Ourgrations

Chiapas: Zapatistas: not a democracy

On January 1, 1994, The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed. The passage of NAFTA would eventually remove tariffs on most goods produced and sold in North America and exported between the three North American countries. The passage of NAFTA allowed corporations to buy land that belonged to indigenous people and use it to produce cheap exports. This put a strain on local farmers and merchants who had to compete with the new "cash crops." The same day that NAFTA was passed, a group called the Zapatista National Liberation Army (also called the EZLN or the Zapatistas) came out in armed rebellion against local and national authorities. The Zapatistas said that NAFTA was a "death sentence."

Bishop Samuel Ruiz of San Cristóbal de las Casas said that the Zapatistas were different from past guerrilla groups. He said: "They don't want to seize power. This is something new. They want to create a democratic process that all Mexicans take part in. They want recognition of indigenous culture, history and autonomy." The Zapatista movement in Chiapas procliam to be a participatory democracy. However, in today's free-market information age, only a democracy will be able to meet the demands of the people.

The Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) has had difficult coming up with a type of government that will support the people of Mexico. Their views spread from anarchy to Marxism and even to democracy. Although the Zapatista National Liberation Army proclaims to be a participatory democracy, they provide evidence that they are not through their actions and public statements.

The Zapatista's method for change is very unconventional and hypocritical. In a letter written by the EZLN's main speaker, Subcomandante Marcos, it says, "We do not struggle to take power, we struggle for democracy, liberty, and justice" (Parkins, 2003, ¶ 21). This idea of establishing democracy, liberty, and justice, is impossible to do without taking power. What Marcos is suggesting would be like asking the dictator of China to change his government from communist to democracy. He would not do it because he would loose power. Some group would have to rise up and force him to yield his power. Marcos's idea is improbable. Despite Marcos's statement that the EZLN does not struggle to take power, the group's actions reveal the hypocrisy of his statement. The uprising that occurred on January 1, 1994 shows that the Zapatista have tried to gain power, but have failed.

A statement made by the Zapatista communiqué said, "It is possible to govern and to govern ourselves without the parasite that calls itself government" (Parkins, 2003, ¶ 6). Despite this sentence's poor syntax, the message being conveyed is reminiscent of anarchical rule. Anarchy is defined as an "absence of any form of political authority" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy). The Zapatista's idea that it is possible for people to govern their selves without any form of government reveals the party's contempt for government. It is ironic though, that a political party would promote anarchy sense anarchy discredits the whole idea of a political party system.

Because of the gap between the rich and the poor, the Zapatistas have also associated Marxist ideal with their party. Chiapas is known because of the wealthy people that live there, however, the majority of the people are some of the poorest in Mexico. According to Marxism, "the lower middle class [or the proletariat]...fights against the bourgeoisie" (Marx, 1848, p.1389). The Zapatistas are the proletariat and they are fighting against the rich class known as the bourgeoisie. The Zapatistas believe that the government, or bourgeoisie, is incompetent and has no purpose any longer. The proletariat must rise up and take control of the government. The EZLN, as stated before however, does not believe in government rule.

In a letter written by Marcos in 1995 it says, "We want to participate directly in the decisions which concern us, to control those who govern us, without regard to their political affiliation, and oblige them to the 'rule by obeying'" (Parkins, 2003, ¶ 21). Marcos's statement does contain some elements of democracy which lead the reader away from his true intentions. An example of this is his desire to "participate directly in the decisions which concern us." Marcos's idea of the "rule of obeying" is an example of the contagion of American ideals. The Zapatistas got this idea of the rule of obeying from the American idea of the rule of law. While the rule of law gives assurance that the principles of liberty will be upheld within the government, the rule of obeying conveys the idea that choice will be taken from the people and replaced with force. One aspect of the "rule of law" is that the people must agree on the laws of the land. This idea is known as consent. Although there is always opposition in the government and the laws which it passes, the majority of people agree with the law. If this is not so the law would be changed according to the voice of the people. No where in Marcos's letter does it say anything about voting. The phrase "rule of obeying" conveys the idea that an outside force will cause someone to obey. This idea is supported by Marcos's rhetoric. His use of the words control, oblige, and obeying give the statement a sense of contention and forcefulness. The most fundamental democratic ideal of choice is being destroyed when the government forces the people to obey laws which they have not given their consent to. It seems as though the Zapatista's words are hiding their actions.

In 1996, the Zapatistas held a global meeting and formed the People's Global Action (PGA) in order to resist neo-liberalism. The group's main tactic is to promote civil disobedience without any violence. This idea of civil disobedience comes from the Civil Rights Movement in America during the 1960s. This concept goes against the idea of the rule of law. The civil disobedience endorsed by Martin Luther King Jr. was justifiable in the sense that they were not breaking Federal law, only state law. Sense Federal law has higher authority than the state's laws do, what King and his supporters did was justified. Disobeying the laws of the land does not promote peace. This organization threatens to disobey the laws of the law. This is ironic sense they believe in the rule of obeying. Once the laws of the law cease to be upheld and vigilantes begin taking power, anarchy follows.

It is clear that although the Zapatistas proclaim to be a participatory democracy, they reveal their true identity through their perverted ideals of liberty and hypocritical actions.

References

Parkins, Keith. (2003). Zapatistas. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/zapatistas.htm

Rivera, Ruben. (2003, September 15). Mexico: The Zapatista Army and the Caracoles—A Marxist Analysis. Retrieved April 12, 2006 from http://www.marxist.com/mexico-zapatista-caracoles150903.htm

Marx, Karl. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist Party. In The Norton Anthology Western Literature (pp. 1382–1390). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy