“We have struggled a great deal, yet advanced little. We have knocked on many doors, at the state, federal and even international level, but we’ve received little attention. Why don’t the authorities pay attention to us? Our peoples ask us, “Why do we come to the city if they never listen to us? When will they listen? Is it necessary that the EZLN take up its arms once again for them to hear us?”
(Indigenous leaders gathered in Mexico City, 9/12/02)

On September 6, one year after having received them, the National Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) rejected the challenges that various indigenous municipalities filed against the constitutional reform on indigenous rights. (See Update in the SIPAZ Report)

The Court based its decision on article 105 of the Constitution, which establishes the Court’s jurisdiction regarding constitutional reforms. The article, they said, does not allow the SCJN –Mexico’s highest judicial authority– to strike down a Constitutional reform made by the “Reformer Organism” (made up of federal and states legislatures).

The Reactions

Indigenous groups from Chiapas voiced deep disappointment with the ruling. In a joint statement, they said, “Once again we’ve been excluded. We’re nothing to them…not one of the three branches (of government) is listening to us or understanding our struggle. They’ve shut the door for peace with justice and dignity. The Mexican government is only thinking about international interests and the Puebla-Panama Plan.”

Since September 6, indigenous organizations have been carrying out peaceful protests both locally and nationally. They have included marches, blockades and meetings, which have been mostly ignored by the mass media. In all of them indigenous peoples stressed their decision to refuse the reform and to exercise their autonomy in facts.

The major meetings were the “National Encounter of Indian Peoples” in Chilpancingo (Guerrero) on September 12 to 13, and the “National Forum for the Protection of Traditional Medicine” in Atlapulco (state of Mexico) on September 14 to 16. In the first meeting, 200 representatives from 36 organizations called on indigenous peoples to articulate joint strategies to exercise their autonomy and called on civil society to unite its efforts to build a pluralistic and democratic nation. In the second one, some 500 delegates from 29 native peoples adopted the First Declaration of M’enhuani, which called for the strengthening of the National Indigenous Congress (CNI) and affirmed the San Andres Accords as the only acceptable law on indigenous rights.

A day of national and international protest was set for October 12 as well. Several organizations within the CNI also announced that they will continue their legal struggle to impede the application of the reform in their territories. They will also appeal to the International Labor Organization (ILO) and to the Inter-American system.

The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) has kept silent –“eloquently silent”, according to Felipe Arizmendi, bishop of San Cristobal de las Casas. “They responded through their silence; for them, this is a form of response. They thought that from the moment in which the proposals they made were not accepted and the promises that the government made [were not fulfilled], they feel that dialogue is useless.”

Strong criticisms of the SCJN’s decision came from non-governmental organizations, human-rights centers and intellectuals. In a joint statement, they said that the decision “exhausted all legal means” and that peace was farther off, since the indigenous last appeal had been denied. They called the ruling a “jeer” that brought back “the discrimination, racism and old colonial attitudes” to which Mexico’s native peoples have always been submitted. The communiqué concludes affirming that “no longer does anyone have the moral authority to judge the path that the peoples freely choose to obtain their just goals of autonomy and dignity.”

The Mexican Episcopal Conference issued a communiqué in which it called Mexican society to a “National Dialogue” – with the contribution of the international community– to bring to pass the words of the Pope in his recent visit to Mexico: “Mexico needs its indigenous peoples, and its indigenous peoples need Mexico.” The bishops said, “as a Church, we want to strengthen our commitment to the indigenous (peoples). It is not possible to continue living in a Mexico divided by racism and discrimination; the Indian peoples deserve for their cultures, their vision and their autonomy to be recognized.”

Within the Protestant sector, the leader of the Presbyterian church, Rev. Abner López, called on Congress to have the sensitivity to revise the constitutional reforms with respect to indigenous rights, otherwise it will be practically impossible to continue peace talks between the EZLN and the federal government. He also criticized Mexican President Vicente Fox, calling his concern for indigenous peoples “one of appearance only.”

Chiapas’ state government held that the court’s ruling “cannot be seen as the end of the road, but rather as the beginning of a new stage in which new peace initiatives ought to arise.” It said that the federal Congress ought to evaluate the possibility of additional reforms, since “no effort is excessive in such times, not if it expresses the unshakeable will to respond to the indigenous peoples and sow peace.” The government likewise affirmed that its willingness for dialogue and negotiation “remained unchanged.”

Within the political arena, the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) categorically rejected the ruling. Members of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) gave different opinions, from those who requested a “reform of the reform” to those who said the matter deserves no further consideration. The majority of the National Action Party (PAN) supported the SCJN’s ruling. The reactions from legislators who sit on the Commission for Agreement and Pacification (COCOPA) reflected the lack of consensus among their respective parties.

The Fox administration –through Interior Secretary Santiago Creel and the Peace Commissioner for Chiapas, Luis H. Alvarez– showed complete respect for the ruling, maintaining at the same time “permanently open the channels for a respectful dialogue with the legislative branch and with other social and political actors toward the recognition of indigenous rights within the national legal framework.” The administration also reiterated its “unchangeable” willingness to reopen its talks with the EZLN.

Analysis

The ruling of the SCJN lessens the hopes for the renewal of the peace process in Chiapas and for achieving the rights of Mexico’s indigenous peoples. After feeling abandoned by the Executive and betrayed by Congress, indigenous peoples hoped that the Judicial would do justice to them by invalidating a reform which lacks the support of those it was meant to benefit, and which very legality has been questioned due to its irregular approval process.

It’s notable that the Court waited more than a year to give a ruling that did not even refer to the content or the approval process of the reform in question. Nevertheless, this long-awaited decision came at a time of great political conflict in Chiapas –immediately after an escalation of violence that claimed the lives of several Zapatista civilian leaders.

The ruling, rather than helping to defuse the situation, will probably contribute to the environment of polarization in Chiapas –and in other states of the country-, reaffirming some people’s conviction that legal means for demanding their rights have been exhausted.

The ruling also sets a worrying precedent for the future of democratic institutions in Mexico: if the highest body of the Judicial does not consider itself authorized to watch over the legality of constitutional reforms, then what institution is?

The Mexican State is also sending a troubling signal to the world regarding its willingness to honor the committments made in the San Andres Accords, and by ratifying Convention 169 of the ILO. The SCJN has lost this opportunity to recognize the rights and demands of indigenous peoples, contribute to strengthen the democratic system and help Mexico fulfill its international committments.

We hope that, in spite of this bleak panorama, the different sides within this conflict -that goes far beyond Chiapas, confronting once again the Mexican State with its indigenous peoples- will renew their efforts and seek in good faith and with responsibility the ways to overcome this critical situation.

Any solution, to be sustainable, must put before all other economic or political interests, indigenus peoples’ rights to exercise their own forms of social, economic and political organization, as well as to preserve their territories and the natural resources within them. These rights are the safeguard of their present existence and their hope for a better future