Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:55:48 +1000
From: sjwright-AT-vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Steve Wright)
Subject: AUT: democracy in Chiapas


Just to add to the discussion prompted by Massimo's paper, here is Marcos
talking in 1996 about the relationship between democracy and community in
Chiapas. I have translated it from the 1997 book *Il sogno zapatista* (The
Zapatista Dream -- Mondadori, Milan), compiled by Yvon Le Bot and
originally appearing in French (*Le reve zapatiste*). Apart from a useful
introduction on the history of the EZLN, the book contains a number of
interviews -- above all with Marcos, but also with one or two other
military leaders. I hope an English edition will appear soon, as Le Bot and
his co-interviewer Maurice Najman ask some pertinent questions.

Earlier parts of the chapter from which this passage is drawn sees Marcos
in a self-critical mood, discussing divisions within Zapatista communities
(including religious tensions), and the problem of "conflicts caused by
local leaders intolerant of those who do not agree with them, make
different proposals from them, offer criticisms, or simply don't want to
participate" (p.188).

While the section of the interview entitled *But is democracy compatible
with the community?* (pp.196-200) is the most pertinent to the immediate
discussion, I haven't yet found time to translate it (well, you know how it
is). In the meantime, here is the passage immediately prior to it, entitled
*Democracy, consensus and elections*.

The passage below is notable for a number of things, not the least of which
is the refusal -- by Marcos at least -- to embrace direct democracy as an
all-encompassing principle/practice. And if I can be a little provocative
for a moment, at least to those who care about such things: not only IMO do
Marcos' views hint at something like 1920s Austro-marxism's ambition to
combine workers' councils and parliament, but his notion of "the principle
of the collectivity's control over authority" (understood as a separate
body from itself) makes me think of the International Communist Current's
argument that not only must there be a transitional state, but the latter
will somehow be separate from the proletariat self-organised in councils .
. .

Steve

___________

*Democracy, consensus and elections* (pp.195-6)

Najman: According to some, the democracy of the community, of consensus, is
the healthiest thing in Mexico in terms of democracy, and its example
should be followed at all levels, including the State. On the local level
it offers advantages, but when it is a matter of governing, it also creates
some inconveniences.

Marcos: I believe that such a form of democracy is only possible within the
life of a community. It works in the indigenous communities because their
social organisation permits it, but it can't be generalised, transferred
elsewhere as a model: for example into the city, much less at the level of
a State or the whole country. What we think does need to be retained is the
principle of the collectivity's control over authority.

        In the case of the community, control functions around the clock.
No-one can enrich themselves without the others finding out. If a community
leader begins to acquire money, everyone knows and can call them to
account. And those who don't do their job well are replaced. Obviously it
works because we're talking about a village. But mechanisms need to be
found that allow society in general to control those who govern and
confirm/verify them in their office, to decide whether they can continue or
not, and eventually to punish them. Society needs to control the government
and not vice versa, as the theorists of Salinismo who have already
forgotten "Salinismo" have affirmed. In their opinion, society naturally
tends towards chaos, and the government's role is to ensure that it does
not disintegrate. They want a strong govenment, one that controls society.
In our opinion instead, it is the government which tends spontaneously
towards chaos, towards dictatorship, authoritarianism, anti-democratic
practices and corruption, and it is society which must force it to be
accountable. Obliging it to command by obeying, as we say.

        But from experience, I wouldn't advise transferring the methods of
the community assembly to others spheres, for example to the university. I
know student assemblies . . .

Yvon: That never arrive at a decision!

(p.196)

N: The Zapatista discourse also speaks of social, direct democracy, of a
democracy of participation: but how? At what level? And in what
relationship with representative democracy?

M: For the EZLN democracy does not only mean elections: we want electoral
democracy, but it is not sufficient. The idea of democracy must encompass
many other aspects of the country's democratic life. Certainly we want
electoral reform, or rather a true revolution that seriously opens
electoral space. But the existence of non-representative forms of
democracy, which play a role of control and government in the communities,
must also be recognised. Mexican laws do not recognise community democracy.
There are other types of democracy, practiced in unions, in the
universities, in neighbourhoods, in villages . . . The State must recognise
that a higher type of democracy does not exist,  that there are many
different forms. We want an open, broad concept of democracy. For the
government, representative democracy is politically superior to direct
democracy or assembly democracy.

N: Because it represents the general interest.

M: In our view representative democracy works at certain levels . . .
rather, it would work, if it existed. At other levels, we want instead
community democracy, direct democracy or social democracy.









     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---