“Autonomy is not a new word, it just took us a long time to realize that it is there where our dignity resides”
(Representative of the Autonomous Municipality of San Andres, October 2002)

… … … … … …

Historical Background

Since the 1980s, the demand for autonomy has become the central claim from the continental indigenous movement, representing the way to exercise the peoples’ right to self-determination. Since the creation of the Mexican State, various experiences of autonomy have taken place in its territory as a means of resisting the state structure, which ignores cultural and social diversity.

The struggle of the Yaqui People in Sonora, the movement of COCEI (Workers, Peasants and Students Coalition from the Isthmus) in Tehuantepec, the Community Police or the Council of Nahua Peoples from Alto Balsas (both in Guerrero), the Tojolab’al autonomy in Chiapas, are all examples of autonomy existing before December 1994, when the EZLN (Zapatista Army for National Liberation) broke the military siege establishing 34 autonomous municipalities. Since then these municipalities coexist with the constitutional municipalities.

Since April 2001 the EZLN has remained silent to protest the approval of the constitutional reform dealing with indigenous rights and viewed as “a betrayal.” The ruling of the federal Supreme Court in September 2002 denying appeals against the reform leaves no room for a quick resumption of the peace process.

This deadlock in dialogue does not mean, though, that the Zapatistas and the other indigenous organizations have become paralyzed. Since 1994 they have aimed at constructing autonomy through actions, a process that, though not always visible, becomes stronger with time.

The main indigenous organizations from the country seem to share this approach. Following the resolution of the Supreme Court, the National Encounter of Indigenous Peoples (Guerrero) and the Third National Forum in Defense of Traditional Medicine (State of Mexico) called on the indigenous peoples of the country to strengthen the expressions of autonomy. At the VI Workshop on Analysis and Strategic Planning of the CNI (National Indigenous Congress) a decision was taken to continue with the “policy of silence” (agreed upon with the EZLN) and to return to their respective communities “not as defeated but ready to reinforce the defense of our territories and our identity.” To build up autonomy also implies creating one’s own rules and regulations, taking into account the reform of secondary laws that it is expected will follow in cascade after the constitutional reform.

For the National Indigenous Institute (INI), there is a new and different indigenous demand, consisting on the internal reconstruction of the peoples, on their self-affirmation as collective subjects with an ethnic affiliation and with their own cultures.

… … … … … …

What do we understand under autonomy?

“I do not fully know the word autonomy. Maybe to be autonomous is to be free, I don’t know. I will better tell you how we are working and then you will say whether that is autonomy or not”
(Representative of the Trinitaria area, October 2002)

Autonomy has been the subject of tireless debate. Sometimes there are theoretical discussions about what autonomy is and what it is not. Maybe the confusion is a result of diversity: we can talk about one autonomy, but there are multiple forms to implement it.

According to a representative from the municipality of Tila (Chiapas), for autonomy to exist, “the people must exist, that is to say, an established group of human beings who constitute a settlement. This people has its own characteristic way of being: house, dwelling, language, clothing, forms of organization, direct relationship to the earth, education of children, health, religion, in summary a way of living. Self-determination is the capacity to establish political, social, economic and cultural conditions in order to become autonomous”. (October 2002)

Those opposing the recognition of autonomy argue that this can lead to the “balkanization” of the country and transform communities into static entities, closed, backward and full of traditions that violate fundamental individual rights. In response, the Comandante Ester from the EZLN clarified in the Congress of the Union (28.03.01) the kind of Mexico that the Zapatistas want: “(…) a Mexico where we the Indigenous will be Indigenous and Mexican; where the respect for differences and the respect for what makes us equal will be in balance; where differences will not be a source of death, detention, prosecution, mockery, humiliation, racism; (…) where in the crucial times of our History, all women and men will stand above our differences and prioritize what we have in common, that is, that we are Mexicans”.

Others see indigenous autonomy as promoting inequality before the law. In response to this particular view, Adelfo Regino of the CNI said: “We, the indigenous people, do not want exemptions, we do not want privileges. We do not want or wish to separate from this country or to place ourselves above the law. The only thing we are asking for is the recognition of what is already a fact in our communities. (…) What we want (…) is the recognition, then, of an already existing reality, and that finally there will be what some call ‘juridical pluralism'”. (Congress of the Union, 28.03.01)

Respect for indigenous customs and traditions is one of the most controversial issues surrounding the recognition of autonomy. There are criticisms of those customs that discriminate against women and that could perpetuate the existing inequalities. It is important to remember, however, that in the San Andres Accords (ASA), respect for human rights was established as a condition for the recognition of indigenous customs.

The EZLN represented a true change in this respect since the Zapatista women issued their Women’s Revolutionary Law in 1993, initiating a struggle for their rights which has influenced other indigenous organizations. In this way the claim for autonomy represents for many indigenous women the possibility to transform the situation of oppression in which they live: “We say that autonomy is a way of implementing democracy, and in a democracy all voices are important, their rights must be respected, that is why the indigenous men should not deprive us from our spaces, from what we are entitled to, otherwise they would be doing the same that the mestizos do to our peoples, to trample on our rights (…) Autonomy is by definition a matter of liberation, that is why men, women and autonomous societies must change, must become more democratic, must recognize internally the liberation of women”. (Margarita Gutiérrez and Nellys Palomo in “México: experiencias de autonomía indígena”, by Aracely Burguete).

La autonomía en camino: modelo multifacético

“We learned from our history and from our own struggle that liberty is won, first and foremost, by practicing it”.
(Leopoldo de Gyves, in op. cit.).

The process of strengthening autonomy in Chiapas started without waiting for the implementation of the ASA. The Zapatista autonomous municipalities, the multiethnic autonomous regions and other municipalities and indigenous communities are taking decisions on how to organize themselves economically, politically and culturally. In each case autonomy appears with a different face.

The Zapatistas exercise autonomy without establishing any relationship with the government –as long as the ASA are not observed– and without participating in elections. The municipalities elect their own authorities and implement their own educational, health and economic projects with the support of Mexican and international civil society. In this case, autonomy means resistance against a government that they do not recognize.

External participation allows for the establishment of solidarity networks and for the involvement of those who, due to distance, could feel that this is a faraway conflict. On the other hand, an excessive dependency on external support could jeopardize the survival and development of the projects.

Another experience of autonomy is the Multiethnic Autonomous Regions established in December 1994. Unlike the Zapatista municipalities, they do accept government programs and they also take part in elections. These differences have resulted in the estrangement between both projects. In the same way, the acceptance or not of government funds is a source of divisions in the communities, which on many occasions have ended in expulsions or in abandoning resistance.

In the Forum on Autonomy organized by the Peace Network (see SIPAZ Activities) in San Cristobal de las Casas (October 2002), representatives from various Chiapas municipalities shared their different experiences of autonomy with NGOs.

In the free municipality of Nicolás Ruiz, the backbone of their autonomy is a government ruled by their customs and traditions, as well as internal rules and regulations approved by consensus at a general assembly. In La Trinitaria the construction of autonomy relies to a certain extent on economic independence, i.e. through the development of their own project for production and commercialization of organic coffee. For others what is crucial is to start strengthening autonomy from the interior of their own families.

Obstacles and Challenges

The construction of communal, municipal or regional autonomy presents many challenges, among them: “to keep a greater relationship amongst the different municipalities; to build an integral autonomy including all its manifestations (political, social, educational, economic, productive); to generate processes from the personal to the collective and vice-versa; to acknowledge the rights of women and their role in the construction of autonomy; to achieve respect amongst groups, communities and peoples (unity within diversity), as well as to maintain resistance without falling to counterinsurgent provocations”. (Conclusions of the Forum on Autonomy, October 2002).

These challenges arise in a particular context (economic, social, political and military) at the national and international level which, combined with community divisions, could hinder and limit the accomplishment of autonomy projects: “The dirty war supposedly implemented from the highest levels of government has divided communities, where the communal reference is being displaced by that of the organization which then becomes the most important one. The challenge of these autonomies is to see how the organizations come to an agreement in order to implement resistance projects to face the common enemy. The various organizations, independently of their political affiliation, live together in a territory where they share roads, water sources, sport-grounds, infrastructure, conflicts for land, leadership, authorities and government, etc., which fight for power. This implies the risk for constant confrontations. In other regions, though, where the positions are nearer and there are agreements even with members of the PRI party, autonomies do work. On the other hand, some social organizations that do not belong to the EZLN and that share the territory want to dominate following their own logic. This results in the confrontation of projects and of the different approaches. In this respect, the line of power of civil, military and traditional authorities also plays a role”. (Bulletin Chiapas al Dia, CIEPAC, 06.05.98)

Autonomy can become the way toward the achievement of conditions for peace through the construction of greater social justice in the communities, provided internal confrontations are overcome: “There is something in common amongst all the experiences of construction of autonomy: fear of divisions. We have to accept ourselves as we are, recognize the diversity within each of us and that in our life journeys we are constantly learning”. (Representative of Chalchiutan, Forum on Autonomy, October 2002).

It is necessary to overcome confrontations and distances among the various experiences of autonomy in Chiapas so that diversity will cease to be a source of conflicts. Furthermore, the capacity to construct alternatives must be shared and in this way resistance and non-violent struggles will be strengthened and conditions for peace will be built through concrete actions.

In addition, transforming Mexico into a multicultural and multiethnic country through the recognition of autonomy requires that it include the non-indigenous population: “Autonomy is also part of the new relationship between the peoples, the State and the national society. It is a cornerstone for the construction of a new democratic country as demanded by all Mexicans. Autonomy is a universal value not restricted to the indigenous peoples. It is necessary to explore new expressions of autonomy for the various communities and collectivities that are part of our nation”. (CNI, “Never again a Mexico without us!”, 11.01.98).