Civil Society`s Challenge to the State: A Case Study of the Zapatistas

Journal of Development and Social Transformation
Civil Society’s Challenge to the State: A Case Study of the
Zapatistas and their Global Significance
Deborah A. Greebon
Public Administration, The Maxwell School of Syracuse University
In 1994 the indigenous Zapatistas of southern Mexico emerged as a unique example of resistance to state repression and the impacts of
corporate globalization and neoliberal policy. Neo-Zapatismo now encompasses a global network of millions of supporters, as well as a
core group of hundreds of autonomous “communities in resistance” that challenge state power without aspirations to overthrow it. This
paper explores the global significance of the Zapatista resistance by identifying key ideological themes of the movement, showing how those
themes are responses to the perceived and experienced failures of neoliberalism, and analyzing the movement’s contributions and
shortcomings. Additionally, I make strategic recommendations for the Zapatistas’ future and posit lessons that can be learned from the
movement.
Introduction
Recent years have seen an explosive growth of civil
society around the world, including the rise of
influential non-state actors, many of them nongovernmental organizations. As civil society has grown
and taken on an increasingly transnational element, the
global framework of governance by nation-states has
come into question. Aware of many states’ inability to
meet the needs of disadvantaged or minority citizens,
especially in the highly inequitable societies of many
developing countries, scholars and activists have sought
to develop new conceptualizations of bottom-up
governance. Many consider state politics as antithetical
to this end – in some cases even the primary barrier to
local participation in social life and the growth of
democracy. Civil society actors have stepped up to fill in
that gap, but because most exist within the confines of
state regulation and fierce competition for funding, few
have been able to offer a new vision of governance.
In the south of Mexico, the autonomous
communities aligned with the Ejército Zapatista de
Liberación Nacional (EZLN), or Zapatista Army for
National Liberation, have developed a new form of
radical bottom-up governance in the context of
resistance and self-development. While their example is
significant as a fascinating and informative case study,
their survival also has implications that reach far beyond
Mexican politics. The Zapatistas, as they call themselves,
represent the capacity of grassroots social movements
to confront dominant global forces. Their success tests
resistance to historical injustice, state power, and the
hegemony of corporate globalization, thus their
continued existence has global importance. A wide array
of individuals, groups, and movements stand to benefit
from a thorough analysis of the group’s truly distinctive
modus operandi – their postmodern approach to
Volume 5, November 2008
revolution, ideological bridge-building, and innovative
tactics.
The goals of this paper are to explore the global
significance of the Zapatistas by identifying key
ideological themes of the movement, showing how
these themes are responses to the perceived and
experienced failures of regional political changes, and
analyzing the movement’s contributions and
shortcomings in light of this changing context. This
paper is divided into three major sections. First, I
provide a brief history of the Zapatista movement
focusing on ideological and tactical elements rather than
a descriptive timeline of events, as space constraints do
not permit suitable treatment of the movement’s
complex historical narrative.1 I also analyze the
movement’s approach from the perspectives of other
actors, such as the Mexican government and nonZapatista indigenous communities. The second section
embeds the movement in the greater context of major
political shifts in Latin America, specifically neoliberal
policy and multiculturalism. Then, I examine the global
significance of the Zapatista movement by presenting
some of the scholarly debates surrounding their
approach. Finally, I make strategic recommendations for
the future of the movement and posit lessons that can
be learned.
A History of the Zapatista Movement
The Uprising
The EZLN announced their presence to the world in
1994 when they occupied government buildings in the
state of Chiapas in southern Mexico. As an armed
group of several thousand indigenous peasants, the
Zapatistas confronted the Mexican state demanding
cultural and political rights, education, and land. They
threatened violent action if their demands weren’t met.
The reaction of the Mexican military was swift and
71
Zapatistas and their Global Significance
decisive, the Zapatistas retreated into the jungle ten days
after their initial uprising, and, in the following months,
thousands of troops were sent into Chiapas. The
indigenous army (EZLN) realized it could not survive
long using violent tactics, being grossly outnumbered
and poorly armed.
Aware of the need for a different strategy, as well as
the deficiencies of previous revolutions that
concentrated power in the hands of the military, the
EZLN sought guidance by actively reaching out to
sympathizers in civil society 2 – above all, indigenous
civilian supporters in Chiapas. This act met with such
resounding support that it became the hall1 of the
movement. Through dialogue (an approach they
describe with the slogan “we learn as we go”), the
Zapatistas adopted a policy of “leading by obeying,” in
other words, those in power must be subject to the
authority of those they serve. Thus the term
“Zapatista” grew to include not only the army (EZLN),
but its indigenous supporters in Chiapas as well, who
non-violently retook land in 38 municipalities3 (Hayden,
2005), creating thousands of autonomous communities
that grew to include more than 500,000 people (Flood,
1999). In the process of building a system of direct
democracy and creating a political space where
everyone could participate, the movement was
dramatically transformed from a marginal group of
revolutionaries to a radical social movement (Flood,
1999).
Since then, the EZLN has been non-violent and
weary of traditional political power that corrupted
former revolutionary movements. They have rejected
the goal of overthrowing the government,
concentrating instead on listening to the “voice of civil
society” – the perspective of civilians who voluntarily
choose to associate themselves with the movement.
Toward this end, the Zapatistas have galvanized civil
society through local recruitment and mobilization of
international support. They have given up violence to
wage a different kind of war, using the Internet to
disseminate information about their situation, rally
activists around the world, channel international
donations to communities in Chiapas, and proclaim a
new vision of hope.
Burbach (1994) described the Zapatista movement
as the first post-modern revolution. Moving beyond
older strategies for so-called revolution, the Zapatistas
have developed a new pluralistic vision of
transformative change based on a post-modern
conception of equality where diverse perspectives
coexist (Pelaez, n.d.). Zapatista ideology manifests
unique connections (between tradition and modernity,
the mundane and the transcendent, the local and the
global) which revel in paradox. Nash (1997) eloquently
describes the origins of their post-modern dichotomy
of thought and purpose:
72
Their vision of progress still contains the
communal values that are found in
mythopoetic traditions that survive from the
preconquest period. Accustomed to cultural
diversity, they have learned to live with it, not
attempting to eradicate or dominate the others
in their midst. Far from being primordial
remnants of a past, the behaviors and beliefs of
the groups engaged in the struggle have been
enacted continually in everyday life since the
conquest… the communitarian values and
institutions might provide a model for
pluriethnic and pluripolitical institutions as we
enter the third millennium. (p. 272)
While there is much to be learned from Zapatista
ideology, its complexity is at the same time auspicious
and disadvantageous. It creates a space for rich
deliberation, but its elaborate aims defy easy
categorization and resist concise description.
At one level, Zapatista demands remain the same as
on the day of their uprising: they seek land, as well as
political and cultural rights for indigenous groups. But
the Zapatista vision has evolved into something much
broader as well. Their aspirations exist on three levels –
locally, nationally, and globally. At the community level,
the Zapatistas protest disempowerment from social
disintegration, loss of indigenous culture, and lack of
local control. They advocate, instead, for local
empowerment of their own autonomous communities,
which govern themselves through a communal blend of
participatory and delegate democracy. At the national
level, the Zapatistas see elites controlling politics and
resources for their own interests. In response, they
advocate for resistance against historical domination,
exploitation, and lack of political representation (EZLN
Indigenous Clandestine Revolutionary Committee
General Command [EZLN CCRI], 1994) through
strategies that have evolved into a policy of nonengagement with the state (EZLN CCRI, 2005). At a
global level, they challenge impersonal forces that have
widened the gap between rich and poor and between
the powerful and the disenfranchised. These forces
include neoliberalism, corporate globalization, and
unrestricted free trade. The Zapatistas take a
cosmopolitan approach to citizenship by allying
themselves with all disadvantaged people and
advocating for the valuation of people over profit
(EZLN CCRI, 2005). Each of these three levels of
influence is described in greater detail below.
Local Autonomy
The Zapatistas’ main tactic of resistance has been the
development of hundreds of autonomous communities
that cover over a third of the political territory of
Chiapas (Hayden, 2005). Community members are
several hundred thousand landless indigenous peasants
Volume 5, November 2008
Journal of Development and Social Transformation
from the Chiapas highlands (Bob, 2001). These
“communities in resistance” have put autonomy into
practice by resisting government interventions, refusing
government programs and services, and building their
own infrastructure, including clinics, pharmacies, and
hundreds of schools. Baker (2002) has noted that
“rather than taking up formal avenues where they
would be admitted only as losers”, they have chosen to
“opt out” of the national system to create their own (as
cited by Chandler, 2004, New Global Agency section,
para. 8). For example, they finance their communal
infrastructure development through donations from
global civil society. Benefiting from fair trade 1eting and
an elaborate system of cooperatives, income from the
production of coffee and traditional textiles and
handicrafts aids both individual workers and the
collective whole. This “capitalism with socialist
goals” (Earle & Simonelli, 2005, p. 21) directs
communal earnings toward diversifying production and
building food security (Starr & Adams, 2003) to help
build a model of self-sustainability.
Fiercely dedicated to self-development, the
Zapatistas have created their own system of
participatory governance in an effort to embody the
transformation they advocate. The EZLN’s
commanding body (of which there are also regional
sub-bodies) is the Indigenous Clandestine
Revolutionary Committee General Command (CCRICG), composed of delegates from the communities.
However, while this group directs day-to-day
operations, all major political decisions are made by
community assemblies (consultas) where “intense
discussions in each community (are) as central to the
process as the vote itself ” (Flood, 1999, The Consulta
section, para. 1).
These discussions also guide the evolution of the
system of Zapatista governance which has developed
over time. Most recently in 2003, they re-organized to
consolidate their influence by developing juntas de buen
gobierno (good government committees). These
committees are “regional councils which take the
functions of administering justice, taxation, healthcare,
education, housing, land, work, food, commerce,
information and culture, and local movement from the
EZLN” (Hobson, 2005, para. 12). The Zapatistas 1ed
this change by replacing the name of their five
administrative centers, previously called aguascalientes,4
with the designation caracoles.5
Perhaps the most unique aspect of Zapatista
governance is its rhetoric about civil service. Their
brand of autonomy is synonymous not with power, but
with empowerment through self-sacrifice. Members are
willing to take on hardships without the promise of
personal gain, underscoring their doctrine that elected
officials should be, above all, servants to those they
represent. Believing money to be a corrupting
influence, civil servants elected to a junta work full-time
Volume 5, November 2008
without pay. Personal income must be gained through
other avenues, such a picking and grinding coffee or
making and selling handicrafts.6 The Zapatistas restrict
power by limiting term length and permitting
immediate recall of any individual who does not carry
out his or her duties (Flood, 2001).
Figure 1
Oventic mural.
Photo taken
in the Zapatista
of Oventic
by ElizabethofJenner,
2008. Marching
alongside
Photo
taken
in the community
Zapatista
community
Oventic
by Elizabeth
caracoles (snails symbolic of the movement's slow and steady progress), this mural depicts indigenous
Jenner,
2008. for
Marching
alongside
caracoles
(snails
the
Zapatistas advocating
“Liberty, Land,
and Equality”.
The ski masks
and redsymbolic
handkerchiefsof(worn
in public to conceal individual identities in a historical context of violent state repression) represent
movement's
slow
and
steady
progress),
this
mural
depicts
indigenous
opposition to individualism in favor of communitarian values and solidarity with marginalized groups
around the globe.advocating for “Liberty, Land, and Equality”. The ski
Zapatistas
masks and red handkerchiefs (worn in public to conceal individual
identities in a historical context of violent state repression) represent
opposition to individualism in favor of communitarian values and
solidarity with marginalized groups around the globe.
The Zapatista Approach to the State
Shortly after their uprising in 1994, the Zapatistas began
a dialog with the Mexican government. The two parties
eventually agreed to peace negotiations, but these
stalled early on, and the majority of proposed topics for
discussion were never broached. Those issues that were
discussed resulted in the San Andrés Accords, a
document approved by the Zapatistas and other
indigenous communities which guaranteed indigenous
rights to cultural pluralism and self-determination.
Congress ultimately approved the document in 1996,
but internal congressional negotiations had so altered
its content that the resulting document had lost its
substance according to the Zapatistas. Worse, the ruling
party ignored the agreement and increased its military
presence in Chiapas. The EZLN felt betrayed and said
they would only consider future negotiations if the
government withdrew some of the 50,000 troops
stationed in Chiapas, dismantled paramilitary groups,
and implemented the San Andrés Accords in full
(Hayden, 2005). Thus the Zapatistas have a profound
distrust of the Mexican state. In 1997 the Zapatistas
agreed not to join political parties or aspire to political
73
Zapatistas and their Global Significance
office (FZLN National Organizing Commission,
1997).7 The EZLN stopped making demands for
constitutional rights in 2001, and have since then taken
an approach of complete non-engagement with the
state. Zapatista communities refuse all contact with the
Mexican state, including the registration of births and
deaths (Flood, 2001).
This policy of “anti-politics” is still accompanied
by a desire to affect change on a national level by
creating a political space for all to participate in the
remaking of society. Stammers (1999) noted that they
do “not seek to replace one form of power with
another but instead have the objective of ‘whittling
down’ the capacity of concentrated centers of power”
by creating alternative sources of influence in civil
society (as cited by Chandler, 2004, p. 314). Hernández
Navarro (1995) interpreted the Zapatista vision as the
creation of a public sphere free of any state or 1et
involvement. The hope is that such a free space, “born
of reclaimed land, communal agriculture, (and)
resistance to privatization, will eventually create
counter-powers to the state simply by existing as
alternatives” (Klein, 2000, para. 23).
Transnational Networks
The EZLN does not oppose globalization in its entirety,
but rather objects to its effects on the disenfranchised
poor and marginalized. The Zapatistas protest the
terms on which the national system and their right to
control their own economic resources are based.8
Unrestricted U.S. access to Mexican 1ets, which elites
view as a basis for Mexico’s legitimacy in the global 1et
(Stavenhagen, 2003), are seen by the EZLN as a
decision with grave consequences for the poor. Under
NAFTA, if the poor are not able to make themselves
relevant to capital 1ets, they could wind up being
decimated as regional trading blocs evolve. Rather than
advocating protectionist policies and isolationism, as
Hayden (2005) explained, “it is not a question of
globalization versus protectionism, it is a question of
global corporatism versus global conscience” (para. 50).
Thus, in its view of global relations, the Zapatista
protest bears a heavy ethical dimension.
Attracted to the movement by its call for ethical
action, groups and individuals around the world have
responded by creating support networks. 9 Today the
Zapatistas have working relationships with non-profit
and volunteer organizations in dozens of countries.
Primarily using the Internet, these networks disseminate
information and solicit donations for the Zapatistas to
fund infrastructure. The EZLN has demonstrated an
extremely skilled use of networks to gain support
through imagery, art, slogans, parables, regular
communiqués, and radio, in addition to the Internet.
One of the movement’s leaders and its primary
spokesperson, Subcommander Marcos, has been widely
perceived as a communications guru. His prolific and
74
eloquent writings, symbolic presence at conferences and
regular interviews, and inspirational calls for moral
action have enabled anyone with media access to
participate in resistance, whether directly or vicariously.
This “virtual” rebellion has enabled anyone, anywhere,
to practice Zapatista-inspired ethics through protest.
Perspectives of Related Actors
After the uprising, the Mexican government responded
by drastically increasing its military presence in the state
of Chiapas. The military continually harassed Zapatista
communities using surveillance, military installations,
and checkpoints. The army employed a policy of lowintensity warfare, and even covertly funded the training
of some 18 paramilitary groups in the region. Today
there are still some 50,000 troops in the state of
Chiapas (Swords, 2007). Since the uprising, the
government has also funneled much more money into
non-Zapatista communities in the region, particularly
into schools and infrastructure, presumably to prevent
recruitment of additional members and the growth of
the movement.
The conflict between the Zapatistas and the
government has also exacerbated tensions between
indigenous communities. Ninety percent of indigenous
people in Chiapas claim to be neither opponents nor
supporters of the Zapatistas (Bob, 2001), but
indigenous communities still face the choice of who to
support. Will they join the Zapatistas in their struggle?
Can they survive communally, working longer hours for
less money? Will the government retaliate? Are such
long-term goals even achievable? Or will they continue
with life as normal and reap the benefits of increased
government handouts, thereby entering the capitalist
hierarchy at the bottom?
The Neoliberal, Multicultural Context of Latin
America
As in much of the rest of the world, massive structural
changes have occurred in Latin America since the
1970s. These changes are described, often pejoratively,
under the label of neoliberalism, which Hale (2002)
described as a set of policies “driven by the logic of
transnational capitalism: unfettered world 1ets… pared
down state responsibilities for social welfare of its
citizens… (and) resolution of social problems through
the application of quasi1et principles revolving around
the primacy of the individual” (p. 486). It involves
decentralization, scaled-down government, and the
growth of civil society. It is also associated with an
affirmation of human rights, including the right to
preserve one’s way of life. On the surface, these
developments seem to be overwhelmingly positive, but
authors are beginning to call attention to the darker side
of these reforms and their consequences, particularly in
Volume 5, November 2008
Journal of Development and Social Transformation
terms of changing power relations and the implications
for minority and indigenous groups.
According to Robinson (2006), Latin America is at
the forefront of current social movements. In the past
few decades, indigenous rights movements have sprung
up in most Latin American countries with sizeable
native populations, and many of these have resulted in
significant constitutional changes that give minority
groups political rights based on cultural differences.
Many authors have connected this trend to neoliberal
policies. Hooker (2005) summarized the reasons that
authors have given for the connection between
neoliberalism and multicultural policies. According to
him, perhaps neoliberal reforms: 1) challenge
indigenous autonomy which leads to greater
mobilization, 2) push elites to promote multiculturalism
in order to increase the internal and external legitimacy
of the state, or 3) push elites to compromise in order to
pacify more radical claims. Interestingly enough, Mexico
is one country that has not altered its constitution to
introduce multicultural policies and it seems likely that
contention between the state and the EZLN has played
some role in hindering such a change.
Yashar (2005) argues that the shift to neoliberal
policies in the eighties brought about a corresponding
change in the basis of state citizenship – suddenly the
individual became the primary unit of citizenship, as
opposed to the collective. Under the corporatist regime
prior to the 1980s, indigenous communities had
citizenship as peasants and communal landholders and
were therefore granted autonomy and social rights, such
as credit, healthcare, education, and subsidies. Loss of
autonomy due to this regime change, says Yashar, is
what has prompted mass mobilization around
indigenous resistance in most Latin American countries.
Indeed, the EZLN uprising was directly precipitated by
President Salinas’ 1992 revocation of Article 27 of the
Mexican constitution which stipulated the right to
communal landholding (Hobson, 2005).
While multiculturalism has increased the legal and
political participation of indigenous groups in some
countries, neoliberalism’s emphasis on reducing
government and opening 1ets has not addressed longstanding social inequalities. Economic disparity plays a
central role in the struggle for minority rights, as most
indigenous peoples in Latin America are considerably
poorer than non-indigenous people (Hale, 2002). Even
in countries where multicultural rights have been
affirmed, very few have invested economic resources in
implementation or translating these rights into legal
standards to protect minorities (Yashar, 2005). Mexico
has done neither – it has not affirmed those rights nor
sought redistributive justice based on economic
disparity. When rights are not backed with economic
resources, it is inevitable that inequities based on class
and continued marginalization will persist.
Volume 5, November 2008
Certainly resources are being channeled into many
different development projects that are funded by
national and international organizations as well as the
government, but these resources have not been aimed
at establishing legal rights or correcting systemic
injustice. Bob (2001) explains that since the 1960s, the
Mexican government has been implementing an
elaborate development plan by building roads, schools,
and clinics, especially in rural areas and in many
indigenous communities. However, because resources
have been funneled through local indigenous elites,
these efforts do not produce greater equity or
democracy. In fact, even though Chiapas has made
strides towards greater economic development overall,
government development programs may have further
stratified class-based differences and exacerbated
corruption (Bob, 2001).
Development projects often come with strings
attached and may create situations of dependency that
disempower communities. Hale (2002) concluded that
when “resource starved, without the power to influence
decisions taken by the state and powerful institutions…
development initiatives… reinforce a symbolic order
that saps the energy for collective, autonomous…
empowerment” (p. 498). It is for this reason that the
Zapatistas reject government ‘help’. Instead, they utilize
a large network of international solidarity groups to
fund their schools and infrastructure, as they have
complete control over the use of these resources.
In many Latin American countries, the general
population perceives that strides have been made
towards indigenous equality. Now that new channels for
dialogue are open, some authors fear that further
dissent will be stifled or at least seem less urgent. It is
this loss of exigency that, according to Hale (2005),
may give rise to multiculturalism’s dark side, giving the
state a much greater say in the lives of indigenous
groups. Affirming cultural rights involves confirmation
of citizenship, replete with its implicit responsibilities to
the state. Therefore, the state may be more apt to
become involved in indigenous affairs, defining what is
acceptable behavior and what is radical. Further,
external legal protections may come with the price of
internal restrictions (Hale, 2002) and indigenous groups
can unwittingly forfeit their right to protest, since the
state has already granted them concessions. In this way,
Hale (2002), Yashar (2005), and Hooker (2005) argue
that the state co-opts radical dissent with the promise of
small wins (limited legal rights) that ultimately sacrifice
the final goal for indigenous groups – an existence free
of discrimination. Each of these authors offers
examples of minority groups that have become bogged
down in the details and technical aspects of their legal
rights. Rather than seeking the broader central goal of
ending discrimination, groups will focus on isolated acts
as the problem, rather than structural inequity. This cooptation is exactly the type of compromise that the
75
Zapatistas and their Global Significance
Zapatistas are unwilling to make. They see neoliberal
multiculturalism as more threat than opportunity.
Hale (2002) suggested that perhaps the only way to
combat co-optation is to “contest the relations of
representation and the distribution of resources on
which the neoliberal establishment rests” (p. 498).
Without questioning the dominant system of thought,
marginalized groups risk being subsumed by the
opposition. Perhaps reframing the issue, imagining
practical and ideological alternatives, and focusing on
economic and representational disparity, as well as racial
discrimination, is the way to avoid co-optation. This is
exactly what the Zapatistas have done.
The Significance of the Zapatistas and
their Future
Depending on the vantage point, one could argue that
the Zapatistas have been both successful in meeting
their goals or that they have utterly failed. On the one
hand, they have succeeded in resisting state intervention
for the last 14 years, achieving autonomy in their
“communities in resistance” on a small scale. They have
succeeded in alerting others to their plight and in
galvanizing civil society around a common cause,
mobilizing millions of supporters around the world and
building a model of deliberative democracy. The EZLN
reports that there have been improvements in living
conditions since the formation of the juntas de buen
gobierno (EZLN CCRI, 2005), as well as increased social
and civic participation of women. Their survival and
growth in using legitimate transnational networks could
justify their sovereignty under international law (Anaya,
1996). Yet, the Zapatistas have not made progress
towards their original goal of increased political rights
for indigenous groups. They have not yet changed state
interests and their demands are still ignored by the
government. They have millions of supporters, but they
have not changed global forces on a larger scale.
However, even though the Zapatistas still live in
poverty, they argue that they have gained their dignity
(EZLN CCRI, 2005).
According to Swords (2007), the EZLN has
inspired other organizations and movements around the
world. In Mexico alone, dozens of other communities
have declared themselves autonomous since 1995 –
some have joined Zapatista autonomous resistance, and
others have demanded independence on their own
terms. Today, the Zapatistas are one of many
autonomous movements in Mexico. Neo-Zapatismo – the
support of Zapatista aims through the spread of their
principles to other struggles for grassroots democracy
and resistance – is alive and well.
Swords (2007) described such a situation in her
discussion of a women’s collective heavily influenced by
Zapatista ideology and rhetoric. 10 Using strategies
learned from the Zapatistas, such as job rotation,
76
challenging hierarchies and leaders, and group
discussion of issues, these women have formed an
association based on participatory democracy, and
guided by community values, ultimately challenging
hegemonic practices of democracy. The women have
rejected conditional cash transfers offered by the
government because they feel that such programs
control, demoralize, and target the individual rather that
the group.
Critiques of Zapatista Strategy
Because space does not permit an analysis of
neoliberalism, globalization, or any of the central tenets
upon which the EZLN bases their struggle, I will focus
this section of critiques on those who fundamentally
agree with Zapatista goals, yet disagree with their
strategy. Most academics and theorists who are familiar
with the situation applaud the development of
autonomous communities and watch in awe as the
movement adeptly uses transnational networks despite
economic marginalization. The major point of
contention, however, is the Zapatista’s policy of nonengagement with the state.
Chandler (2004) argues that this policy is flawed for
several reasons. Not only does non-engagement fail to
promote accountability, it also decreases left-leaning
influences on politics by removing more progressive
debate from the national dialogue. This could serve the
counter-productive end of leaving politics to an even
smaller group of elites. Robinson (2006) also disagrees
with EZLN strategy on this basis, as he views national
political involvement as the only viable channel for
challenging the global capitalist system. The Zapatistas,
however, ignore talk of state power and political
organizations favoring a model based on a
transformation of civil society. Robinson (2006) argues
that the key question is not about state power, but is
now: How can “popular forces and classes… utilize
state power to alter social relations (and) production
relations?” (p. 61). Those who desire radical change, in
Robinson’s view, must use the current system of global
relations to re-conceptualize and create an alternative.
Considerations for their Future
The Zapatistas must confront these critiques if they are
to remain a valid civil society actor both in Mexico and
around the world. I assess the EZLN’s primary points
of weakness to include: the aforementioned strategy of
state non-engagement (which has potential but may
threaten the scope of their influence); contentions
within Chiapas related to the various actors in the area
and their varied interests; and the movement’s violent
origins and its potential consequences.
It has been shown above that the Zapatistas’
strategic choice to refrain from involvement in national
politics has been hotly debated. For this reason, the
movement’s value and influence lie in both its local and
Volume 5, November 2008
Journal of Development and Social Transformation
global significance. Expanding local significance will
require increasing the involvement of additional groups
and individuals by building alliances and networking
within Chiapas. However, because the movement has
lost some of its initial momentum and settled into a
strategy of maintenance, rather than growth, it is
unlikely that many local actors outside the movement
will be willing to alter the status quo; that is, unless
discontent grows. The EZLN may want to consider
fostering such discontent in productive ways that nudge
people towards the movement.
To retain global significance, the Zapatistas must
increase support by strengthening transnational
alliances, which will require additional funding. Toward
this end, the EZLN should use fundraising principles to
vamp up their outreach. To make funding attractive to
civil society, the EZLN might consider opening up
certain aspects of the development process to create a
reciprocal relation between the movement and potential
funders. For example, within the past few years, one of
the caracoles has established a language learning school
where international supporters can come to study
Spanish or the Tzotzil indigenous language. In addition,
there have been online notices of trips for international
benefactors to visit Chiapas, learn about the movement,
and consider establishing a philanthropic relationship.
Continuing this trend towards greater openness could
certainly help the Zapatistas by drawing attention and
funds to the cause. Olesen (2004) views the Internet as
an important vehicle not only for information exchange
within the existent transnational network, but also for
establishing additional connections and allowing more
people to identify with the movement. An analysis of
online “1eting techniques” to potential supporters
could be beneficial towards this end.
The EZLN’s continued existence is due, at least in
part, to their transformation into a non-violent group.
The year of their uprising (1994) was 1ed by multiple
skirmishes with the military, which attracted
considerable media attention. Today many people still
perceive the Zapatistas as a violent rebel group, even
though the movement became non-violent in 1995.
Indeed, autonomous Zapatista communities use emptyhanded men and women as guards, and provide security
for EZLN-sponsored international conferences with
people “armed” only with sticks. The presence of tens
of thousands of troops in Chiapas, however,
demonstrates that the Mexican government still
perceives them as a threat. In order to keep the
Zapatistas from gaining support, land, and power,
government forces presumably maintain the impression
that the Zapatistas are dangerous. However, the
government could also foment sympathy for the
Zapatista cause, as well as the disapproval and
involvement of international actors, if they are
perceived as initiating violence. Both the government
and the Zapatistas walk a fine line. The Zapatistas´
Volume 5, November 2008
precarious approach – avoiding violence while still
projecting an image as a potential threat – has served
the movement thus far, but it also creates an
environment of constant uncertainty. Any perceived
aggression on the part of the Zapatistas could spark
military retaliation and diminish domestic and
international support. Thus the EZLN would benefit
from a firm policy of non-escalation. This may be
particularly important considering evidence that the
government is slowly moving additional troops into the
area (Swords, 2007).
What Can We Learn From the Zapatistas?
A Model of a Successful Social Movement
Despite the aforementioned failure of the movement to
achieve some of its primary aims, there is nearly
unanimous agreement that Neo-Zapatismo has been
uniquely successful in many ways. Few movements
from the developing world attract transnational backing,
so what factors have drawn literally millions to support
the Zapatistas? Their uniqueness has many sources: it
involves rich symbols and imagery, effective
communication, a moral charge, self-sacrificing actions,
and a revolutionary vanguard confronting grave
injustices. But it has been the EZLN’s ability to change,
to give up violence, and to create a living, physical
alternative to the hegemony they protest that makes the
Zapatistas a model for so many other groups around
the world.
Neo-Zapatismo Challenges Ideas of State Citizenship
Fox (2005) argued that popular movements in Latin
America are still debating how to engage the state.
While the importance of the state has declined in recent
years due to the global capitalist consolidation of
power, the nation-state is far from irrelevant. States are
still the major world actors (in conjunction with
corporations and large international institutions). Most
individuals adhere to the tenets of Social Contract
Theory, the fundamental agreement by which nations
are formed, which stipulates that human beings must
give up some rights to their government in exchange for
social order (Cudd, 2007). A corollary to this is that, if
the state does not provide for its citizens, then they
should not have to consent to the government’s rule.
This is the premise behind most revolutionary activity.
But if the state loses its legitimacy, to whom do we owe
allegiance? Our community? All human beings? This
speaks to the need for a re-conceptualization of
citizenship.
Essentially what the EZLN advocates for – though
they have never used these terms – is a cosmopolitan
idea of citizenship (Brock and Brighouse, 2005). As
opposed to patriotism or nationalism, cosmopolitanism
is the idea that all human beings belong to a single
community which should be cultivated (Kleingeld &
77
Zapatistas and their Global Significance
Brown, 2006). Instead of obedience to the state based
on the so-called Social Contract, cosmopolitanism
advocates for equality and solidarity among all human
beings. More specifically, the Zapatistas advocate for
moral cosmopolitanism (solidarity with the oppressed
as a moral imperative) rather than political
cosmopolitanism (that envisions the establishment of
some sort of international political body). Like Appiah
(2006), they envision a postmodern balance of respect
for universals and particulars, a balance Appiah suggests
can be found through conversation, but not necessarily
consensus. The Zapatistas aspire to global solidarity
with local control.
Emphasis on Structural Inequality
Economists generally view peace and stability as
prerequisites for outside investment and “progress” and
international politics seems to equate peace with a lack
of violence. Perhaps we should question the usefulness
of peace-building, however, when structural inequalities
are apparent. In the face of injustice, spaces for protest,
perhaps even violent protest if the injustices are violent,
are necessary to ensure real peace and progress. The
Zapatistas have claimed that space of protesting
structural inequality and are determined to keep it.
Challenging Mainstream Perspectives
Neoliberal policy may make it more difficult for
dissenters to voice alternative opinions, especially those
that challenge traditional mainstream perspectives and
the opinions of those in power. However, improving
the world in which we live requires that a broad range
of perspectives are presented, including those that
emerge from the bottom and represent the perspective
of actors who have historically had little voice or
opportunity. The mass mobilization sparked by the
Zapatistas speaks to a global desire for change and the
need for a space outside the system – a public sphere,
free of state involvement – where ideological
alternatives are fostered.11
Inspiration
The Zapatista movement advocates for a change in
perspective - a focus on people above profit, of
empowerment above development, and for an existence
guided by values and conscience. They challenge our
notion that overcoming social problems is about
increasing material wealth and technological progress.
Zapatista autonomous communities and the EZLN do
not prescribe specific actions for others, but instead try
to embody the values they advocate, the change they
would like to see in the world. Perhaps it is this reason
above all others why the Zapatistas have so many
supporters. They suggest that optimism is not in vain,
that real change requires self-sacrifice, and that the very
process of living one’s values is transformative.
78
References
Anaya, J. (1996). Indigenous peoples in international law. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of
strangers. New York: W. W. Norton.
Baker, G. (2002). Problems in the theorisation of global
civil society. Political Studies, 50(5), 928-943.
Bob, C. (2001). Marketing rebellion: Insurgent groups,
international media, and NGO support.
International Politics, 38(3), 311-334.
Brock, G., & Brighouse, H. (2005). The political philosophy
of cosmopolitanism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Burbach, R. (1994). Roots of postmodern rebellion in
Chiapas. New Left Review, 205,113-124.
Chandler, D. (2004). Building global civil society ‘from
below’? Millenium: Journal of International Studies,
33(2), 313-339.
Cudd, A. (2007). Contractarianism. In Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online. Retrieved
Au g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , f r o m h t t p : / /
plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/
Earle, D., & Simonelli, J. (2005). Uprising of hope: Sharing
the Zapatista journey to alternative development.
Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Edwards, M. (2004). Civil society. Cambridge, England:
Polity Press.
EZLN Indigenous Clandestine Revolutionary
Committee General Command. (1994). First
declaration of the Lacandon jungle (communiqué).
Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://
flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/
ezlnwa.html
EZLN Indigenous Clandestine Revolutionary
Committee General Command. (2005). Sixth
declarations of the Lacandon jungle (communiqué).
Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://
w w w. a n a r k i s m o . n e t / n e w s w i r e . p h p ?
story_id=805
Flood, A. N. (1999). The Zapatistas, anarchism, and
‘direct democracy.’ Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, 27.
Flood, A. N. (2001). What is it that is different about
the Zapatistas? Chiapas Revealed, 1. Retrieved
August 1, 2008 from http://flag.blackened.net/
revolt/mexico/pdf/revealed1.html
Fox, J. (2005). Unpacking “transnational citizenship”.
Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 171–201.
FZLN National Organizing Commission. (1997).
Summons to the Founding Convention of the FZLN.
Retrieved August 1, 2008 from http://
flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/
fzln_founding_summons_aug.html
Habermas, Jürgen. (1989). The structural transformation of
the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of
bourgeois society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press.
Volume 5, November 2008
Journal of Development and Social Transformation
Hale, C. (2002). Does multiculturalism menace?
Governance, cultural rights and the politics of
identity in Guatemala. Journal of Latin American
Studies, 34(3), 485-524.
Hale, C. (2005). Neoliberal multiculturalism: The
remaking of cultural rights and racial
dominance in Central America. PoLAR: Political
and Legal Anthropology Review, 28(1), 10-28.
Hayden, T. (2002). The Zapatista reader: A literary
anthology. New York: Nation Books.
Hayden, T. (2005). Unmasking militarism: U.S.-supported
low-intensity war in Chiapas. Retrieved March 19,
2008 from http://www.tomhayden.com/
articlesGA4.htm
Hernandez Navarro, L. (1995, December 19). Chiapas:
Un año después. La Jornada, editorial page.
Hobson, P. (2005, September). Are we all Zapatistas?
The Socialist Standard. Retrieved April 17, 2008
from http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/
sep05/text/page13.html
Hooker, J. (2005). Indigenous inclusion/black exclusion:
Race, ethnicity and multicultural citizenship in
Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies,
37, 285-310.
Klein, N. (2000). Ya basta! The masks of Chiapas.
Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://
www.naomiklein.org/articles/2000/12/yabasta-masks-chiapas
Kleingeld, P., & Brown, E. (2006). “Cosmopolitanism.”
In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online.
Retrieved July 30, 2008 from http://
plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism
Munoz Ramirez, G. (2008). The fire and the word: A history
of the Zapatista movement. San Francisco: City
Lights.
Nash, J. (1997). The fiesta of the word: The Zapatista
uprising and radical democracy in Mexico.
American Anthropologist, 99(2), 261-274.
Olesen, T. (2004). The transnational Zapatista solidarity
network: An infrastructure analysis. Global
Networks, 4(1), 89–107.
Pelaez, M. P. (n.d.). The EZLN: 21st century radicals.
Retrieved July 31, 2008 from http://
flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/reports/
pomo_ezln.html
Robinson, W. (2006). Latin America, state power, and the
challenge to global capital. Orfalea Center for
Global & International Studies. Paper 42.
Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://
repositories.cdlib.org/gis/42/
Stammers, N. (1999). Social movements and the social
construction of human rights. Human Rights
Quarterly, 21(4), 980-1008.
Starr, A., & Adams, J. (2003). Anti-globalization: The
global fight for local autonomy. New Political
Science, 25(1), 19-42.
Stavenhagen, R. (2003). Mexico’s unfinished symphony:
Volume 5, November 2008
The Zapatista movement. In J. S. Tulchin & A.
D. Selee (Eds.). Mexico’s Politics and Society in
Transition (p. 119-127). Boulder, Colorado:
Lynne Rienner.
Swords, A. (2007). Neo-Zapatista network politics:
Transforming democracy and development.
Latin American Perspectives, 34(2), 78-93.
Yashar, D. (2005). Contesting citizenship in Latin America:
The rise of indigenous movements and the postliberal
challenge. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Endnotes
Readers interested in the history of the movement will find a
nearly inexhaustible amount of information available on the
Internet. According to the Zapatista leader Subcomandante Marcos,
the most complete history of the movement to date is Munoz
Ramirez (2008). For a more concise summary, see Stavenhagen
(2003).
2 The term “civil society” is imprecise, as its definition varies widely
depending on the speaker and context. I define civil society as all
voluntary collective action towards shared interests, as differentiated
from state-sponsored or 1et-based associations, as well as the family
(Edwards, 2004). To be sure, the dividing line between these entities
is unclear, but this debate is beyond the scope of this paper.
3 Participants and indigenous supporters of the 1994 uprising
“retook” municipalities by settling on unoccupied land. It is likely
they were able to do this, despite heavy military presence, for a
number of reasons. At least some, if not many, of those who settled
on plots of land had previously worked for the landowners who
may have lived far away with little knowledge of the day-to-day use
of their property (Flood, 1999). Opponents of the movements had
no way to distinguish between members of the EZLN or its
sympathizers and indigenous non-Zapatistas. Even if they did,
international human rights observers remained in the area well into
1995, which would have made any attack risky at best.
4 Literally meaning “hot waters,” aguascalientes were Zapatista
discussion forums.
5 In Spanish, a caracol is a snail or a spiral conch shell (which can be
used as a horn). According to a conversation between myself and
Zapatista civil servants in the caracol of Oventic in January 2008, the
use of this word by the Zapatistas to describe administrative centers
is meant to emphasize slow progress and calls for support.
6 Civil servants’ basic needs for food and shelter, however, are
provided for by the community.
7 The Frente Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (FZLN) was a civilian
sister to the EZLN, created to further Zapatista ideology. The
group’s leadership voted to dissolve the organization in 2005.
8 For example, the Zapatista uprising was strategically planned for
the first day of the passage of NAFTA (January 1, 1994), which the
EZLN called a “death sentence” for indigenous groups (Hayden,
2002, p. 11).
9 It is the protest of transnational injustice and growing inequality
that has attracted the majority of international supporters to
mobilize en masse. The movement now encompasses a global
network of millions of international supporters that include national
solidarity networks, anti-globalization protesters, those who question
neoliberal policies, indigenous rights groups, those who believe in
self-determination, and alliances with other disadvantaged and
minority groups.
1
79
Zapatistas and their Global Significance
Swords (2007) described additional examples of organizations in
Mexico that have mimicked Zapatista strategy. These include a prodemocracy, political education non-profit organization and a
network of coffee producers.
11 Such a space has existed. In his ground-breaking work, Habermas
traced the historical development (and demise) of such a public
sphere, which he differentiated from the private sphere of labor and
commercial exchange, as well as the governmental “Sphere of
Public Authority” (Habermas, 1989, p. 30). Habermas argued that,
as a distinct space for open dialogue the public sphere is critical to
the democratic process as the principal avenue by which public
opinion can become political action. It also serves as a “regulatory
institution against the authority of the state” (p. 27).
10
80
Volume 5, November 2008