Caciques in Latin America

Caciques in Latin America

Cacique (ka-SEE-kay) is an umbrella term designating a wide variety of indigenous forms of political rule in pre-Columbian and postconquest Latin America, particularly Spanish America. In the Andean highlands, the equivalent term is curaca or kuraka (koo-RA-ka).

Cacique refers to an individual political headman, chief, or local lord, almost always male, while cacicazgo (kasee-KAZ-go) refers the political and social institution of rule by caciques. Most indigenous polities encountered by the Spanish in their explorations and conquests were governed by caciques.

In many instances, such as highland Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru, the privileged social and political status of caciques/curacas was hereditary, though the specific degree of political authority they exercised varied enormously, from almost absolute to a kind of “first among equals” status in more egalitarian polities. In other cases, such as parts of Nicaragua, political power was exercised by a kind of council of elders, and cacicazgo as such did not exist.


In the postconquest environment, the Spanish found the institution of cacicazgo extremely useful, as it allowed for the formation of a class of indigenous leaders who would serve as intermediaries between the mass of indigenous inhabitants and Spanish priests, administrators, and encomenderos.

Caciques, where they existed and where possible, were thus effectively transformed into agents of the colonial state. Where the institution of cacicazgo did not exist (as in parts of Nicaragua), it was essentially imposed upon indigenous societies by the Spanish conquerors in the effort to create viable institutions of indirect rule.

Overall the Spanish found the existence and perpetuation of indigenous nobility highly desirable. Such an elite class of local lords, loyal to the Crown, would minimize social disruption; legitimate the conquests; obviate the need for direct rule and the enormous expenditures of resources such rule would require; and provide a ready mechanism for social control among a defeated and potentially rebellious populace.

In practice, the formation and reproduction of such a class of local lords proved exceptionally difficult, given the ambiguous structural position of caciques of essentially serving two masters, each with material and cultural interests antithetical to those of the other: on the one hand, the Spanish rulers, interested mainly in extraction of surplus labor and Christianization; and on the other hand, the mass of indigenous inhabitants, interested mainly in retaining as much surplus production and indigenous forms of religiosity as possible.

In the postconquest period, then, caciques/curacas thus often found their grip on power both tenuous and partial, able to meet the expectations and requirements of neither their Spanish overlords nor their indigenous underlings. The literature abounds with analyses of the ambiguous structural position of caciques/curacas, which many scholars regard as crucial to understanding the colonial period as a whole.

In some respects the indigenous practice of cacicazgo paralleled the Spanish institution of caudillos and caudillismo, though there were important differences. Both were patriarchal institutions in which political power was exercised by political strongmen through extensive networks of clients and subordinates.

In general, however, most caudillos were of Iberian extraction and gained power through their martial and political skills, while most caciques ruled indigenous communities by virtue of hereditary or natural right. In many communities, localized variants of the institution of cacicazgo continued into the 20th century, making it one of the most enduring forms of political practice in the Americas.