Introduction.
This writing is intended for and directed especially to adherents to the Sixth and to the Other Campaign. And, clearly, to those who might sympathize with our movement.
What we present here are some of the reflections and conclusions that have been shared by some people, groups, collectives and organizations adhered to the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandón Jungle.
Following our “style” in the Other Campaign, we first listen to the word of these companer@s and later we make public our analysis and conclusion.
The EZLN's Sixth Commission has been attentive to the opinions and proposals of one part of the Other Campaign's companer@s, in which they refer to the so-called “post-electoral crisis,” to the mobilizations in different points of the country (particularly in Oaxaca with the APPO, and in the DF with AMLO), and to the Other Campaign. In letters, in reports of meetings and assemblies, on the electronic page, in some cases in their public positions, and in individual and group meetings, some adherents have spoken out about these points.
During part of the month of July and all of the month of August, the EZLN's Sixth Commission held multilateral meetings with some adherent compas from 19 states of the Republic: DF, state of Mexico, Morelos, Michoacán Querétaro, Tlaxcala, Puebla, Veracruz, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Jalisco, Hidalgo, Zacatecas, Nuevo León, San Luis Potosí, Colima, Nayarit, Guanajuato and Aguascalientes.
Also, with political and social organizations with a presence in several parts of the country, and with our companer@s of the National Indigenous Congress.
In accordance with our limited possibilities, we held these meetings in local places of the Other Campaign's compas in Mexico City and in the states of Morelos, Michoacan, Querétaro, Tlaxcala and Puebla.
It was not possible or desirable for us to talk directly with all the adherents. This made room so that, in some places, we would be accused of “excluding” some. About this we say that, in the Other Campaign, it corresponds to each group, collective, organization or person to decide with whom La Otra meets, when, how and with what agenda. Making use of this right the EZLN's Sixth Commission listened to and spoke with whoever accepted our invitation.
Nevertheless, although we're dealing with private meetings, our proposals were not and are not secret. To those who, kindly, listened to us, we then asked them to transmit to other companer@s from their states and organizational work units, what we were thinking as the EZLN's Sixth Commission. Some of them, nobly, acceded and have done it exactly.
Others have taken advantage to add their evaluations as if they were the EZLN's or have purposely edited their “telling” to give a biased version of what we proposed in these meetings.
The themes of these meetings were:
The national situation above, particularly the electoral. The national situation below, in people not of the Other Campaign. The situation of the Other Campaign. The EZLN's proposal for what next for the Other Campaign.
We now incorporate into our thought, reflection and conclusion some of the reflections of the compas with whom we met. Nevertheless, it is precisely made clear that what we now communicate, and propose, to all our compas of the Sexta and la Otra is the sole responsibility of the EZLN's Sixth Commission, and it is as an adherent organization to the Other Campaign that we do it.
To those who feel excluded or marginalized, our sincere apologies and our request for understanding.
Only in a tendential way, we present a brief recap of what occurred at the EZLN's interior and came out in the Sixth Declaration, our balance (which does not seek to be THE balance) at one year of the Sixth and the Otra, our analysis and position on what occurs above, and our proposal for the Otra's next steps.
What we will present here was already consulted, in general lines, with the Comandant@s of the EZLN's Indigenous Revolutionary Clandestine Committee, thus it represents not only the position of the Sixth Commission but that of the leadership (direction) of the Zapatista National Liberation Army.
Sale and vale.
Subcomandante Insurgent Marcos Mexico, September 2006.
The Zapatistas and the Other: History's Pedestrians September 2006
First Part: The Paths of the Sixth.
In a synthesis, since we have already abounded on this theme, we will expose the previous process, internal to the EZLN, to the Sixth Declaration:
1. - The betrayal of the Mexican political class and its decomposition. - At the end of April 2001, after the March of the Color of the Earth and the support of millions of people, of Mexico and of the world, for the cause of the constitutional recognition of indigenous rights and culture, the political class jointly approved a counter reform. About that we have already spoken most extensively, now we just point out what's fundamental: the three national political parties, PRI, PAN and PRD turned their back on indigenous people's just demand and they betrayed us.
Then something was definitively broken.
his fact (which those who complain to us about our critiques of the political class as a group) carefully “forget,” was fundamental for the EZLN's later steps, internally as well as externally. Starting from there, the EZLN realizes an evaluation of what its proposal was, the path that it followed and the possible causes of that betrayal.
By means of private and public analysis, the EZLN characterized the dominant socioeconomic model as NEOLIBERAL. It pointed out that one of its characteristics is the destruction of the Nation-State, which includes, among other things, the decomposition of the political actors, of their relations of dominion and of their “styles.”
The EZLN had believed, until then, that a certain sensitivity existed in some sectors of the political class, particularly those who were grouped around the figure of Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano (inside and outside of the PRD); and that it was possible, with mobilizations and in alliance with this sector, to force out of the rulers the recognition of our rights as Indian peoples. Because of that, a good part of the external public actions of the EZLN were destined to the interlocutor with that political class, and to dialogue and negotiation with the federal government.
We were thinking that the politicians from above were going to understand and were going to fulfill a demand which had cost an armed Uprising and the blood of Mexicans; that that would lead to the dialogue and negotiation process with the federal government to a final satisfaction; that that way we would be able to “go out” to make civil and peaceful politics; that with constitutional recognition there would be a “legal roof” for the processes of autonomy which are presenting themselves in various parts of Indian Mexico; and that the path of dialogue and negotiation would be strengthened as an alternative for conflict resolution.
We were wrong.
The political class as a group was greedy, vile, stingy... and stupid. The decision which the three principal political parties (PRI, PAN and PRD) made then demonstrated that the alleged differences between them are not more than simulations. The “geometry” of the politics of above had turned itself upside down. There was no left, nor center, nor right. Just a gang of robbers with authority... and with cynicism in the stellar media hour.
We do not know if we were wrong from the beginning, if already for 1994 (when the EZLN opted for civil and peaceful initiatives) the decomposition of the political class was already a fact (and the so-called “ neoCardenismo ” was only a nostalgia of 1988); or whether in those 7 years the Power had accelerated the process of decay of the professional politicians.
Since 1994, groups and individuals of the then-called “civil society,” had approached us to say to us that neoCardenismo was honest, logical and a natural ally of popular struggles, not only the neoZapatista struggle. We believe that, in the majority of cases, those people did it with good intentions.
The position of the now employee of Vicente Fox, Cuauhthémoc Cárdenas Solórzano, and his son, the pathetic Lázaro Cárdenas Batel (now governor of a Michoacán controlled by drug trafficking), in the indigenous counter reform is already known. By the hand of the then brand new AMLO campaign coordinator, Jesús Ortega, the PRD senators voted for a law which was denounced as a farce even by anti-Zapatista indigenous organizations. Thus the words of an old Left militant were confirmed: “General Cárdenas died in 1988.” The PRD's deputies, for their part, in the lower chamber approved a series of secondary laws and regulations which consolidated the betrayal. We only remember that, when we publicly denounced this update of neoCardenismo , we were attacked (caricatures included) by the same ones that now say that, in effect, Cárdenas is a traitor (only now for not having supported López Obrador). Clearly, it's one thing to betray a few Indians, another very different thing to betray a LIDER. It was said of us then “sectarians,” “marginals,” and that, by “attacking” Cárdenas “the Zapatistas were playing the game of the right.” Does it sound like them? And now the engineer wants to become the “Leftist” and a critic of AMLO... while he works for the tenant of Los Pinos in the celebrations commission for the Independence bicentennial.
After that betrayal, we could not act as if nothing had happened (we are not PRD members). With the objective of the indigenous law we had entabled the process of dialogue and negotiation with the federal government and arrived at agreements, we had constructed an interlocutor with the political class, and we had called on the people (in Mexico and the world) to mobilize with us for that demand.
In our error we had dragged many people with us.
No more. The next step of the EZLN not would not be guided by speaking and listening to those from above, but would confront them... radically. That is to say, the EZLN's next step would go against all politicians.
2. - Armed struggle or civil and peaceful initiative? - After the Supreme Court's rejection of the protests and disagreements of diverse indigenous communities to the counter reform, some intellectuals (several of those who would reproach us after not supporting AMLO and the PRD in the struggle for the presidential chair) called implicitly for violence. In words, more or less, they said that no other path remained for the indigenous peoples (See the declarations and editorials of those days -September and October 2002-). One of them, today the brand new “organic intellectual” of López Obrador's postelectoral movement, rushed the Supreme Court's decision and wrote that, then, only two paths remained for the EZLN: renegotiate with the government or rise up in arms once again. The disjunctives which there above are proposed (and which some intellectuals “of the Left” make their own), are false. It was looking inside ourselves, that we decided not to do either one.
We had then the option of renewing combat. We not only had the military capability to do it, we also counted on legitimacy for that. But military action is typically an excluding action, the best example of sectarianism. In it there are those who have the equipment, the knowledge, the physical and mental condition, and the disposition not only to die, but to kill. We resorted to that because, as we said then, they had not left us another path.
Besides, we had made, in 1994, a commitment to insist on the civil path. Not with the government, but with “the people,” with “civil society” that not only supported our demand, they also participated directly in our initiatives throughout the seven years. These initiatives were spaces for the participation of everyone, without excluding more than dishonesty and crime.
According to our evaluation, we had a commitment with those people. Thus, our next step, we thought, must also be a civil and peaceful initiative.
3. - The lesson of the Previous Initiatives: look below. - While the political class, in 2001, was converting their betrayal into law, the delegation that participated in the “March of the Color of the Earth” was reporting in the Zapatista communities. Contrary to what one might think, the report did not refer primarily to what had been spoken and heard with and from politicians, leaders, artists, scientists and intellectuals; but what we had seen and heard from the Mexico below.
And the evaluation which we presented coincided with what the 5,000 Consulta delegates had made in 1999 as well as those delegates from the March of the 1,111 in 1997. That is, there was a sector of the population that questioned us; that said to us “we are supporting you in the indigenous demands, but what about us? And this sector was, and is, formed by campesinos, workers, employees, women, youth. Above all women and youth, with all colors but the same history of humiliation, plunder, exploitation and repression.
No, we did not read them that they would ask us to rise up in arms. Nor that they were waiting for a leader, a guide, a caudillo , a “ray of hope.” No, we read and we understood that they were hoping that we would struggle together with them for their specific demands, as they were struggling with us for ours. We read and we understood that those people wanted another form of organizing, of making politics, of struggling.
The “departure” of the 1,111 and of the 5,000 had meant “opening” our eyes and ears even more, because these compas had seen and heard, DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT INTERMEDIARIES, those from below. Not only the life situation of individuals, families, groups, collectives and organizations, also their conviction to struggle, their history, their “ I am this ,” their “ here I am .” And it was people who had not been able to ever visit our communities, who did not know directly our process, that only knew about us what our word had narrated. And they were not people who would have been within the umbrella of the different initiatives in which the neoZapatistas made direct contact with citizens.
They were humble and simple people to whom nobody listened, and to whom we needed to listen... to learn, to make companer@s. Our next step would have to be to make direct contact with those people. And if before it had been to talk and that they would listen to us, now it must be to listen to them. And not to make relationships with them at a juncture, but long term, as companer@s.
We also analyzed that the Zapatista delegation, when it “went out” to some initiative, was isolated by a group of people: those who organized it, those who decided when, where and with whom. We do not judge if they were good or bad, we just point it out. Therefore, the next initiative ought to be able to “detect” those “isolations” at the beginning, to avoid them further on.
Besides, wanting it or not, the EZLN's “departures” had privileged the interlocutor with a sector of the population: the illustrious middle class, intellectuals, artists, scientists, social and political leaders. Places to choose, in the new initiative we would have to elect between that sector or that of the more dispossessed. And, if we had to choose, we would do it for them, those from below, and to construct a space for us to meet with them.
4. - The “cost” of being logical. - Each conclusion that we made in the internal analysis led us to a definition, and this to a new conclusion. According to our style, we could not call the people to an initiative without saying clearly what we were thinking and where we wanted to go. If we valued nothing with the political class, that nothing above, we must say it. We must make a frontal and radical critique of ALL the political class, now without differentiating (as we differentiated the PRD's Cárdenas before), giving our arguments and reasons. That is to say, advising the people what had been broken.
We thought then (and, as would be seen later, we were not wrong) that the sector that followed Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas Solórzano, would later “forget” the legislative actions of the government and the PRD, the incorporation of former PRI members, the flirtations with big money, the repression and aggressions of PRD governments to popular movements outside their orbit, the complicit silence of López Obrador before the PRD vote in the senate against the San Andrés Accords, and it would proclaim AMLO the new leader. We will talk about López Obrador later on, for now we will only say that the critique would include him and, it was expected, that it would disturb and alienate that sector which had been close to neoZapatismo.
This sector, formed principally, but not only, by intellectuals, artists, scientists and social leaders, also included what they call “the PRD social base” and many people who, without being related or sympathetic to the PRD, think that there was or there is something able to be rescued in the Mexican political class. And all these people, together with many more who did not subscribe and do not subscribe to the PRD's analysis and positions, had formed a kind of “shield” around the Zapatista indigenous communities. They had mobilized each time that we suffered an aggression... except when the aggression came from the PRD.
The critique and the distance in front of AMLO, who they considered and consider their alternative for above, would be considered a critique of them. Ergo, not only would they stop supporting us, they would also pass to attacking us. That's what happened. Among the “triumphs” of those who, from academia, the sciences, the arts, culture and information, unconditionally and uncritically support López Obrador (and make ostentation of intolerance and despotism... even without having the government) is one that has passed unperceived: they achieved what money, pressures and threats could not, in other words, closing the few public spaces that were giving place to the EZLN's word. First they lied, later they distorted and slandered, later cornered and, lastly, eliminated our word. Now, they have the field free to become the strident echo (previous edition) of what AMLO says and contradicts, without anything or anyone giving them protection.
But the cost not only would be political... also military. That is saying, the “shield” would cease to be and the possibility of a military attack against the EZLN would be each time more attractive for the powerful. The aggression would come then with olive green clothing, blue, tricolor... or, as it occurred, yellow (the PRD government of Zinacantán, Chiapas, attacked with firearms a peaceful mobilization of Zapatista support bases on April 10, 2004, the yellow paramilitaries later formed, sponsored by the PRD, the first “citizens support network for AMLO” - “oversight” of those who complained and complain that the EZLN would not and does not support the PRD candidate-).
Then we decided to separate the political-military organization from the civilian structure of the communities. This was an urgent necessity. The interference of the political-military structure in the communities had passed, from being an impulse, to becoming an obstacle. It was the moment of putting aside and not obstructing. But not only was it trying to avoid that the process which had constructed (with characteristic contribution, ingenuity and creativity) the Zapatista communities, would be destroyed at the same time as the EZLN or hindered by it. It would also be sought that the cost of the criticism of the political class would be “paid” only by the EZLN and, preferentially, by its military chief and spokesperson. But not only. In case the Zapatista communities decided to take the step which the EZLN saw as necessary, urgent and logical, we would have to be ready to survive an attack. Therefore, some time later, the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandón Jungle started with a Red Alert, and had to prepare itself for that, for years.
5. - Anticapitalist and of the Left. - But the principal conclusion at which we arrived in our evaluation had nothing to do with these aspects, let us say, tactics, but with something fundamental: the one responsible for our pain, the injustices, scorn, plunders and blows with which we live, is a political, economic, social and ideological system, the capitalist system. Neozapatismo 's next step must point out clearly the one responsible, not just for the trampling of indigenous rights and culture, but of the trampling of rights and of the exploitation of the large majority of the Mexican population. In other words, it would have to be an anti-systemic initiative. Before that, although all the EZLN's initiatives tended to be anti-systemic, they were not clearly pointed out as such. All the mobilization around indigenous rights and culture had been inside the system, still with the intention of constructing an interlocutor and a legal space inside the judicial system. And defining capitalism as the one responsible and the enemy carried with it another conclusion: we needed to go beyond the indigenous struggle. Not only in declarations and proposals, also in organization.
It was needed, is needed, we thought, we think, a movement that joins the struggles against the system which dispossesses us, exploits us, represses us and demeans us as indigenous peoples. And not only us as indigenous peoples, but millions who are not indigenous: workers, campesinos, employees, small businesspeople, walking sellers, sexual workers, unemployed, migrants, underemployed, street workers, homosexuals, lesbians, transgender, women, youth, children and the elderly.
In the history of the EZLN's public life we had met other organizations and Indian peoples and we had formed relationships with them with fortune. The National Indigenous Congress had permitted us not only to know and learn about the struggles and processes of autonomy which Indian peoples were bringing forward, we also had learned to relate to them with respect.
But also we had met political and cultural organizations, collectives and groups with a clearly anticapitalist and Left definition. In front of them we had maintained mistrust, distance and skepticism. The relationship had been, over all, a continuous misencounter... on both sides.
By recognizing the capitalist system as responsible for indigenous pain, the EZLN had to recognize it not only produced that pain in us. There were, there are, those others who we have been meeting throughout these twelve years. Recognizing their existence was recognizing their history. It is saying, none of those organizations, groups and collectives was “born” with the EZLN, nor by their example, nor in their shadow, nor under their roof. They were, they are groupings with their own history of struggle and dignity. An anti-capitalist system initiative ought to not only taken them into account, but propose an honest relationship with them, that is, a respectful relationship. The National Indigenous Congress compas had taught us that recognizing histories, styles and ambits is the basis for respect. So, we were thinking that it was possible to propose this to other anticapitalist organizations, groups and collectives. The new initiative would have to propose the construction of coincidences and alliances with those others, without it meaning organic unity or hegemony of them or the EZLN.
6. - Looking above... what is not being said. - As the struggle for the presidential chair was advancing accordingly up above, it was remaining clear to us that the essence was not being touched: the economic model. That is to say, the system that we suffer as Indian peoples and as Mexicans, was not being brought up by any proposal of those who were disputing the above, not by the PRI, or the PAN or the PRD.
As has been pointed out, not only by us, the proposal supposedly of the “left” (that of the PRD in general and of AMLO in particular), was not nor is such. It was and is a project of administration of the crisis, assuring profits for the big property owners and controlling the social discontent with economic supports, co-optation of leaders and of movements, threats and repression. Since the arrival of Cárdenas Solórzano to the government of the capital, later with Rosario Robles and afterwards with López Obrador and Alejandro Encinas, Mexico City was and is governed as with the PRI, but now under the flag of the PRD. The party changed but not the politics. But AMLO had, and has, what none of his predecessors had: charisma and ability. If before Cárdenas used the government of the city as a trampoline for the presidency; López Obrador also, but with greater skill and fortune than the engineer. The government of Vicente Fox, with its stupidities, became the principal promoter and publicist of the PRD candidate. According to our evaluations, AMLO would win the election for president of the Republic. And we were not wrong. López Obrador obtained the greater number of votes among those who were disputing the presidency. Although not with the ease which was predicted, his advantage was clear and convincing. Where we were wrong is in thinking that the resort to electoral fraud was a thing of the past. We will talk about this further on.
Continuing on with our analysis, the arrival of AMLO and his team (formed by pure shameful and brazen Salinas people, besides a series of vile and wretched individuals) to the presidency of the Republic would mean the arrival of a government which, appearing to be of the left, would operate as from the right (the way it did, and does, in the DF's government). And, besides, it would arrive with legitimacy, sympathy and popularity. But nothing essential to the economic model would be touched. In the words of AMLO and his team: “the macroeconomic policies would be maintained.”
As almost no one says, the macroeconomic policies” mean an increase of exploitation, destruction of social security, danger at work, plunder of ejidal and communal lands, an increase of migration to the United States, destruction of history and culture, repression before popular discontent... and privatization of oil, the electric industry and the totality of natural resources (which, in the lopezobrador discourse, are disguised as “co-investment”).
The “social” policy (the “analysts” close to AMLO “forget,” once again, the great similarities with that “solidarity” of Carlos Salinas de Gortari -the big unmentionable renamed in López Obrador's team) of the PRD proposal, said to us, it would be possible reducing the expense of the government apparatus and eliminating (ha!) corruption. The savings obtained would serve to help the “most vulnerable” sectors (the elderly and single mothers) and to support the sciences, culture and the arts.
Then we thought: AMLO wins the presidency with legitimacy and the support of the big impresarios, besides the unconditional backing of the progressive intellectuals; the process of destruction of our homeland continues (but with the alibi of being a destruction “of the left”); and whatever type of opposition or resistance would be catalogued as “sponsored by the right, at the service of the right, sectarian, ultra, infantile, allied with Martha Sahagún (it was then Martita who was “dreaming” as a PAN pre-candidate - after the label she would say “allied with Calderón”-) and blah, blah, blah, repressed (as the student movement of 1999-2000; the people of San Salvador Atenco -we might remember that everything starts with the PRD municipal president of Texcoco, -the PRD deputies in the state of Mexico, now today demanding the release of the prisoners, greeted and supported in their time of police repression-; and the young people who were repressed by the PRD government of that “defender of the right to free expression,” Alejandro Encinas, paradoxically, for blocking a street in demand of liberty and justice for Atenco); attacked (like the Zapatista support bases in Zinacantán); or slandered, persecuted and satanized (like the Otra Campaña and the EZLN).
But the illusion would end at the hour in which it would be seen that nothing had changed for those from below. And then would come a stage of discouragement, desperation and disillusion, that is saying, the culture for fascism. For that moment an alternative Left organization would be necessary. According to our calculation, the true nature of the so-called “Alternative Project of Nation” would be defined in the first three years of government. Our initiative would have to take this into account and prepare itself to go with everything against (cartoons included) for several years, before converting itself into a real option, Left and anticapitalist.
7. - What followed? The Sixth. - At the end of 2002, the project which would later be known as the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandón Jungle was sketched in broad strokes: a new political initiative, civil and peaceful; anti-capitalist, which not only would not seek the interlocutor with the politicians, but would openly criticize them without considerations; that would permit direct contact between the EZLN and others from below; which would listen to them; which would privilege the relationship with the humble and simple people, which would permit the alliance of organizations, groups and collectives with the same thought; which would be long term; which would prepare to walk with everything against (including the progressive sector of artists, scientists and intellectuals) and disposed to confront a government with legitimacy. In sum, to look, listen, talk, walk, struggle, below... and to the Left. In January 2003, tens of thousands of Zapatistas “took” the city of San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas. Machetes (in honor of the Atenco rebels) and burning ocote sticks sparkled and lit up the central plaza of the ancient Jovel. The Zapatista leadership spoke. Among them, Commander Tacho warned those who gambled on the lack of memory, cynicism and convenience: “You are wrong, indeed there is an Other thing .”
At that moment, even among the shade of the wee hours of the morning, the Sixth Declaration began to walk around...
(it will continue...)
For the Indigenous Revolutionary Clandestine Committee-General Command of the EZLN and the Sixth Commission.
Subcomandante Insurgent Marcos.
Mexico, August-September, 2006.