Ethnic identity and attitudes toward state institutions: evidence of judicial legitimacy among the indigenous in Latin America

How does ethnic identity affect how an individual evaluates state institutions? Drawing on the US courts and political psychology literatures, we argue politically marginalized groups (e.g., the indigenous in Latin America) are more likely to emphasize the what – are the outcomes satisfactory – but less likely to value the how –are the procedures fair – than their politically powerful (e.g., the whites in Latin America) counterparts. This is because the former have been historically marginalized and socially disenfranchized. This political underrepresentation shapes an individual's attitude toward state institutions including the judiciary. We test this argument using two Latin American Public Opinion Project samples: the first is cross-national for 2010; the second, over-time for Bolivia. The results suggest that, on the one hand, the gap between how the indigenous and their white counterparts evaluate the judiciary is narrowing. Yet, on the other hand, there is evidence that Latin American courts are still lacking a “reservoir of goodwill” that is perceived equally across all ethnic identities. These results have major implications for political representation and democratic consolidation.