Indigenous Authonomy

Neither Separatism nor Reservations: Full Citizenship for indigenous peoples

For the last 40 years Mexico has enjoyed the reputation throughout Latin America of being a champion of indigenous peoples’ rights. However, in over 500 years no Mexican government has offered broad and clear constitutional recognition of the rights of indigenous people. Contemporary federal policies and special agencies such as the National Indigenous Institute have consistently promoted an assimilationist policy that has more flaws than merits. Indigenous people have been pushed to reject their culture and traditions or to be relegated to a mere tourist attraction. Nonetheless within the Mexican indigenous community there has been steadfast resistance to the assault of the “modern” world that for years has kept them marginalized from the normal life of the country.

In the last decades many researchers and anthropologists have dedicated their lives to the study and understanding of the indigenous people and their customs, but it wasn’t until the January 1994 uprising of the Zapatista Army (EZLN) that the issue of the rights of indigenous populations became a central issue in the political life of the country and a platform for profound national reforms.

The call to arms of the EZLN forced the government to the negotiating table to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict. Two organizations were formed to mediate the peace process: the National Mediation Commission (CONAI), presided by Bishop Samuel Ruiz, and the Commission for Agreement and Pacification (COCOPA), composed of members of each of the political parties represented in the national Congress.

After a lengthy process of meetings, the negotiating teams established a methodology for the peace talks and agreed on the themes to be discussed, the first being Indigenous Rights and Culture. Talks began in San Andrés Larrainzar in September 1995, and the historic San Andrés Accords were finally signed in February of 1996.

Ten months later: The San Andrés accords on indigenous rights and culture shake up the mexican government

The text of the document provides for a fundamental re-ordering of relations between the government and the indigenous peoples:

” The State respects the self-determination of the indigenous peoples at every level in which they prefer a differentiated autonomy within the norms established for indigenous peoples, provided national sovereignty is not compromised. This implies the recognition of their identities, cultures and forms of social organization.”

The San Andrés Accords call for national legislation to be written that would recognize the collective rights of communities and permit the redefinition of municipal boundaries to encompass areas with majority indigenous populations. These municipalities would be able to join together at will. The document also recognizes the historical marginalization of the indigenous peoples from the possession and use of their ancestral lands, and it provides for concessions to be granted to communities so that they might benefit from the exploitation and development of their natural resources.

As Luis Hernandez Navarro noted in La Jornada, if the constitutional amendments are approved by Congress it would be an historic moment that is both a point of arrival and a point of departure.

” Point of arrival, because the reforms will give structure to their (the indigenous peoples) aspirations and projects and will also provide an organized platform for the development of the indigenous movement. Point of departure, because the new laws allow for the development of the petitioner as well as the petition.”

Deteriorating family economics

While a new generation of millionaires has emerged in Mexico as a result of the new free market economy (20 of the 100 richest people in the world are Mexicans), the great majority find themselves marginalized by the neoliberal economic model. Throughout 1996, purchasing power has deteriorated steadily. This is felt most in the homes of the rural indigenous population. The descendants of the great Mayan civilization, a culture associated with the cultivation of corn, today find themselves obliged to eat tortillas made from inferior quality imported grains.

” The diet of fifty percent of all Mexicans falls below the minimum daily nutritional standard (2,340 calories) established by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Each year 158,000 children under five years of age die from diseases related to malnutrition.”
—Victor Suarez C., La Jornada del Campo, Supplement, August 1996.

The indigenous people are perhaps the most shocking example of this injustice. Their agriculture is almost entirely based on subsistence farming. Often the problems associated with insufficient arable land are compounded by discrimination, want of political representation and the lack of access to a fair system of justice.

” At least one in ten Mexicans is indigenous. They live in conditions of extreme poverty and marginalization . . . More than three quarters of the indigenous population live in 281 isolated municipalities that are considered extremely poor. About half the population is illiterate (as compared to the national average of 12%). Nearly half the Indian municipalities have neither electricity nor potable water (while the national average is 14% and 21%, respectively). In 60% of their municipalities, inhabitants are forced to emigrate. Between 70% and 84% of indigenous children under five show signs of advanced malnutrition…Eighty percent of childhood diseases are infectious in nature, associated with nutritional deficiencies, anemia and lack of hygienic conditions.”
—Luis Hernandez Navarro, La Jornada, 12 December 1996.

The COCOPA initiative and the President’s counterproposal

In November, the members of COCOPA set themselves the task of preparing a document that would fairly accommodate the positions that both the EZLN and the government had agreed upon in the San Andres Accords. On November 29, COCOPA delivered their “final” draft of the bill for the constitutional amendments to each party.

The EZLN accepted the draft with reservations. The government, on the other hand, requested 15 days to consult with specialists and promised to give its reply by the 23rd of December. The outcome was a confidential document addressed to the EZLN that turned out to be a counterproposal rather than a list of suggested changes. On the 11th of January the EZLN rejected the counterproposal, claiming that the modifications conditioned and subordinated the spirit of the San Andres Accords. As a result, the attempt to incorporate indigenous rights into the Constitution was left hanging by a thread.

Clearly the pivotal point of all the constitutional reforms is the recognition of indigenous self-determination and of autonomy as an expression of that. This is where the fundamental differences and divergences lie, with each side striving to ensure that its perspective is reflected in the legislation.

Examples of the modifications in the government counterproposal are the following: “the authorities . . . in consultation with the indigenous people,” is modified by the government to “the authorities . . . taking into consideration the opinion of the indigenous people”; indigenous communities as “entities of public law” is modified to indigenous communities as “entities of public interest.” Where the government proposal states that the legal structure of indigenous communities must conform to Mexican legal process, the COCOPA document envisions some sort of accommodation between the two. The fact that the government rejected the COCOPA proposal and created a whole new document suggests that such differences are more than “simple editing changes,” as some have suggested.

After the categorical “No” of the EZLN to the President Zedillo’s counterproposal it is up to the members of COCOPA, as they promised publicly, to take their bill to Congress. If public opinion is capable of influencing Congress to incorporate the amendments into the constitution, Mexico will be at an historic turning point in which federalism and democracy may be greatly strengthened.

To incorporate the COCOPA bill into the Constitution, seven articles would need to be amended. Articles 4 and 115 would have to be changed considerably and Articles 18, 26, 53, 73 and 116 would require only minor modifications. It would then be necessary to introduce a series of new regulatory norms at regional levels to facilitate the implementation of the new laws.
These new laws would address the most urgent concerns of the indigenous peoples that are captured in the slogan of the National Indigenous Congress celebrated in October 1996: “Never again a Mexico without us” (“Nunca más un México sin nosotros”).

The debate: Indian Reservations or Separatist States

There have been wide-ranging, heated debates in different sectors of the society over the possible ramifications of the legislative initiatives concerning the rights of indigenous peoples. At one end of the spectrum some say that approval of this initiative would mean condemning the indigenous peoples to living on reservations similar to those found in the United States. At the other end, there are those who claim that the initiative would fragment national unity.

” Instead of a real and practical autonomy, the indigenous people would be forced into social isolation and to living on reservations. Even the best and most perfect and just legislation would not afford these people economic well-being or cultural strength. They have to take care of themselves. They must stop waiting and begging and begin to act.”
—Hector Aguilar Camin, Historian, Proceso No. 1049.

From this perspective Camin proposes,

” If the indigenous peoples want the benefits of modern life, they must integrate into communities where such a life is viable, that is, areas of higher demographic density.”

Others, in a similar vein, suggest that the proposed laws might be counterproductive for the indigenous peoples. They argue that the proposal would give them special privileges and a distinct set of laws.

” . . . they are asking that discrimination be legalized; that is, that laws take into consideration different ethnic origins. They want discrimination: one law for the indigenous peoples and another for those who are not.”
—Fernando Escalante, Academic Coordinator, Mexico Preparatory, Proceso No. 1049.

To this position Adelfo Regino, a native Mixe and member of the Commission for Follow-up and Verification (COSEVE), replies:

” Is your right to live a special privilege? Is it asking for special treatment to demand respect for your fundamental rights? . . . All we want is to have the same opportunities as any non-indigenous Mexican . . . a life with dignity and freedom, without prejudice or restrictions.”
—La Jornada, December 8, 1996.

Specialists who have been working closely with the indigenous peoples for many years have tried to dispel misunderstandings and clarify the confusion that the proposed autonomy laws have caused. For example, Hector Diaz Polanco, who supported efforts in Nicaragua to secure autonomy for the indigenous peoples during the Sandinista administration and is considered an expert in the field, says:

” Autonomy does not imply creating a situation that is outside of the democratic process . . . what it does imply is the creation of new laws to enable marginalized, excluded sectors of the society to participate fully. The objective is not to establish groups with limited citizenship but to grant them full citizenship . . . so that they can be active subjects and . . . can take control of solving their own problems.”

It may seem difficult to sort out the truth in this sea of opinions. What is certain is that the poverty levels at which most indigenous people live are among the worst in Mexico – and they have been this way since the arrival of the Spanish.

Rodolfo Stavenhagen, researcher and member of the Commission for Follow-up and Verification (COSEVE), adds:

” Only those who wish to keep the indigenous peoples marginalized from the rest of the nation and to deny them their human rights see in this autonomy bill a threat to be rejected. The states of the Mexican federation are free and sovereign and as such do not present a danger to the integrity of the nation. Municipalities are ‘free’, but this does not upset national unity. The University of Mexico is autonomous, but this does not make the students any less Mexican. The call for autonomy for the indigenous peoples has reached national proportions that the nation must address.”
—La Jornada, December 18, 1996.

An historic debt and international law

Without doubt Mexico owes an historic debt to the original peoples of these lands. No one can deny that the archaeological monuments found here attest to the advanced levels of civilization reached by the ancestors of these 10 million people. Even without the benefit of modern science, the indigenous peoples were great architects, mathematicians, astronomers, sculptors and painters, among many other things.

” We all hope President Zedillo will honor the debt to the indigenous peoples and enable them to regain their nearly lost creative genius.”
—Fernando Benitez, researcher and writer, La Jornada, December 12, 1996.

The reforms presented by COCOPA are based on the San Andrés Accords as well as Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization. They are also supported by international legal documents such as the Declaration on Race and Racial Discrimination (UNESCO) and international human rights treaties ratified by Mexico.

President Zedillo facilitated the signing of the Peace Accord in Guatemala without having resolved the conflicts within the peace process in his own country. This raises his moral obligation to recognize the rights of the indigenous peoples in the Mexican Constitution. These peoples, the entire nation, and history itself demand a response. The indigenous peoples have waited many years for this moment, and at this point the only thing they ask of the President is that he keep his word.

” . . . we all know the enormous significance the indigenous Mexicans who have not lost their traditions place on keeping their word. Whether indigenous and non-indigenous people, including the national and international business community, will trust President Zedillo in the future depends on whether or not he keeps his word.”
—Octavio Rodriguez Araujo, La Jornada, 12 December 1996.

… … … … … …

The Northern Region:

The new battleground

For the past several months SIPAZ has been working together with four other organizations (three national and one international) to establish a presence in the northern region of Chiapas. The project is referred to as “The Northern Station for the Easing of Tension and for Reconciliation”. It has followed with concern the increased violence in that region.

In mid-1996, a state of virtual civil war erupted between people aligned either with the PRI or the PRD. Over a hundred people were killed and thousands more were forced to abandon their homes and seek refuge in the mountains. The conflict is essentially political. The PRD supporters are identified with the Zapatista movement, while the PRI supporters are associated with the counterinsurgency. However, because the Zapatista movement is also tied to the progressive Catholic Church and often the PRI is associated with evangelical denominations, there is an accentuated religious polarization as well.

In June and July, when the paramilitary group “Peace and Justice” instigated confrontations with PRD communities, the local police and the federal armed forces responded in open support of the paramilitary group. (See Vol.1 – No. 2, “Paramilitaries – The Other Face of the War”). “Peace and Justice” was founded and is protected by PRI State Senator Samuel Sanchez.

In September the state authorities promoted the return of the refugees to their communities in an apparent pacification initiative. The local police were involved and the army was entrusted with logistics, supervision and the distribution of material aid.

By October there were signs of reduced tension, but then in November and December the program showed signs of cracking. The fragility was due primarily to the fact that the efforts to resolve the conflicts did not address the roots of the problems and did not involve the aggressor, “Peace and Justice.” The situation deteriorated rapidly when “Peace and Justice,” either with the complicity or the acquiescence of the police and the army, began to harass and threaten returnees and the international observers who were accompanying them. The entire returnee program has been temporarily suspended due to the absence of proper security measures for the victims.

On December 5, a group of internationals and members of the Northern Station was traveling to the community of Jolnixtie (in the municipality of Tila) in order to participate in a meeting with displaced persons. The group was detained near the PRI-affiliated community of Miguel Aleman by a large number of men affiliated with “Peace and Justice.” Insulting, threatening and otherwise harassing the Northern Station group, “Peace and Justice” people seized personal belongings and the food supplies that they were carrying to the displaced persons. State police forces (who had previously committed to accompany the Northern Station delegation) and Mexican army troops witnessed the altercation from a short distance but did not intervene. After three hours, the army soldiers approached and enabled the delegation to leave. However they did not demand that the stolen goods be returned.

The EZLN had raised the issue of the hostilities in the northern region back in September, and had made the disarming of the paramilitaries in the area a condition for returning to the negotiating table. Unfortunately this point remained a secondary issue at each of the three “Special Meetings” involving the EZLN, COCOPA and CONAI.

We believe that the situation in the northern region is intrinsically linked to the broader conflict and consequently needs to be addressed in talks between the EZLN and the government.

All the parties involved – the federal and state governments, the political parties, the churches, the military, the police, the EZLN and the inhabitants of the area – face the challenge of replacing the logic of war with the logic of political negotiation that would achieve peace based on mutual respect and political and religious tolerance.