How Has the Zapatista Army of National Liberation Contributed to Democracy in Mexico - Research Paper Example

Zapatista The Zapatista (EZLN) Since 1929 up to 1994, Mexico was under the rule of one party. The people behind the party and even the party itself have changed names but essentially, it was the same hand that had Mexico within its tight grip. When it was organized in 1929, it was called Partido Nacional Revolucionario, renamed Partido de la Revolución Mexicana in 1938 and then Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) since 1946.1 Ruled by the elite, the Mexican government heavily marginalized the indigenous people settled in the resource-rich but impoverished southern states. In particular, Chiapas is a land of irony. Chiapas produces for 35% of Mexico’s total electricity output and yet 34% of its residents live in the dark without access to electricity. The state has vast tracks of cultivated agricultural lands and yet in 1993, official records state that fifteen thousand people died due to hunger and lack of proper medical care.2 Oppressed and neglected, the indigenous Indian tribes in Chiapas, Mexico started to organize and mobilize themselves to put an end to their sad plight. They started out as a small group of progressive Indians which eventually grew into thousands. They organized themselves in the jungle, away from the prying eyes of the government and its ruthless military. The EZLN’s history did not happen overnight. It was the product of careful and clandestine planning and organizing. “We did that for many years, and we did it in secret, without making a stir.  In other words, we joined forces in silence.3” After ten years of organizing and training in the jungles of Chiapas, The Ejército Zapatista de Liberación or EZLN was born, otherwise known as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. They took the name of Emiliano Zapata, a Mexican Revolution hero who championed land reform in Mexico and is also celebrated as the champion of the indigenous people in Southern Mexico.4 EZLN is a revolutionary group that adheres to the ideals of non-violence. Throughout their history, the only instance of violence on record is the 12 days of armed fighting following the January 1, 1994 takeover of four municipalities in Chiapas, namely, San Cristobal de las Casas, las Margaritas, Altamiro, and Ocosingo.5 Almost apologetic to the affected citizens and civilians, they put great emphasis on their declaration that the armed struggle was a measure of last resort because their previous nonviolent actions received little to no government attention and response.6 After 12 days of armed fighting and bloodshed on both sides, the Mexican government and the Zapatista entered into a ceasefire to make way for a peace process. Since then, the EZLN have successfully continued on the fight without shedding blood, combatant or civilians although they have continued with their member’s training in the handling of weapons and arsenals. Nevertheless, the Zapatista is still a military movement. Oxymoron as it may sound, but the Zapatista is an armed movement that carries its struggle in nonviolent ways.7 In the very same way that the EZLN seem to contradict itself on its position on the issues of violence and rebellion, their ideology is also a subject of debate. This confusion is brought by the lack of a categorical statement from the Zapatistas themselves as to their specific ideology. Their enumeration of goals and demands which could be identified with the ideals and ends sought by groups from both ends, including those in between of the political spectrum does little to no help either. In their various declarations, they merely refer to themselves as the “simple and humble” “Zapatistas of the EZLN.”8 On the one hand, there are some who observes that the EZLN rose out of the ranks of the leftist movements that espouse Marxist-Leninist ideals. It is argued that their demands enumerated in the First Declaration of the Lancandon Jungle are in accord with the leftist sentiments. The EZLN’s demands include "work, land, housing, food, health, education, independence, liberty, democracy, justice, and peace".9 Despite the inclusion of the words liberty and democracy in their list of goals, they are still viewed as communist ideologues hiding behind the poncho of indigenous Indians. On the other hand, there are some scholars like Pietro Ameglio who subscribes to the proposition that the EZLN is a class of its own, which gives birth to the concept called Zapatism10. The organization which grew out of the small group of Mayan-speaking Indians from the Tzotzil, Tzeltal, Tojolabal, Mam, Zoque, Lancandon, Mixe and Chol tribes11 are credited for developing a yet new form of political theory if not ideology. They wanted to create a legacy of democracy for their children and the future generations. They not only achieved that goal, they have also left the legacy of introducing a new ism for future generations to study and argue about. Zapatism refers to the peculiar brand developed by EZLN in its ten years of quiet struggle in the mountains. Its primary feature is its adherence to the ideals of active nonviolence as an effective means to create change in society and the government. It believes that the end does not justify the means. As explained by its leader Subcommandante Marcos himself, “We think that the means is the end. We construct our objective when we fashion the means for which we are struggling.”12 However, in contrast to Gandhism’s form of nonviolent revolution, EZLN bear arms and train themselves vigorously on the matter of guerilla techniques and strategy. They bear arms but they continually stress that “The EZLN maintains its commitment to an offensive ceasefire, and it will not make any attack against government forces or any offensive military movements.”13 Zapatism also has the distinctive feature of aiming for a rather radical political reform while stressing that it is not a political party. EZLN wants a participatory political process that is conducted from the bottom-up14. Perhaps oblivious to the possibility of a political stand-off or chaos as a result of constant power struggle, the EZLN political model proposes their own brand of “radical democracy” wherein elected officials sit in office for a world record term limit of only two weeks15. Obviously, they find this as a handy remedy against tyrant leaders who like to hang on to powers for decades. Naturally, a two-week term limit would mean having elections every two weeks. Moreover, they want their elected officials to continually and always consult the people for major fiscal and political decisions. This model would make referendums a weekly if not daily occurrence in Mexico. EZLN apparently are tired of being neglected on the sideline, just waiting for the decisions from above to trickle down its effects into the lives of the lowly citizens. Zapatistas want the government to always heed the voice of the people. In the words of Marcos himself, “my real commander is the people.”16 Interestingly, the EZLN declared itself as an ally of all those who struggle for the same cause as they are. In the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle, Zapatistas announced that they “wanted democracy, liberty and justice for all Mexicans although we were concentrated on the Indian peoples.” They invoked the national sentiment of oppression and inequality that includes the urban poor and other sectors that have been neglected by the government. With this principle, they are ensured of a wide mass-based support even in states that are outside their turf. The EZLN even expanded its declaration of solidarity not just with the people of Mexico but of the entire world. It concluded the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle by specifically addressing the groups involved in armed struggle in other countries in Latin America, Cuba, Africa, Asia, Oceania and Social Europe and told them that the Zapatista and its ideals shall always be with them. The EZLN shall be there not only to provide support in whatever capacity but also to learn from their experiences. In other words, EZLN is calling for cooperative alliance with all resistance forces around the world that fights for their umbrella goals of democracy, liberty and justice.17 The Zapatista proclaimed to the world that they “did not want to struggle just for own good, or just for the good of the indigenous of Chiapas, or just for the good of the Indian peoples of Mexico. We wanted to fight along with everyone who was humble and simple like ourselves and who was in great need and who suffered from exploitation and thievery by the rich and their bad governments here, in our Mexico, and in other countries in the world.”18 Perhaps this ambiguity over the EZLN’s ideology is the reason it has amassed huge public support and sympathy. By refusing to be stereotyped into any of the ideological groups, the EZLN finds an ally in every Mexican and foreign national who sees the Mayan plight as the microcosm of the current marginalization of indigenous communities around the world. By declaring general and broad goals and objectives rather than advocating for specific ideological aspirations, they can expect support from all groups who are fighting for the same ends, regardless of the means used. Zapatista and Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party In the year 2000, after 71 long years of exclusive rule, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) of Mexico saw its defeat amidst the growing discontent among the Mexicans. During the July 2, 2000 presidential election, the ruling party’s candidate lost to the opposition’s Vicente Fox.19 The opposition, particularly Fox’s National Action Party (PAN), also snatched majority of the seats both in congress and in the local governments.20 When the EZLN was launched, one of its primary goal was to oppose the neo-liberalist policies of the ruling PRI and its government. When Fox was elected to the Presidency on the platform of change that would prioritize the sentiments of Mexicans in general and the demands of the EZLN in particular, it was because the electorate was awakened to the real Mexican political situation by the vision of poor and ill-equipped Mayans bravely fighting for a cause. Hence, PRI’s defeat in the elections can be attributed to its failure to properly respond to the valid demands of the Zapatistas. After it was defeated in the 2000 national elections, the Institutional Revolutionary Party lost its grip of the Mexican political arena and eventually found it difficult to stage a comeback which eventually led to its somewhat natural and expected demise. Zapatista and the Media The Zapatista movement fought their struggle through wit and propaganda. They know about power of media in shaping public opinion and designed their warfare towards maximizing this valuable resource. The rebels took after the name of the hero of the 1810 Mexican Revolution, Emiliano Zapata, in order to identify themselves with the struggle for social justice that has marked Mexican history.21 The January 1, 1994 was never an impulsive decision of a leader anxious to grab power. Rather, it was a well-choreographed drama which was played on the stage of the four county seats of Chiapas which was viewed by the international audience. First, it was revealed that the deployment of rebels was dictated not by military strategy but more of a propaganda skit. What media could resist putting on its headline and banner story the image of ragged indigenous Indians armed with nothing but machete and toy guns22 bravely taking over the city palace on a New Year’s Day? Its clever utilization of media coverage catapulted the otherwise unheard-of group into international stardom. The EZLN quickly gained international sympathy which encouraged the media to post news about the movement, which in turn flared global support for the poor and oppressed Indian revolutionaries of Chiapas. Who could resist and not feel sorry for the cartoon character developed by the rebels, Don Dorito? He is the eloquent little beetle who personifies the life of the lowly Indian who dodges the angry stumps of the gigantic and mighty government?23 What unfolded thereafter was exactly just as envisioned by Subcommandante Marcos, who admitted that “The television cameras would focus on the…ragtag army of landless Mayans mostly armed with toy guns…it worked exactly as planned.”24 After they have taken over the municipal palace of San Cristobal, EZLN made sure that those who did not witness their show were notified about it. They formulated a Declaration of War against the government of Mexico and sent them to all media outlets they reach find including radio, television, and print25. Both the local and international press received front-row tickets to a press conference where Zapatistas appeared wearing black ski masks.26 “The war was carried on as if it were a performance.”27 And to ensure that all they get are sympathetic reports and reviews, they intentionally excluded the pro-government media from their press conferences and media briefings.28 Indeed, it proved to be such a blockbuster such that after one month since the rebellion was launched, the government was forced to declare a cease-fire amid popular public support for the Indian rebels. In fact, an estimated crowd of one hundred thousand supporters marched in Mexico City to show their solidarity with the indigenous fighters taking a stand in Chiapas.29 The Zapatista movement also received wide support from the academe, both locally in Mexico and internationally, especially the United States of America. The academe was primarily responsible for the translation and distribution of communication materials and other paraphernalia from the EZLN to the media and vice versa. The sympathetic academe also established various websites and forms centered on the Zapatista and their struggle for independence and land reform. The EZLN have been immensely successful with their propaganda campaign which prompted Mexico’s Foreign Minister in 1995, José Angel Gurría, to proclaim that the Zapatista rebellion is one that is a "Guerra de Tinta y de Internet" ("a war of ink and of the Internet").30 Aptly, since the indigenous peasants are no match to the weapons and military capability of the Mexican government they chose to fight their war where they could level the playing field. The Zapatista rebellion “has been one of ideas and images rather than bullets and guns.”31 Opting to take the nonviolence route to social justice enabled the EZLN to strike a cord in the hearts of Indians and Mexicans alike that there is a need for change. They were very clever indeed to have realized too soon that using violence to further their goals would only alienate them from the rest of the civilian population. Quite ironically, although the EZLN have not been using force and violence in their fight for recognition and respect of their dignity as indigenous population, the government has been continually pursuing “peace talks” with the rebels. These peace talks are not aimed at ending a non-existent violence but on silencing the rebel’s successful propaganda.32 And the government has been giving in to their demands for social reform. Apparently, the ancient saying that the pen is mightier than the sword still holds true in this day and age of remote-controlled attack planes and biochemical warfare. Perhaps the most telling event of the the EZLN’s success in harnessing the power of the media to their advantage is the February 2001 Zapatista tour. This was marked by the historic 12-state tour embarked by the rebels on their way to the country’s capital, Mexico City. The tour was not just a means of getting to Mexico City from the jungles of Chiapas. It was rather a well-calculated move designed to gather renewed public support and media attention in the wake of their appearance in Congress. The tour finally culminated in an unprecedented Zapatista “invasion” of Congress on March 27, 200133 where they issued a statement of support the indigenous rights reform34 bill submitted by president Fox to congress. Zapatista Ten Years Later: Inasmuch as media has been a powerful tool that leads to the success of the revolution, it was also found to be the bane that caused the EZLN to lose public support in the years that followed. Media overhyped and sensationalized the EZLN rebellion such that it reached a point when the public may just have had enough and the drama that was Zapatista rebellion just fizzled out into near oblivion. Add to that the more current and pressing issues that directly affect the Mexican population, like unemployment, economic crisis, crime and the drug wars, and you get issues on land reform being pushed into the inside pages of newspapers. As a matter of fact, a survey was conducted in mid-1994 and the results showed that traffic issues were viewed by the respondents as more serious that the threat posed by the Zapatista revolt.35 It was believed that the dwindling of public interest in the revolt was due to unmet public expectations. It appears that because of the rebellion was launched in great style the public expected the same fanfare to be sustained throughout. When the EZLN failed to deliver by keeping the movement in the spotlight, the public lost interest and the support waned as well. The Zapatistas “were not quite savvy enough to keep up with the rapid changes that popular culture demands.”36 Conclusion EZLN was never a perfect liberation “army” or “society”. Whichever term we choose to refer to the Zapatista is of no moment in evaluating its legacy in Mexican democracy. Neither does its own brand of Zapatism was ever the perfect ism which brought down the powerful ruling party and installed a working democracy in its place. Neither EZLN nor Zapatism could confidently and accurately claim that they brought democracy to Mexico and liberty and equality among Mexicans, indigenous or otherwise. However, one thing is sure. Zapatista was the little candle in the dark that kept the lights of justice, equality and democracy alive. The January 1, 1994 Zapatista revolt was the spark that lighted the fire that burned down the house of the oppressive regime. Zapatista kindled the lights of democracy and brought it out of the jungle and into the streets of Mexico so that all Mexicans may unite and fight for their rights. Admittedly, Zapatista did not single-handedly bring democracy in Mexico. But then again, had the Zapatista not mustered enough courage to launch that New Year’s Day takeover of Chiapas, where might Mexico be at present? Indeed, the simple and humble Zapatistas of the EZLN helped the Mexicans fight for democracy and actually got it. Bibliography: Ameglio, Pietro. Zapatism and Gandhism: Borders that Touch the Realm of Social Struggle. The Acorn. EZLN. Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona June, 2005. https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/SixthDeclaration.html Flores, Roberto. Breaking the Ideological Hold. In Motion Magazine. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/chbilin.html Flores, Roberto. From Disillusionment and Abandonment to Autonomy: Zapatista Bilingual Indigenous Education in Chiapas, Mexico. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/zbie1.html Lupher, Antonio. The Zapatista rebellion in Mexico. May 6, 2006. Harvard International Review. http://hir.harvard.edu/international-trade/fox-and-ezln McCowan, Clint. Imagining the Zapatistas: Rebellion, Representation and Popular Culture. Volume XIV, 2003. International Third World Studies Journal and Review. http://www.unomaha.edu/itwsjr/thirdXIV/McCowan.Zapatistas.pdf Paramio, Ludolfo. Mexico 2000: The End of a Regime. Democracy in Mexico. Fride. 2001. www.fride.org Pellarolo, Sirena. Zapatista Women: A Revolutionary Process Within a Revolution. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/auto/sp_zw.html Navarro, Luis. The Zapatista Horizon. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/lhn_horizonte.html Rollins, Grace. Zapatistas Winning the Mexican Media War. Yale Herald Online. 2001. Available at http://yaleherald.com/archive/xxxi/2001.03.30/opinion/p11azapatistas.html Selfa, Lance. Mexico After the Zapatista Uprisng. Issue 75. International Socialism (Britain). Published July 1997 http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj75/selfa.htm Sipaz. Brief History of the Conflict in Chiapas: 1994-2007. http://www.sipaz.org/crono/proceng.htm The Web and Material Matters. The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~faigley/work/material_literacy/matters.html Zapatista. San Cristobal Delas Casas Mexico. Available at http://www.sancristobaldelascasasmexico.com/zapatistas.php Read More