities. Seeing development exclusively in terms of economic growth produces an engagement with the new form of colonialism. Global North ideologies are being forced upon cultures through the guise of helping them develop (^{Hickel, 2018}). In this perspective, the concept of development becomes a discursive instrument that reflects the evolution from physical colonialism to the coloniality of power. Furthermore, with the direct intervention of developed countries, through externally based development plans, the sovereignty and self-determination of indigenous communities are yielding dangerously.

When used as coloniality of power, the global north discourse of development targets people as objects of study and not as subjects of their own development (^{Edwards, 2008}, pp. 118). And, being defined by only one of the parties involved, the objectives of development and development projects lead to misunderstandings and misapplications in terms of meaning, needs, and how to meet those needs. In indigenous communities, there is a considerable deterioration of the indigenous interpretation of the world because the dispossession of their territories, is a core part of an economic model oriented to the exploitation of the natural resources that they protect, which has stimulated the arrival of foreign investments in the energy, oil, and mining fields mainly (^{Valladares, 2017}, pp. 3). When economic interests rise, the indigenous idiosyncrasy and their meaning of development, remain invisible for states and development practitioners.

According to Edwards, development problems must be solved according to the complexity of places and spaces. Native communities cannot be subjected to standard development projects; on the contrary, projects must be implemented with a correct approach to their worldview (2008, pp. 120). In the modern era, there is a need for a strong link between the object and the subject of development where all subjectivities of indigenous communities are to be adequately valued. Development practitioners must acknowledge the community positions of indigenous peoples concerning the world that surrounds them, as well as the economic and social structure of the collectivity, so as not to fall into the error of inefficiently applying theories based on the global-north development ideas.

The incorporation of externally based plans of development over indigenous communities could become a representation of coloniality of power (^{Stavenhagen, 1963}, pp. 64) when not addressed according to targeted beneficiaries. It is not possible to formulate an adequate theory for development, nor a development plan, if the needs and know-how of the targeted population are dismissed. Indigenous communities have their own needs and know-how, which are faithfully linked to good living. Good living deeply shapes the way they relate to the natural environment and to the otherness, so its acknowledgement and protection must be in the front line when speaking of development. Approaching development from the indigenous communities' point of view might improve indigenous lives, allowing them to reach their full potential.

III. El buen vivir and the indigenous rights to prior consultaron and free, prior, and informed consent

Lives of indigenous populations have remained subjugated to the modern colonial idea (^{Maddinson, 2013}, pp. 288-289), causing structural violence against their ways of thinking and their ways of relating to the outside world. In this modern colonial idea, being indigenous means having and defending an identity in the politicized context of contemporary coloniality (^{Alfred & Corntassel 2005}, pp. 597). It has been marked by the existence of struggles against material and spiritual dispossession. Indigenous movements in Latin America have engaged with a long process of anti-colonial resistance that has gained visibility since the 1960s (^{Schiwy, 2010}, pp. 182) and has brought us to this historical moment in which we seek, once and for all, to end the post-colonialist yoke.

One way to break with the externally imposed colonial relationship between indigenous communities and the natural environment, is the strengthening of indigenous political participation through the implementation of PC and FPIC. These options are alternatives beyond the global north vision of the human-nature relationship. Not only are they inscribed in the relationships within and with the land, but also in the production and transmission of indigenous knowledge and culture. The idiosyncrasy of native communities cannot be subjected to external regulations under the penalty of constituting an assault to their existence, their right to self-determination and their right to self-government. Claiming one's own land and identity, claiming the real application of the rights to PC and FPIC, supported by good living, is an act of social and cultural consciousness against coloniality.

Modern states have the political and democratic obligation to promote the strengthening of PC and FPIC in order to correctly apply the postulate of good living that reflects the indigenous reality of most Latin American countries. Amongst other measures, states promote this through different gestures of decoloniality such as laws to protect indigenous identity, decrees containing regulatory measures and respect for the worldview of the first peoples, inclusive public policies for all ways of seeing life, effective and efficient legal actions to protect human rights, and relevant education programs in which the guiding axis is the acceptance of diversity. Moreover, as a gesture of decoloniality, good living has recently been integrated into the constitutional systems of some countries of the continent: Ecuador and Bolivia. After incorporating the notion of good living into these constitutions, indigenous political and social participation has considerably increased (^{Barié, 2014}). At the same time, it served as a tool for reconciliation, allowing profound changes in social structures and legal systems.