💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000708.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:34:18.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Red & Black Revolution
A magazine of libertarian communism
Issue 1 October 1994
Produced by Workers Solidarity Movement
Review: LOW INTENSITY DEMOCRACY
Edited by Barry Gills, Joel Rocamora and
Richard Wilson. PLUTO PRESS.
Any discussion on the subject of democracy
faces a critical problem early on - a
problem of definition. In his contribution
to Low Intensity Democracy, Noam Chomsky
notes the essential modus operandi of
conservative forces in society today and in
times past when he states that the guardians
of world order have sought to establish
democracy in one sense of the term while
blocking it in another.
The preferred sense of democracy, also known
as parliamentary democracy or Western
democracy, is relatively well known to many
on the left today. Chomsky himself has done
immeasurable work in recent years in further
highlighting the undemocratic nature of
parliamentary based societies - countries
such as Ireland, Britain and the USA being
cases in point.
Even so, there is still considerable debate
and disagreement on the merits of fighting
for the establishment of parliamentary
democracy in societies where this form of
political structure is not already in place.
Broadly speaking, the debate often centres
on whether the establishment of
parliamentary democracy acts as a stimulus
to a further democratisation of society or
as a brake.
TESTING TIMES
In past times the debate may have seemed
marginal. Few, apart from those influenced
by anarchism, questioned their involvement
with the parliamentary process. But this
has changed. Across the world today there
are a greater number of countries in the
throes of testing the debate out in practice
than at any other time in recent history.
Not just countries belonging to the former
Soviet block - Ukraine, Russia, Poland,
Belarus - but also others such as South
Africa, El Salvador, and Thailand to name
but a few.
In Low Intensity Democracy, four countries
are examined in reasonable depth by the
contributors. These are South Korea,
Argentina, Guatemala and the Philippines.
All differ in the manner by which
parliamentary democracy arrived at their
doorsteps. Both S. Korea and the
Philippines conceded parliamentary
democratic regimes under the pressure of
popular mass action; Argentina and
Guatemala, less so.
In Argentina the current democratic turn
began in 1983 when the military stepped down
in disgrace, having mismanaged both the
economy and the Malvinas war. Significant
opposition to continued military rule was
growing but at the time of the transfer of
power to a civilian administration it was
not the decisive element in forcing change.
Similarly, Guatemala's democracy came on
foot of negotiations between the military
and the guerrilla opposition, following a
prolonged period of war and repression;
broader civilian society was not directly
involved in events.
South Korea and the Philippines were
markedly different. For the purposes of
this review the case of S. Korea will be
looked at more closely:
Background - The democratic struggles that
shook S. Korea in 1987/88 emerged from a
growing resistance to the dictatorship that
was installed in S. Korea in 1961, after a
military coup. In the early sixties S.
Korea was less industrialised than N. Korea.
With the military in the driving seat, after
the coup, rapid economic growth became a
regime obsession. Authoritarianism in S.
Korea reached a peak in the 70s. At the
juridical core were the national security
laws and the anti-Communist laws, the so-
called bad laws that effectively banned any
political activity outside the consensus of
the establishment. Giant conglomerates,
known as chaebol, were the main
beneficiaries of military largesse. The
chaebol were distinctive in their own right
in that they were family owned and usually
family managed.
LOW COST
By 1985, S. Korea had one of the highest
concentrations of capital in the world. The
top 10 chaebol accounted for one-third of
total exports and one third of total GNP.
The low cost of labour underpinned rapid
accumulation by the business class via
export-oriented industrialisation. This
strategy required political control over
labour by the state and by employers"... By
law, organised labour was forbidden to have
any political or financial ties to any
political parties." Nevertheless, the
authoritarian regime could not entirely
ignore the political interests of labour
"...Therefore the state allowed the real
wages to rise slowly and steadily behind
increased productivity and spurts of
economic growth."
Crisis - Despite recent economic success, S.
Korea has been rocked by crisis at periodic
intervals. This reflects a tradition of
popular resistance to authoritarianism that
is a constant in Korean politics. But,
also, it is a reflection of economic
realities. The crisis of 1986-88 that
heralded in the current democratic regime
was no different in this respect. Its
immediate background lay in the popular
perception that S. Korea had finally arrived
at the promised land of economic success.
The period 85-87 was one of economic boom -
a fact reflected in a substantial trade
surplus which had not been previously
achieved in S. Korea. A number of ancillary
factors tied into the mood of optimism:
The Chun presidential term, in effect a
dictatorship, was to be the last. Both
domestic and international interests had
been promised a peaceful transfer of power.
Macros in the Philippines had been
overthrown in the popular upsurge known as
people's power in 1986. This encouraged
anti-dictatorship forces in S. Korea.
The impending Seoul Olympics constrained the
options of the military with regard to
outright repression of any challenge to its
authority.
President Chun effectively announced in
April 87 that military rule under his
presidency would not end, after all, as had
been promised. A popular uprising in June
87 followed. Massive demonstrations
occurred, lasting 18 days. Over 120,000
combat police were called in to contain the
upsurge. Nevertheless, the democracy
movement was overwhelming in nature, linking
both workers and middle-class in opposition
to continued military rule.
Concession - A number of possible options
were considered. Pragmatists within the
military regime understood the futility of
using military force to repress the
uprising. As importantly, the U.S.
signalled its opposition to martial law, or
a new coup to replace Chun. Concessions to
democratic forces were the favoured option
to contain a further escalation. An Eight
Point Plan for reform was announced which
included: direct presidential elections,
freedom for political prisoners, "... an end
to press censorship, local government
autonomy and guarantees on human rights."
However, there was no concession or promise
on economic reform.
Restoration - Economic reform and some, even
minor, redistribution of wealth was the
ultimate goal of the democratic upsurge of
87. Could the Eight Point Plan deliver
this, even indirectly? As the author Barry
Gills notes, "the democratisation that
occurred in 87/88 set in motion a re-
alignment of political forces.." But, he
continues "... it would be an error to
mistake this as the genuine substance of
democracy." Popular input into the new S.
Korea was to be channelled into three
legitimate avenues - presidential elections;
parliamentary elections and local elections.
ACCOUNTABILITY
In regard to parliament and local
authorities, the options open to the S.
Korean electorate were limited, to say the
least. Parliament in particular, but also
the local authorities, had little power in
the new order; executive power remained with
the presidency. Gills notes that the
political parties remained vehicles for
leadership cliques and bastions of
regionalism rather than true parties based
on platform, principle or accountability to
constituency. No effective say in South
Korean society could be garnered by the
public from either of these avenues. What
about the presidential office?
The first direct and free presidential
elections returned Noh Tae Woo as the first
post-Chun president of S. Korea. Noh's
success, on only one-third of all votes
cast, followed on from the fragmentation of
the anti-dictatorship movement in the
immediate aftermath of the Eight Point Plan.
Noh, billed as an ordinary man, was a former
general and the candidate of the
dictatorship. In the period up to and
including the Seoul Olympics he played a
populist front - but the eventual fate of
these inclinations, indicate how limited the
new democracy in S. Korea was. Noh
appointed Cho Soon, a well-known liberal and
economics professor to address a number of
issues for economic reform - including the
possible provision of social welfare to S.
Korean society. In fact, Cho Soon never
even got around to making proposals in this
area.
Initially, he concerned himself with
introducing a more competitive domestic
economic environment. Essentially he wanted
to curb the power of the chaebol in the
domestic market where it had a stranglehold
on investment funds and resources. He
introduced two key proposals - the Real Name
System and the Public Concept of Land. Both
proposals involved minor constraints on the
chaebol: the former would require all
financial transactions to include the names
of all those actually involved in the deals;
the latter was intended to curb rampant land
speculation and irresponsible development.
Both proposals, however, were ditched in
1989 since they were considered too
controversial - Cho Soon lost his job and
was later replaced with a pro-chaebol
appointee. Proposals on social welfare
never saw the light of day.
HARD HIT
In the aftermath of the Seoul Olympics, the
new democratic regime dropped its more
populist pretensions and moved against the
only other force in society had maintained a
momentum of struggle against the ruling
interests of the chaebol. This was
organised labour. Strikes and wage
settlements had been at their highest in
1987 - 88 and had caused record damage in
production and export loss. Hyundai were
particularly hard hit. Demands by labour
went well beyond the traditional areas of
concern for workers and called for the
democratisation process to be brought into
the arena of industrial relations. This was
not acceptable.
The perceived necessity for the political
defeat of organised labour was at the heart
of conservative restoration. The Noh regime
moved decisively against the workers'
movement in the Spring of 1989. An active
policy of strike breaking was resumed, along
with the arrest of union leaders, using the
full force of the state combat police. A
ban on public sector unions was enforced -
culminating in the break-up of the newly
formed National Teacher Union and the
sacking of over 1,500 for participating in
illegal union activities.
Conclusion - The democratisation process in
Korea came full circle. Authoritarianism
was challenged by a mass movement for
democratisation in 1987. This produced a
period of rapid change in which corporatism
was weakened and civil society gained more
autonomy from the state. However, elites
adjusted by forming a broader coalition of
the military, business and the middle-class
in order to restore conservative hegemony.
Therefore, the fundamental nature of the
system remained unchanged.
Broadly speaking then, the movement for
democracy achieved minimal success in S.
Korea. Minor, let alone fundamental,
economic redress in favour of the mass of S.
Korean society did not occur. The regime
liberalised when it had to, but later it
clawed back these gains made by wider
society and the workers' movement in
particular.
In looking at the overall developments of
events in S. Korea, two other factors are
also worth noting. These are the role
played by the United States and secondly,
the subsequent fragmentation of the pro-
democracy movement in the face of some
concession from the dictatorship. In regard
to the U.S. role, the central point is that
on this occasion the U.S. sided with the
pragmatic wing of the dictatorship and came
out in favour of democratic reforms as
outlined in the Eight Point Plan. This
reflects a significant shift in the
assessment of U.S. strategic interests, a
process begun under the Reagan regime
(Crusade for Democracy, 1982, p9).
DEBATE
Secondly, in the face of concessions from
the regime - the Eight Point Plan - the pro-
democracy movement split on its response and
future direction. The particular concession
of new local, parliamentary and presidential
elections succeeded in divesting the
movement of its unity and single-mindedness.
As Gills states (p249), "the radical wing of
the democratisation movement also fragmented
... Much of this debate revolved around the
question of whether to participate in the
electoral arena or remain underground.
Among those supporting electoral
participation there was a further split
between those favouring support for one
mainstream opposition party and those
wanting to form a separate left-wing party."
Any assessment of the success or failure of
any particular democracy movement must base
itself on the potential possible as well as
the practical results achieved. This can be
put another way. To what extent has the
removal of dictatorship simply led to the
replacement of the old order with a newer,
more sophisticated form of neo-
authoritarianism? As indeed happened in S.
Korea. Today, the chaebol conduct their
business and exploitation under the cover of
being a free democratic society. Concluding
then on S. Korea: social and economic
oppression has stabilised since the pro-
democracy struggles of the mid to late
eighties. A result that U.S. interests
would, no doubt, be very satisfied with.
This is a central theme emerging from Low
Intensity Democracy. The debate on
parliamentary democracy has moved on from
the stagnant format of past times when only
the anarchists had serious reservations
about parliamentary democracy. Democracy,
that is parliamentary democracy, is now
sponsored by U.S. and international business
interests - IMF and World Bank - to the
extent that it does provide a better cover
than any other political system for the" ...
generalised offensive for the liberation of
market forces" . In past times it was
reasonable to expect a modicum of social
reform during a transition from dictatorship
to parliamentary democracy. Indeed this was
the central basis for supporting such
transitions. Not so any more.
The wave of parliamentary democracies that
have emerged in past decades have done so
under the aegis of a growing domination of
all national interests by the interests of
international free market politics or, in
other words, that system which seeks the
ideological rehabilitation of the absolute
superiority of private property,
legitimisation of social inequalities and
anti-statism of all kinds. There are now a
significant number of examples of where the
onset of parliamentary democracy has
actually increased inequality or stabilised
it at current levels, particularly where it
has caused, as it did in S. Korea, a
fragmentation of the pro-democracy movement.
This raises a key problem. The role played
by parliamentary democracy in demobilising
struggles for fundamental change has
generally been underplayed. In part this
has reflected an enduring weakness in that
section of the left that has derived the
greater proportion of its politics from
formal Marxism.
WORKERS PARTY
Here the arguments in favour of
participation, whether this is on the basis
of existing parties or by the creation of a
new workers party, rest centrally on
pragmatism but also on naivete. On the one
hand it is said the arena of parliamentary
democracy is too large and too central to
much of political discourse to be ignored.
To leave the field of parliament to the
political parties of the moderate left,
centre and right is to abandon one's
constituency. Or, so the argument goes.
But, on the other hand, there is delusion
about what is possible. The comments of
Frederick Engels back in 1895 as he observed
the electoral growth of the German socialist
party, the SDP, being a case in point :
"Its growth proceeds as spontaneously , as
steadily , as irrepressibly , and at times
as tranquilly as a natural process. All
Government intervention has proved powerless
against it ...If it continues in this
fashion, by the end of the century we shall
...grow into the decisive power in the land,
before which all powers will have to bow,
whether they like it or not."
But, pragmatism and naivete aside, there is
also a weakness of critique on the left that
centres on the problem of definition and
what democracy involves. Many on the left
equate parliament with democracy. Few
enough, in fact, have criticised the
parliamentary road from the perspective of
content. Instead they have accepted it and
its methodology. Yet, how much progress is
achievable through parliament? What level
of participation does it even allow? Most
importantly, what effect does opting for the
parliamentary road have on the broader
movement for social change? Particularly on
grass root organisations, which are, after
all, the bedrock of any pro-democracy
movement?
In recent years, there has been a more far
searching examination on the left of its
history and traditions than at any time
previous. Circumstances and the apperance
of failure have prompted this. But how far
is that re-examination going to go?
One thing is clear. There is a deeper
realignment underway than is currently being
imagined. And the debate on the nature of
democracy and the part it plays in social
change is part of this. But, one is not
talking about parliamentary democracy here.
There is a tradition of democratic struggle
on the left that eschewed any involvement
with the parliamentary method. This was for
clear, practical reasons. Democracy, in
this tradition, centred on the union, on the
process of struggle and on participation.
It was not about representing the ideas of
others. It was about building up experience
and confidence in the grass-roots on the
method of democracy so that, when the time
came and inequality was confronted, workers
could proceed immediately to the
socialisation of production. Centrally, it
was about building up a counter-power in
society to the power of the state. But
importantly, a democratic, grass-roots
counter-power.
The editors of Low Intensity Democracy note
the importance of this other tradition when
they say that the example of the Spanish
anarchists earlier in the twentieth century
should now be examined as an alternative
model of revolutionary social
transformation. From this perspective
democracy must be painstakingly built up and
constantly defended through concrete popular
organisations embedded in the workplace and
the community.
It is a measure of how times are changing
that anarchists get a fair hearing in this
area that is central to real change.
Red & Black Revolution
A magazine of libertarian communism
Issue 1 October 1994
Produced by Workers Solidarity Movement
The EZLN
The name of the Zapatista National
Liberation Army (EZLN) rebels is taken from
the Emilano Zapata who played a major role
in the Mexican Revolution {1910 - 1921}. 73
years has passed since the Mexican
Revolution . The memory of Zapata had faded
onto the worn pages of history.Indeed the
heirs of the betrayers of Zapata, headed by
the Institutional Revolutionary Party and
President Carlos Sallinas, are in power
today in Mexico. They have remained in
power for the last 75 years. But the
Zapatistas have come back to haunt them.
A New Year a New Dawn.
On New Years Day of 1994 people awoke to the
news that four towns in the south-eastern
state of Chiapas had been taken over by a
group calling itself the Zapatista National
Liberation Army. Militarily they had timed
their strike against the Mexican army well
and thus even managed to capture General
Abslon Castellanos (former Chiapas
Governor). Initially they took San
Cristobal de Las Casas then Oxchuc a town
36km away. They ransacked 10 government
offices. They freed 179 prisoners from the
prison in San Cristobal and attacked the
army garrison on January 2nd.
They stated: "We have nothing to lose,
absolutely nothing, no decent roof over our
heads, no land, no work, poor health, no
food, no education, no right to freely and
democratically choose our leaders, no
independence from foreign interests, and no
justice for ourselves or our children. But
we say enough is enough! We are the
descendants of those who truly built this
nation, we are millions of dispossessed, and
we call upon all our brethren to join our
crusade, the only option to avoid dying of
starvation !"
On January 4th the big guns hit back. Ten
towns in the surrounding area of San
Cristobal were bombed. Reports came in of
at least 400 killed in the bombing. Five
reported EZLN rebels were found dead in
Ocosingo. In another town, the Zapatistas
shot down a helicopter, burned down the city
hall and then left. The bodies of 38 people
who had been killed by the federal army were
found. The next day 70 tanks arrived in the
conflict zone and the army attacked a van
killing 5 civilians including one 8 year old
girl. Various government ministries
circulated black propaganda about the group
labelling them radical with a professional
foreign leadership. The authorities also
stated that the presence of human rights
organisations "hinders the dismantling of
such a movement".
Why Chiapas ?
The EZLN is based amongst the indigenous
people who live in and around the jungle of
Lacandona, east of the high plains of
Chiapas. Chiapas is an atrociously poor
area. 41% of the population have no running
water. 34.9% are without electricity. 63%
of the people live in accommodation of only
one room. 19% of the labour force has no
possible income and 67% of the labour force
live on or below the minimum wage - in
Mexico you can take this as being very
little. Despite Article 27(1) which
promises Land Reform in the constitution
nothing has happened in this area.
President Sallinas recently changed Article
27 further wiping out any hopes for agrarian
reform. Northern Mexico has developed
factories to cater for companies making use
of cheap labour. The southern part of
Mexico has been left to become a wilderness.
The EZLN fears that NAFTA(2) (North American
Free Trade Agreement) will keep Chiapas
further isolated and underdeveloped.
After the first initial days of hostilities
the EZLN withdrew to the Lacandona jungle
where they now are involved in negotiations.
A cease-fire which began on January 17th has
held despite the army breaking on a number
of occasions. In February negotiations took
place inside a belt composing of
representatives from the NGO's (4non-
governmental agencies). Invitations were
issued to the various political parties
asking them to participate in the peace
talks. No weapons have been handed over to
the Mexican army.
The State adopted a more conciliatory
approach after the international
condemnation of the bombing raid on January
5th. The move towards negotiation seems
only to have come about due to the light of
international attention, as prior to this
Mexico's record in human rights is a
diabolical one.
"Torture was frequently used by law-
enforcement agents particularly the state
and judicial police, throughout Mexico.
Most victims were criminal suspects but some
including leaders of indigenous communities
and human rights activists were apparently
targeted solely for their peaceful political
activities."(3) As of February'94 the
Secretariat of Human rights of the main
opposition party - Party of Democratic
Revolution (PRD) - reported that 263 of
their members, activists and supporters have
been assassinated since the 1988 electoral
campaign.
The EZLN rejected a request to drop
political points from the agenda saying that
they were not going to force national
agreements but that as Mexicans they had "a
right to form opinions and to protest about
aspects of Mexico's political life". In
this letter they go on to say that "Peace
without respect and dignity continues to be,
for us, an undeclared war of the powerful
against our people". They then went on to
show their willingness for 'peace with
dignity' by withdrawing from certain towns
and letting the International Red Cross move
in and take control declaring them 'grey
areas'. They also said that they would
allow free passage of civilians while
maintaining mobile patrols to ensure no
military, police, or government officials
entered the 'grey zones'.
In another statement issued to national
newspapers the EZLN asked "Why is everyone
so quiet? Is this the 'democracy' you
wanted? Complicity with lies?" Going on to
say "How much blood must be spilt before
they (PRI) understand that we want respect
not charity ?" The statement finishes with
the important lines
"The CCRI-CG (Clandestine Revolutionary
Indigenous Committee General Command) of the
EZLN will go to the negotiating table with
reservation because of its lack of
confidence of the federal government. They
want to buy us with a ton of promises. They
want us to sell the only thing we have left
: dignity. The 1st of January was not
enough for the government to learn to speak
to its citizens as equals. It seems that
more than January 1 are necessary.
...........Here Zapata lives. Try to
assassinate him again. Our blood is a
pledge. That it be taken by he who is still
ashamed."
They also issued a communique to all the
NGO's operating within the conflict zone
saying that they continued to "respect and
welcome their neutrality and humanitarian
efforts".
The month of February and March is littered
with accounts of the spreading popularity of
the EZLN. There was a march of 300kms by
nearly 200 indigenous people to the
outskirts of Mexico city. Banners displayed
read "This dialogue we don't understand"
which was a reference to the massacre of
students in 1968 and the more recent one in
Chiapas. A demonstration for agrarian
reform in Oaxaca was attacked by police.
Students calling themselves 'Zapatistas'
protested at a stop by the presidential
candidate of the PRI. In Puebla local
indigenous groups blocked the highway. In
Tamaulipas dissident oil workers at the
state petro-chemical industry (PIMEX) broke
with their unions and organised strikes,
blockades and demonstrations at the plants.
Unarmed Indians have staged land take-overs
in the state of Chiapas - throughout the
Mayan Highlands. There are reports that
over 120,000 hectares of land has been
expropriated from large private land
owners(5). On April 10th, 77 years after
the death of Emilano Zapata large
demonstrations were organised and took place
in support of EZLN demands in Mexico city.
In June the EZLN rejected a peace offer set
forth by the Government.
"Declaration of the Jungle" issued by the
EZLN
"We call upon Article 39 of the Mexican
Constitution which states 'the people have
at all times the inalienable right to alter
or change the nature of their government.'
Therefore in accordance with our
Constitution, we issue this DECLARATION OF
WAR... People of Mexico, we call for your
total participation in this struggle for
work, land, housing, food, health care,
education, independence, liberty, democracy,
justice and peace."
Where are they coming from ?
"We are not Marxists, nor are we guerrillas.
We are Zapatistas and we are an army."
EZLN Major
The first days of 1994 saw the resurgence of
the name of Zapata on the airwaves of the
world. The EZLN, are only the most public
face of the Chiapas conflict. The EZLN act
as an army, under the direction of a larger
organisation, the CRIC-GC . The CRIC-GC is
comprised of delegates from many indigenous
communities and it is they who are
responsible for the politics and
organisation of the EZLN. The CRIC-GC is
the highest authority of the movement. The
EZLN is subservient to them and exists to
carry out their wishes.
Major Benjamin of the EZLN says "We are
not Maoists or Marxists, sir. We are a
group of campesinos, workers and students
for whom the government has left no other
path than arms to resolve our ancestral
problems.(6)"
To understand what being a Zapatista means
one has to go back to the origins of todays
EZLN. In 1983 twelve young people entered
Chiapas to organise the oppressed
population. A vital lesson taught to these
young people was that of democratic
organisation. Sub Commandante Marcos
revealed "The Zapatista army was not born
democratic, it was born as a political
military organisation. But as it grew the
organisational methods of the communities
began to permeate and dominate our movement,
to the degree that the leadership of the
EZLN has become democratic in the indigenous
manner."
The CRIC-GC is organised though a delegate
based democracy. It is composed of
delegates from each town and community. It
is responsible for the politics and
organisation of the EZLN and is its highest
authority. The decision to take up armed
struggle came first and the CRIC-GC grew
from this decision.
"So we decided that there is no way other
than to organise and rise up like this in
armed struggle. So we began to organise
ourselves like that, secretly, in a
revolutionary organisation. But, as it
advanced, each people elected its
representatives, its leaders. By making the
decision in that way , the people themselves
proposed who will lead these organisations.
The people themselves have named us. So
first, someone from each people has been
named responsible. In that way we advanced
town by town, so that there was time, then
to name delegates. In that way we came to
be the CCRI.(7)" Sub commander Marcos is
answerable to the CRIC-GC but remains the
leader when it comes to military matters.
The delegate based democracy on which the
CRIC-GC is based is best explained by a
young Zapatista Isaac "if some member of the
CCRI does not do their work, if they do not
respect the people, well compa it is not
your place to be there. Then, well excuse
us but we will have to put another in your
place." This is how the community
understand democracy and it is easy to see
why they see no relation to what the
'democracy' the PRI currently exercise in
Mexico.
The conditions these people find themselves
in are harsh yet they can still operate a
form of participatory democracy. This
disproves the lie put forth by Leninists
that in difficult conditions a dictatorship
over the people must take place in 'their
interests'. It comes as no surprise that
the Zapatistas repeatedly deny being
Marxists or Leninists as these forms of
political ideology have difficulty with the
idea of participatory democracy.
Through this democratic process the EZLN
developed politics on a wide range of
issues. For example the Women's
revolutionary law supports the right of
women to participate fully in the
revolutionary struggle, control their own
fertility, choose partners, and has regard
to their health, education, and well being.
This signifies a major advancement for women
of the indigenous population. The peace
proposal offered by the government was
rejected by 97% of the people in the
Zapatista controlled areas after
consultation took place with all those over
the age of 12.
In the negotiations with the Government, the
EZLN put forward ten conditions which had to
be met before a peace could be agreed. Many
of these points for example the dissolution
of the present government to be replaced by
a transitional one until proper elections,
were obviously not going to be met by the
PRI. Also the EZLN demanded that NAFTA be
revised. Within the core of Zapatista
politics there seems to be an inherent flaw.
On one hand they know that their demands
will not be met by the authorities yet on
the other hand, given this, the demands they
make are watered down versions of their own
political line. The question is when the
Zapatistas were preparing their 10 point
peace plan, what was their political
strategy? Assuming that they knew the
government would reject most of their points
why didn't they include a fuller expression
of their program. Perhaps they did have
illusions in the government granting some of
their demands, perhaps they felt that
anything more radical would alienate the
rest of the Mexican people, we don't know!
These questions remain unanswered.
They claim to have learned from the
guerrilla movements in Latin America.
Firstly, to greatly distrust the surrender
of arms, and secondly not have confidence
"only in the electoral systems"(8). Yet
this position seems to be contradicted by
Marcos who refers to the creation of a
"democratic space where the political
parties, or groups that aren't parties, can
air and discuss their social proposals."(9)
The point is explained further in a
communique by the CCRI-CG in June where it
says "...this revolution will not end in a
new class, faction of a class, or group in
power. It will end in a free and democratic
space for political struggle." The EZLN are
fighting a revolution for democratic space?
Yet, the type of democracy which they wish
is not tolerated in any Western society and
is unlikely to be permitted in Mexico unless
revolution spreads throughout the country.
While it is obvious that no such space
exists in Mexico, even the creation of some
form of social democracy will not bring
about the changes which the Zapatistas so
desperately need. Social democracy does not
provide liberty or justice. This call for
social democracy contrasts with the beliefs
which Marcos says exist amongst the people
that "they (politicians) are changing the
leaves of the trees, but the roots are
damaged... We say Let's uproot the tree
and plant it again" . The tree will not be
uprooted though the creation of social
democracy.
However the options for the EZLN seem
limited. Prior to the Presidential
Elections in August they organised a
National Democratic Convention (CND) which
took place in the Lacandona jungle. This
logistical miracle was attended by over
7,000 people(10). The conference was
attended by many of the established voices
of opposition to the Institutional
Revolutionary Party (PRI). Marcos said he
wished to turn the CND into the leaders of
civil society and that it should be they who
decided how to respond to the PRI and the
fraudulent State. Marcos presented
democratic change as something which should
come via peaceful means. The military
solution would be adopted solely as a matter
of last recourse(11) and only be tried when
the CND decided upon it. Two weeks later the
PRI presidential candidate went on to win
the election amongst accusations of fraud.
The creation of a democratic space through
peaceful means to appears to have failed.
Mexico still needs to build a strong
revolutionary movement. It will require
greater numbers than the revolutionaries of
the EZLN to destroy the rotten Mexican
state. This difficult task, facing all the
people who wish for change in Mexico, is
made more difficult because of its dominant
neighbour, the USA.
Within the EZLN, it seems, there is a
widespread belief that their demands can
only be met when as they say "the tree is
uprooted." They have developed a democratic
structure from which ideas can flow and
develop. They have struck out against the
system which causes them so much death, pain
and suffering. Support work has been done
by the anarchist group 'Love and Rage' who
have members in the USA and in Mexico. They
have sent people down to Chiapas to
ascertain the facts, organised translations
of EZLN communiques and helped in the
production of a book on the EZLN. Here in
Ireland we in the WSM have held a picket on
the Mexican Embassy and handed in a letter
of protest. This type of work though it may
seem at first to be of minor importance, in
fact ensures that the Mexican government
knows that their actions are being monitored
thus decreasing the likelihood of a
government crackdown in the area.
The task facing Mexican revolutionaries is
to spread their struggle and will for change
to the cities and to the north of the
Country. Although Marcos and the CCRI-GC
are emphasising the role of the media, it is
more important for the EZLN activists to win
support on the ground.
In the United States activists must work on
raising awareness of the EZLN amongst the
resident Latino population. Pickets can be
organised. Any struggle that remains
isolated will face certain annihilation. It
is the responsibility of all revolutionaries
to ensure this will not happen.
The job of anarchists in Mexico is to spread
their ideas and to share their experience
as revolutionaries with the people of
Chiapas. The Zapatistas have already
rejected the ideas of the authoritarian
left. The demands of the EZLN for liberty,
justice, and democracy will not be realised
under capitalism. These demands have never
arisen out of reform of any system in any
country. Mexican anarchists should utilise
the fertile ground that now exists for
anarchist ideas in Chiapas.
What has happened in Chiapas is encouraging
and needs to be supported. The
revolutionaries of the EZLN, however, have
not stumbled onto something new. The basic
principle of participatory democracy is one
of the foundation stones of anarchism. The
EZLN deserve praise for the way they have
integrated democracy into their struggle
against the state. Now in Mexico where
history stopped with the usurpation of power
by the PRI seventy-five years ago, the
people are still struggling towards having
control over their own lives and destinies.
True democracy needs to be established and
implemented as part of the process of
destroying the oppressive state which keeps
all of us chained.
1 Article 27 in the Mexican Constituition
is the one which promised agrarian reform.
It was included in the constituition after
the revolution and was always seen as the
guarantee of similar land reforms as those
Zapata implemented in his own region of
Morelos during the revolution.
2 NAFTA will also drive down the prices
paid for some of the basic crops produced by
the indigeniuos people for their crops. The
timing of the uprising was to coincide with
the first day that NAFTA was supposed to
take effect in Mexico.
3 Quoted from an Amnesty International
Report.
4 Non-Governmental Organisiations (NGO's)
are groups such as the Red Cross, Amnesty
International, etc.
5 Source Peter Martin Morelost who
attended the National Democratic Convention
and posted his report onto the internet..
(24.9.94 Mexico's National Democratic
Convention.)
6 Quoted from early newspaper coverage of
events - listed in Chapter 2 - The first
days.
7 Quoted from interview with Javier of the
CCRI 3/2/94 in La Jornada.
8 Quoted from interview with Subcommander
Marcos in La Jornada 4.2.94 - 7.2.94
9 Interview with Marcos 11 May '94
10 Attendance figure quoted from report by
Peter Martin Morales.
11 Peter Martin Morales
BOX Who was Emilano Zapata
Emilano Zapata was from the Morelos region.
He joined the army after being caught as a
highway man. His other option was to be
shot. After his release in 1910 he
supported the Liberals and had to take to
the hills when they lost the elections
despite having more votes. He was now the
leader of an army of peasants and they
fought and defeated the tyrant Don Porphyry.
Then the liberal Francesco Madero came to
power and he spoke of freedom of the Press
and Democratic elections. Zapata published a
charter which called for 'Land and Liberty.'
Despite the charter not much changed and
eventually power struggles broke out again.
In the course of the following years Zapata
in the south and Pancho Villa in the north
defeated many power mongers who tried to
grip the reins of power. Yet, despite many
opportunities Zapata never took control
himself. "A strong people do not need a
government" he once said. Zapata was
influenced by the manifesto drawn up by
Ricardo Flores Magon {Mexico's leading
Anarchist at the time who went on to die in
an American Prison}. In the manifesto
issued by Zapata and signed by 35 officers
in August 1914 he wrote "It (the country)
wishes to destroy with one stroke the
relationships of lord and serf, overseer and
slave, which in the matter of agriculture
are the only ones ruling from Tamaulipas to
Chiapas and from Sonora to Yucatan".
During the revolution the Zapistas destroyed
public papers, deeds, property transfers,
titles and mortgages in the hope that the
land would return to the only true owners,
the people. In 1918 Zapata was lured into
an ambush and killed. Evidently there are
some in Chiapas who still wish to destroy
the relationship which Zapata spoke off 80
years ago