Although it’s true that there has been no open armed conflict in years and that the issue of Chiapas no longer concerns the average Mexican nor is it presently a factor on the international scene, disagreements within local communities have multiplied. This proliferation is exacerbated by the polarization between the EZLN and the federal government. The breakdown of the social fabric has worsened and the nature of the disagreements is such that there is an increasing possibility that the situation may sooner or later explode.

The likelihood of finding solutions becomes more and more difficult. Negotiations between the EZLN and the Mexican government are still suspended. It has also become clear that peace cannot be achieved by way of a short term process, nor with the signing of an agreement between these two parties, which are no longer the only ones involved in the conflict. Rather the solution would seem to lie in a slow and laborious reconstruction of the social fabric.

Chiapas: A current x-ray

It becomes increasingly challenging to explain the dynamics now operating in Chiapas as a consequence of the unresolved conflict between the Zapatistas and the Mexican government. After years of low-intensity warfare, violence and exhaustion, the fault lines dividing the people have become ever diversified. Thus, the number of spaces in which people can work on peaceful resolution has diminished substantially. Old disputes which, with the passage of years, have turned into more serious conflicts have their roots in political, ideological, agrarian and religious differences.

The Zapatistas have ruled out the electoral option as a means of achieving the structural changes which, from their point of view, are required in Mexico. Although they have not prevented their members from voting, they have continued to develop parallel government structures in the autonomous counties. In the absence of legal recognition of these autonomous governments (recognition which was originally included in the San Andres Accords) a primary source of tension has arisen in clashes between the officially recognized government and the autonomous counties. Where communities are divided neither the official nor the autonomous structures of government have been able to respond adequately to problems which arise because there is no single authority that is recognized by all the parties in conflict.

The situation took a new turn following the elections of 2000 in which the PRI lost at both the federal and state levels. For the first time in over seventy years the opposition had won. Many independent organizations backed the change and thus naturally are now looking to obtain the benefits that come with having supported the winning party. This change in the ruling government has brought with it a surprising repositioning of political parties and other powerful groups as they adapt themselves to this new reality in a very pragmatic, if not opportunistic, manner.

The tension decreased in the first months of the new goverment: the Zapatista march to to Mexico City and its arrival in Congress generated high expectations with regard to the peace process. However, after the approval of the indigeneous reform in April (see the SIPAZ Report of April 2001), the EZLN retreated into the silence of the jungle and suspended all contact with the federal and state governements. In many areas the people or groups who had established relationships with any government agency (especially through the programs of social and economic asssistance) could be accused of betraying “la lucha”.

Thus at this point the division is not only between Zapatistas and PRI supporters. As we have pointed out on several occasions in our analyses, party differences have become more and more blurred in Chiapas. Currently the more critical conflicts are those among local indigenous organizations formerly allied with the EZLN.

Irregularities in the ownership of land in a region where land is at a premium, has been a source of conflict for decades in Chiapas, and is again causing tensions. It was a common practice of former governments to award the same property title to more than one community.

In addition, former administrations often used the distribution of resources and government programs as a counterinsurgency technique to secure allies and, at the same time, to ensure that opposition and pro-government groups were constantly at odds in the indigenous communities. Despite the change in government, strong feelings about official aid remain in the minds of many people. Therefore, when it comes to designing strategies for community development, the risks continue to be the same: it is difficult to implement projects without engendering conflict among various groups.

Underlying the specific rivalries, there are two conflicting strategies: on the one hand, Zapatista resistance is aiming toward the ultimate transformation of existing unjust structures; on the other hand, other independent indigenous organizations have accepted aid, regardless of its source, in order to strengthen themselves and increase their area of influence.

According to one analyst in Chiapas, “The Zapatistas have a political vision that goes beyond the local sphere. But people in the communities are in a survival mode. Everyday life has worsened as a result of the divisions. This is the tension point: to continue struggling for national reform and fighting against neoliberalism versus finding ways to meet the needs of the people.

In the religious arena, the situation is much more complex than a simple division between Catholics and Evangelicals. In the SIPAZ Report of May 2000, we stressed that more than a source of conflict in itself, the religious factor has been used for political and economic interests. In practical terms this is expressed in various ways: one is in controlling access to positions of responsibility; another is in giving sacraments based on a person’s political affiliation. Could there be a more tangible expression of the profound division in Chiapas than the celebration of two masses for two different groups, both of whom belong to the same religion and live in the same community?

Because of the lack of a process of dialogue and the increase in conflicts of various kinds, the social and cultural fabric in the communities has been torn apart. The sense of community that is key in supporting the identity of indigenous groups, and which is an important resource in processing and resolving conflicts, has fractured. In some instances, the divisions and clashes occur even within families. There has been no armed confrontation since 1994, but the war has continued in a more subtle form which equally constrains possibilities for constructing peace.

When words are not enough…

In a context of extreme polarization, it is almost unavoidable that any intervention — even if it aims to transform conflict or reduce tension — could be considered taking sides. This was seen during the first years of the conflict around the issue of “human rights.” In the northern part of the state it was common for visitors to be asked “Are you for human rights?” Depending on their answer, visitors were labeled as allies or enemies. Since that time human right organizations have been seen by many allies of the PRI as biased actors in community conflicts.

An example of this is the book from the alleged paramilitary group Peace and Justice. The book’s title is “Neither rights nor humans in the Northern Chiapas: the other truth of the events in the Ch’ol region” (1997). In this book, referring to the human rights groups that had been present in the area, it states: “They have not contributed to the lessening of tension in the area and are seen by those affected as protagonists who arrived from abroad with resources which complicate the situation in the region even more.”

Another word which has been and continues to be controversial is “peace.” In more than eight years of conflict all the actors have talked about “peace.” But the understandings of that word have varied: for the government it means the re-establishment of the “order” that existed before the uprising. This “pax romana,” which is really just an absence of war, is a long way from the “peace and justice with dignity” of the Zapatistas and from the concept of “positive peace” which goes beyond the reduction of violence and which has as its goal the construction of peace based on everyday attitudes and values.

Currently the same thing is happening with the word “reconciliation.” The state government and some groups accused of being paramilitary talk about the necessity for “letting bygones be bygones” rather than about a profound and authentic process of reconciliation.

However, the victims of injustice have a their own understanding of the word “reconciliation.” In the lower Tila region we heard this comment: “Those from the government want reconciliation before justice. We are in the process of obtaining compensation for being displaced. We were prisoners for many years, but they (Peace and Justice) have nobody in jail. We want justice in order to be able to talk about reconciliation.” A human rights activist from the Altamirano region also told us: “Now, everybody is talking about reconciliation but they want to make believe that nothing has happened.”

Both in Chenalho and in the northern region of Chiapas, we heard the same cries of pain: “We want justice for our dead.” At the same time, it is worth noting that when confrontations between indigenous groups take place, a black and white (“the good and bad,” “the victims and victimizers”) reading is not sufficient in the situations of violence that have torn the state for the past years. It is clear that these processes of reconciliation cannot take place without the approval of those affected nor can they be imposed from the outside if they are to be sustainable in the long run.

Finally, there are some indications of a change in attitude on the part of some of the victims towards the perpetrators of the injustices, the former perhaps assuming that justice will not come from the State. In Nuevo Limar (northern region), a catequist told us: “If those from UCIAF come to us, we will not reject them, even though they beat us.” In Jolnixtie, also in the northern region, a member of the PRD affirmed: “We want all the arrest warrants cancelled, because it is not fair that those from Peace and Justice pay, when they were forced to do the things they did by the government itself.”

The First Conference on Community Experiences of Reconcilation and Peace, was held in San Cristobal in November 2001. Reconciliation remains a priority for the more than 70 people who participated. It is necessary, however, to make clear what this word means for them: “We are seeking a just solution to our problems. It is necessary that everyone be satisfied, that there are no winners or losers. Reconciliation means to come back together. But this unity is not uniformity.” To forgive is not to forget; it is “to lose the feeling of revenge“, as we heard in a meeting between Catholics and Presbyterians of the county of Chenalho.

What can be done?

At present, controversy regarding what can be done for the peace in Chiapas seems unavoidable. To work on conflict transformation sometimes is seen as “counter-revolutionary”, because while attending to problems at the community level one runs the risk of leaving aside their structural dimensions. “It is like giving an aspirin to a seriously ill person,” affirmed one member of a nongovernmental organization in San Cristobal.

Certainly, if we hope for a true, meaningful and long-lasting solution, we cannot set aside the need to transform the roots of the conflicts. There has to be a transformation of the economic, social, political and cultural structures which are responsible for the exclusion, misery, discrimination and injustice that is the everyday reality of indigenous communities.

However, a member of another NGO states: “The number one priority should be to overcome the divisions in the communities. What happens at this level does not necessarily reflect the analysis at a higher level. What’s the purpose of a wonderful indigenous law if the communities are divided and because of this are unable to construct autonomy? The government could pass the COCOPA law, but then what?…”

In order to keep hope alive in Chiapas, we have to put things into perspective. Gonzalo Ituarte, former vicar of Justice and Peace of the Diocese of San Cristobal and now the priest for the sensitive municipality of Ocosingo, said in an interview: “What’s happening in Chiapas is a low-intensity revolution. The vanguard is behind the society, pushing. It is a very slow process of transformation, and one which we would obviously like to speed up. We can’t not have hope.”