The World : The Zapatistas Have Gone Too Far in Rejecting Plan

Since Jan. 1, the Zapatista National Liberation Army has enjoyed more vocal, social and cultural popularity than any subversive group (as they defined themselves) known in Latin America. Indeed, public support for the Zapatistas has transformed the masked rebels into romantic heroes, with their leader, the Subcommander Marcos, becoming a legendary figure--for some, even mythological. Which is why their rejection of the government’s peace plan last week was so disappointing.

The Zapatistas have overthrown Cabinet ministers, reintroduced the idea of Indian rights and propelled the country into taking a crash course on the state of Chiapas, its geography, Indian cosmology, and so on. They have brought to light the deep racist sentiments existing in Mexico; accelerated the unification and mobilization of non-governmental forces; forced the government to backtrack and change its martial disposition, and driven two presidential candidates, Luis Donaldo Colosio and Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, to recognize the profound motives behind the indigenous uprising. Even the rightist candidate, Diego Fernandez de Cevallos, has paid lip service to Indian rights.

None of the thousands of articles and pronouncements of support, however, have backed the Zapatistas’ armed struggle or favored the need to continue it. Although many justified the use of violence as the last alternative to restore law and justice in places like Chiapas, there was not a single movement of armed solidarity elsewhere in Mexico. Furthermore, it was reasonable to conclude that the Zapatistas either had lost the war or were about to lose it.

But due largely to the amazing drama of an Indian rebellion at the end of the 20th Century and Subcommander Marcos’ mastery of media communications, the Zapatistas won a tremendous political battle--initially described as “professionals in violence,” they became leaders and representatives of a social struggle.

This transformation was clearly visible during the peace negotiations held in the Cathedral of San Cristobal de las Casas. It was there that Commander Ramona, a small, discrete and outspoken woman, and Subcommander Marcos, with harsh verbal assaults--albeit too ironic and lyrical--established their ascendancy over such personalities as Bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia and the government representative, Manuel Camacho Solis.

The Zapatistas rejected the government’s peace plan mainly because it did not satisfactorily deal with indigenous problems. But their rejection also revealed their unrealistic reasoning. The Zapatistas are, in effect, asking for the resignation of President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, a new transitional government and a new Congress. In Marcos’ words, “we demand democracy, liberty and justice--demands that will give a voice to the voiceless, a face to the faceless, a tomorrow for those who have no tomorrow, and life in our death.”

In its ultimate truth, this rhetoric continues to be moving. But from the perspective of the Mexican majority, it is rationally unsustainable.

Now, it is clear that the mass media and the public were wrong to believe that the Zapatistas, in January, did not mean what they literally said. They voluntarily exposed themselves for the cause and thus have rejected any other motivation. The Zapatistas are genuine in their patriotism, precisely because they are willing to give their life for the cause. But the war in Chiapas affects many other sectors and other communities in the area that disagree with the Zapatistas.

Demanding the impossible from the government is understandable, if everything is reduced to ideology and principle and a refusal to be cheated. But it is highly questionable if the process involves so many lives and the democratization of the country. What is the meaning of statements like: “By suicide or firing squad, the death of the current Mexican political system is absolutely necessary, albeit not sufficient, for a transition to democracy in our country”?

Who placed the Zapatistas in the role of arbiters and guarantors in the transition to democracy? Self-professing their higher moral authority, they dare to lecture the Democratic Revolutionary Party; they invent and enthrone an organized “Civil Society” (“The Civil Society has assumed the role of preserving our patriotism. . . . We ask this Civil Society to retake its role as the protagonist and to organize itself to create a peaceful transition to democracy, liberty and justice”), and they persist in placing themselves in tragic scenarios: The Zapatistas cannot accept an undignified peace and they repeat the words of national hero Vicente Guerrero: “To live for the motherland or to die for liberty.” Or as Marcos said, choosing their last stand: “They ask us to be prudent in surrendering and to live. . . . Who could live with that shame? Who could exchange life for dignity?”

I share many of the Zapatista grievances--the high-level corruption, the imperial presidency, the state party, the terrible abandonment of indigenous communities and the rejection of democracy--and I admire their sense of community. But I cannot understand, nor do I accept, their obstinate fixation with death, their posing as national representatives, their belief that an armed conflict is one of the ways to change--they declared themselves the hope with a trigger . . . “the prophecy of the southeast”--are unacceptable when not unfathomable. I do not share their expectation that there will be a National Democratic Convention to establish a transitional government.

Fortunately, there are many possibilities left to explore. Dialogue will be restored, and the Zapatistas have ordered their forces to maintain the cease-fire “to permit the Civil Society to organize.” And they have respected the five-month truce. This is crucial. It could create an opportunity to consolidate a peace agreement with dignity rather than continuing with power-grabbing from the Establishment and with doomsday attitudes from people who retain the enthusiasm of many.*