Re: AUT: paper on zapatistas/internationalism

[Zeynep <zeynept@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Massimo,

You have the following claim in your paper.

"The ejido is not only land used for economic purposes. To a certain extent
it gives people autonomy and it constitutes the material basis for
indigenous traditional forms of collective democracy. It is the basis of
indigenous traditions of collective democracy, in which a community, a
village, a region, takes decision affecting
everybody's life collectively. Decisions may range from the sending of a
child in need to a hospital, to the decision to refuse the last government
offer at the negotiating table. Decisions are taken in ways so different
from western democracies, based on the forced separation between the people
of a community (10), separation that is only mystically overcome at the
moment of the vote (once every 5 years (11)). Consensus seeking, rather
than voting, is their way to democracy. Consensus seeking requires time and
ability to listen. But it does not produce majorities or minorities, it
does not promote victory and defeats, vanity and resentment. Take away
their common land, further worsen their condition of living , and you have
also destroyed indigenous democracy, their way of living, and their
opportunity to practice a different life.

This comes about through three weapons associated to the implementation of
NAFTA."

I went to a village in the Zapatista controlled territory recently,
interviewed villagers and internationalist activists who had been living in
the region for a while. While I agree with what you say about voting, their
"collective democracy" isn't that ideal a model in many respects. All
villages still have council of elders, who do exert a considerable
influence, sometimes overriding the majority decision. We asked them what
they did when they couldn't reach a consensus and they replied that they
voted. There is very little recognition of minority or individual rights.
Women are NOT listened to very much, no matter what the women's
revolutionary laws says. They are clearly regarded as second-class. There
are all sorts of power relations within the village, albeit much smaller
scale than we have in "first-world". The "consensus building" works to the
degree that it does because villagers interact with fellow villagers all
their lives and the numbers are small, not very applicable to environments
with larger populations.

I agree that things might be/are very different in the EZLN army itself,
this was a village, which I was told wasn't a "backward" example at all,
but even somewhat progressive because it is built on occupied land, which
is rare in Zapatista territories for reasons I won't go into in this post.

Don't get me wrong, I support the Zapatistas and I think the EZLN has many
important achievements in all areas, including consensus building and
women's rights. I find the troublesome aspects like the position of women
to be understandable, and I am well aware how the EZLN and women within the
EZLN are struggling against patriachy and achieving important victories. I
realise how hard it is to eradicate such deeply entrenched forms of
oppression and I recognize that it takes time. I am merely stating the
level the struggle seems to be in as far as I can see.

I agree with what you say about voting, and I do see consensus building as
much as possible and all forms of participatory and direct democracy to be
very important for all progressive activism. I am just curious why you
think the Zapatistas are a good example, and about your sources of
information. I would be very happy to learn that my impressions were wrong
and isolated.

Zeynep


>Some time ago I sent a copy of my paper on zapatistas'
>internationalism but nobody could either see it or read it. You can
>finally find the same paper posted at this address:
>
>http://www.uel.ac.uk/pers/M.DeAngelis/zapaint2.htm
>
>Comments are welcome.
>
>Massimo
>
>
>
>     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---