textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000708.txt

       Red & Black Revolution
 A magazine of libertarian communism

      Issue 1    October 1994

Produced by Workers Solidarity Movement

Review: LOW INTENSITY DEMOCRACY  

Edited by Barry Gills, Joel Rocamora and 
Richard Wilson. PLUTO PRESS.

Any discussion on the subject of democracy 
faces a critical problem early on - a 
problem of definition.  In his contribution 
to Low Intensity Democracy, Noam Chomsky 
notes the essential modus operandi of 
conservative forces in society today and in 
times past when he states that the guardians 
of world order have sought to establish 
democracy in one sense of the term while 
blocking it in another.

The preferred sense of democracy, also known 
as parliamentary democracy or Western 
democracy, is relatively well known to many 
on the left today.  Chomsky himself has done 
immeasurable work in recent years in further 
highlighting the undemocratic nature of 
parliamentary based societies - countries 
such as Ireland, Britain and the USA being 
cases in point.

Even so, there is still considerable debate 
and disagreement on the merits of fighting 
for the establishment of parliamentary 
democracy in societies where this form of 
political structure is not already in place.  
Broadly speaking, the debate often centres 
on whether the establishment of 
parliamentary democracy acts as a stimulus 
to a further democratisation of society or 
as a brake.

TESTING TIMES

In past times the debate may have seemed 
marginal.  Few, apart from those influenced 
by anarchism, questioned their involvement 
with the parliamentary process.  But this 
has changed.  Across the world today there 
are a greater number of countries in the 
throes of testing the debate out in practice 
than at any other time in recent history.  
Not just countries belonging to the former 
Soviet block - Ukraine, Russia, Poland, 
Belarus - but also others such as South 
Africa, El Salvador, and Thailand to name 
but a few.

In Low Intensity Democracy, four countries 
are examined in reasonable depth by the 
contributors.  These are South Korea, 
Argentina, Guatemala and the Philippines.  
All differ in the manner by which 
parliamentary democracy arrived at their 
doorsteps.  Both S. Korea and the 
Philippines conceded parliamentary 
democratic regimes under the pressure of 
popular mass action;  Argentina and 
Guatemala, less so. 

 In Argentina the current democratic turn 
began in 1983 when the military stepped down 
in disgrace, having mismanaged both the 
economy and the Malvinas war. Significant 
opposition to continued military rule was 
growing but at the time of the transfer of 
power to a civilian administration it was 
not the decisive element in forcing change.  
Similarly, Guatemala's democracy came on 
foot of negotiations between the military 
and the guerrilla opposition, following a 
prolonged period of war and repression; 
broader civilian society was not directly 
involved in events.

South Korea and the Philippines were 
markedly different.  For the purposes of 
this review the case of S. Korea will be 
looked at more closely:

Background - The democratic struggles that 
shook S. Korea in 1987/88 emerged from a 
growing resistance to the dictatorship that 
was installed in S. Korea in 1961, after a 
military coup.  In the early sixties S. 
Korea was less industrialised than N. Korea.  
With the military in the driving seat, after 
the coup, rapid economic growth became a 
regime obsession.  Authoritarianism in S. 
Korea reached a peak in the 70s.  At the 
juridical core were the national security 
laws and the anti-Communist laws, the so-
called bad laws that effectively banned any 
political activity outside the consensus of 
the establishment.  Giant conglomerates, 
known as chaebol, were the main 
beneficiaries of military largesse.  The 
chaebol were distinctive in their own right 
in that they were family owned and usually 
family managed.

LOW COST

By 1985, S. Korea had one of the highest 
concentrations of capital in the world.  The 
top 10 chaebol accounted for one-third of 
total exports and one third of total GNP.  
The low cost of labour underpinned rapid 
accumulation by the business class via 
export-oriented industrialisation.  This 
strategy required political control over 
labour by the state and by employers"...  By 
law, organised labour was forbidden to have 
any political or financial ties to any 
political parties."  Nevertheless, the 
authoritarian regime could not entirely 
ignore the political interests of labour 
"...Therefore the state allowed the real 
wages to rise slowly and steadily behind 
increased productivity and spurts of 
economic growth."

Crisis - Despite recent economic success, S. 
Korea has been rocked by crisis at periodic 
intervals.  This reflects a tradition of 
popular resistance to authoritarianism that 
is a constant in Korean politics.  But, 
also, it is a reflection of economic 
realities.  The crisis of 1986-88 that 
heralded in the current democratic regime 
was no different in this respect.  Its 
immediate background lay in the popular 
perception that S. Korea had finally arrived 
at the promised land of economic success.  
The period 85-87 was one of economic boom - 
a fact reflected in a substantial trade 
surplus which had not been previously 
achieved in S. Korea.  A number of ancillary 
factors tied into the mood of optimism:

The Chun presidential term, in effect a 
dictatorship, was to be the last. Both 
domestic and international interests had 
been promised a peaceful transfer of power.

Macros in the Philippines had been 
overthrown in the popular upsurge known as 
people's power in 1986.  This encouraged 
anti-dictatorship forces in S. Korea. 

The impending Seoul Olympics constrained the 
options of the military with regard to 
outright repression of any challenge to its 
authority.

President Chun effectively announced in 
April 87 that military rule under his 
presidency would not end, after all, as had 
been promised.  A popular uprising in June 
87 followed.  Massive demonstrations 
occurred, lasting 18 days. Over 120,000 
combat police were called in to contain the 
upsurge.  Nevertheless, the democracy 
movement was overwhelming in nature, linking 
both workers and middle-class in opposition 
to continued military rule.

Concession - A number of possible options 
were considered.  Pragmatists within the 
military regime understood the futility of 
using military force to repress the 
uprising.  As importantly, the U.S. 
signalled its opposition to martial law, or 
a new coup to replace Chun.  Concessions to 
democratic forces were the favoured option 
to contain a further escalation.  An Eight 
Point Plan for reform was announced which 
included:  direct presidential elections, 
freedom for political prisoners, "... an end 
to press censorship, local government 
autonomy and guarantees on human rights."  
However, there was no concession or promise 
on economic reform.

Restoration - Economic reform and some, even 
minor, redistribution of wealth was the 
ultimate goal of the democratic upsurge of 
87.  Could the Eight Point Plan deliver 
this, even indirectly?  As the author Barry 
Gills notes, "the democratisation that 
occurred in 87/88 set in motion a re-
alignment of political forces.."  But, he 
continues "... it would be an error to 
mistake this as the genuine substance of 
democracy."  Popular input into the new S. 
Korea was to be channelled into three 
legitimate avenues - presidential elections; 
parliamentary elections and local elections.

ACCOUNTABILITY

In regard to parliament and local 
authorities, the options open to the S. 
Korean electorate were limited, to say the 
least.  Parliament in particular, but also 
the local authorities, had little power in 
the new order; executive power remained with 
the presidency. Gills notes that the 
political parties remained vehicles for 
leadership cliques and bastions of 
regionalism rather than true parties based 
on platform, principle or accountability to 
constituency.  No effective say in South 
Korean society could be garnered by the 
public from either of these avenues.  What 
about the presidential office?

  The first direct and free presidential 
elections returned Noh Tae Woo as the first 
post-Chun president of S. Korea.  Noh's 
success, on only one-third of all votes 
cast, followed on from the fragmentation of 
the anti-dictatorship movement in the 
immediate aftermath of the Eight Point Plan.  
Noh, billed as an ordinary man, was a former 
general and the candidate of the 
dictatorship.  In the period up to and 
including the Seoul Olympics he played a 
populist front - but the eventual fate of 
these inclinations, indicate how limited the 
new democracy in S. Korea was.  Noh 
appointed Cho Soon, a well-known liberal and 
economics professor to address a number of 
issues for economic reform - including the 
possible provision of social welfare to S. 
Korean society.  In fact, Cho Soon never 
even got around to making proposals in this 
area.

Initially, he concerned himself with 
introducing a more competitive domestic 
economic environment.  Essentially he wanted 
to curb the power of the chaebol in the 
domestic market where it had a stranglehold 
on investment funds and resources.  He 
introduced two key proposals - the Real Name 
System and the Public Concept of Land.  Both 
proposals involved  minor constraints on the 
chaebol: the former would require all 
financial transactions to include the names 
of all those actually involved in the deals; 
the latter was intended to curb rampant land 
speculation and irresponsible development.  
Both proposals, however, were ditched in 
1989 since they were considered too 
controversial - Cho Soon lost his job and 
was later replaced with a pro-chaebol 
appointee.  Proposals on social welfare 
never saw the light of day.

HARD HIT

In the aftermath of the Seoul Olympics, the 
new democratic regime dropped its more 
populist pretensions and moved against the 
only other force in society had maintained a 
momentum of struggle against the ruling 
interests of the chaebol.  This was 
organised labour.  Strikes and wage 
settlements had been at their highest in 
1987 - 88 and had caused record damage in 
production and export loss.  Hyundai were 
particularly hard hit.  Demands by labour 
went well beyond the traditional areas of 
concern for workers and called for the 
democratisation process to be brought into 
the arena of industrial relations.  This was 
not acceptable.  

The perceived necessity for the political 
defeat of organised labour was at the heart 
of conservative restoration.  The Noh regime 
moved decisively against the workers' 
movement in the Spring of 1989.  An active 
policy of strike breaking was resumed, along 
with the arrest of union leaders, using the 
full force of the state combat police.  A 
ban on public sector unions was enforced - 
culminating in the break-up of the newly 
formed National Teacher Union and the 
sacking of over 1,500 for participating in 
illegal union activities.

Conclusion - The democratisation process in 
Korea came full circle.  Authoritarianism 
was challenged by a mass movement for 
democratisation in 1987.  This produced a 
period of rapid change in which corporatism 
was weakened and civil society gained more 
autonomy from the state.  However, elites 
adjusted by forming a broader coalition of 
the military, business and the middle-class 
in order to restore conservative hegemony.  
Therefore, the fundamental nature of the 
system remained unchanged.

Broadly speaking then, the movement for 
democracy achieved minimal success in S. 
Korea.  Minor, let alone fundamental, 
economic redress in favour of the mass of S. 
Korean society did not occur.  The regime 
liberalised when it had to, but later it 
clawed back these gains made by wider 
society and the workers' movement in 
particular.

In looking at the overall developments of 
events in S. Korea, two other factors are 
also worth noting.  These are the role 
played by the United States and secondly, 
the subsequent fragmentation of the pro-
democracy movement in the face of some 
concession from the dictatorship.  In regard 
to the U.S. role, the central point is that 
on this occasion the U.S. sided with the 
pragmatic wing of the dictatorship and came 
out in favour of democratic reforms as 
outlined in the Eight Point Plan.  This 
reflects a significant shift in the 
assessment of U.S. strategic interests, a 
process begun under the Reagan regime 
(Crusade for Democracy, 1982, p9).

DEBATE

Secondly, in the face of concessions from 
the regime - the Eight Point Plan - the pro-
democracy movement split on its response and 
future direction.  The particular concession 
of new local, parliamentary and presidential 
elections succeeded in divesting the 
movement of its unity and single-mindedness.  
As Gills states (p249), "the radical wing of 
the democratisation movement also fragmented 
... Much of this debate revolved around the 
question of whether to participate in the 
electoral arena or remain underground.  
Among those supporting electoral 
participation there was a further split 
between those favouring support for one 
mainstream opposition party and those 
wanting to form a separate left-wing party."

Any assessment of the success or failure of 
any particular democracy movement must base 
itself on the potential possible as well as 
the practical results achieved.  This can be 
put another way.  To what extent has the 
removal of dictatorship simply led to the 
replacement of the old order with a newer, 
more sophisticated form of neo-
authoritarianism?  As indeed happened in S. 
Korea.  Today, the chaebol conduct their 
business and exploitation under the cover of 
being a free democratic society.  Concluding 
then on S. Korea: social and economic 
oppression has stabilised since the pro-
democracy struggles of the mid to late 
eighties.  A result that U.S. interests 
would, no doubt, be very satisfied with.

This is a central theme emerging from Low 
Intensity Democracy.  The debate on 
parliamentary democracy has moved on from 
the stagnant format of past times when only 
the anarchists had serious reservations 
about parliamentary democracy.  Democracy, 
that is parliamentary democracy,  is now 
sponsored by U.S. and international business 
interests - IMF and World Bank - to the 
extent that it does provide a better cover 
than any other political system for the" ... 
generalised offensive for the liberation of 
market forces" .  In past times it was 
reasonable to expect a modicum of social 
reform during a transition from dictatorship 
to parliamentary democracy.  Indeed this was 
the central basis for supporting such 
transitions.  Not so any more.

The wave of parliamentary democracies that 
have emerged in past decades have done so 
under the aegis of a growing domination of 
all national interests by the interests of 
international free market politics or, in 
other words, that system which seeks the 
ideological rehabilitation of the absolute 
superiority of private property, 
legitimisation of social inequalities and 
anti-statism of all kinds.  There are now a 
significant number of examples of where the 
onset of parliamentary democracy has 
actually increased inequality or stabilised 
it at current levels, particularly where it 
has caused, as it did in S. Korea, a 
fragmentation of the pro-democracy movement.

This raises a key problem.  The role played 
by parliamentary democracy in demobilising 
struggles for fundamental change has 
generally been underplayed.  In part this 
has reflected an enduring weakness  in that 
section of the left that has derived the 
greater proportion of its politics from 
formal Marxism.

WORKERS PARTY

Here the arguments in favour of 
participation, whether this is on the basis 
of existing parties or by the creation of a 
new workers party, rest centrally on 
pragmatism but also on naivete.  On the one 
hand it is said the arena of parliamentary 
democracy is too large and too central to 
much of political discourse to be ignored.  
To leave the field of parliament to the 
political parties of the moderate left, 
centre and right is to abandon one's 
constituency.  Or, so the argument goes.

But, on the other hand, there is delusion 
about what is possible.  The comments of 
Frederick Engels back in 1895 as he observed 
the electoral growth of the German socialist 
party, the SDP, being a case in point :

"Its growth proceeds as spontaneously , as 
steadily , as irrepressibly , and at times 
as tranquilly as a natural process.  All 
Government intervention has proved powerless 
against it ...If it continues in this 
fashion, by the end of the century we shall 
...grow into the decisive power in the land, 
before which all powers will have to bow, 
whether they like it or not."

But, pragmatism and naivete aside, there is 
also a weakness of critique on the left that 
centres on the problem of definition and 
what democracy involves.  Many on the left 
equate parliament with democracy.  Few 
enough, in fact, have criticised the 
parliamentary road from the perspective of 
content.  Instead they have accepted it and 
its methodology.  Yet, how much progress is 
achievable through parliament?  What level 
of participation does it even allow?  Most 
importantly, what effect does opting for the 
parliamentary road have on the broader 
movement for social change?  Particularly on 
grass root organisations, which are, after 
all, the bedrock of any pro-democracy 
movement?

In recent years, there has been a more far 
searching examination on the left of its 
history and traditions than at any time 
previous.  Circumstances and the apperance 
of failure have prompted this.  But how far 
is that re-examination going to go?

One thing is clear.  There is a deeper 
realignment underway than is currently being 
imagined.  And the debate on the nature of 
democracy and the part it plays in social 
change is part of this.  But, one is not 
talking about parliamentary democracy here.  
There is a tradition of democratic struggle 
on the left that eschewed any involvement 
with the parliamentary method.  This was for 
clear, practical reasons.  Democracy, in 
this tradition, centred on the union, on the 
process of struggle and on participation.  
It was not about representing the ideas of 
others.  It was about building up experience 
and confidence in the grass-roots on the 
method of democracy so that, when the time 
came and inequality was confronted, workers 
could proceed immediately to the 
socialisation of production.  Centrally, it 
was about building up a counter-power in 
society to the power of the state.  But 
importantly, a democratic, grass-roots 
counter-power.

The editors of Low Intensity Democracy note 
the importance of this other tradition when 
they say that the example of the Spanish 
anarchists earlier in the twentieth century 
should now be examined as an alternative 
model of revolutionary social 
transformation.  From this perspective 
democracy must be painstakingly built up and 
constantly defended through concrete popular 
organisations embedded in the workplace and 
the community. 

It is a measure of how times are changing 
that anarchists get a fair hearing in this 
area that is central to real change.






       Red & Black Revolution
 A magazine of libertarian communism

      Issue 1    October 1994

Produced by Workers Solidarity Movement

           The EZLN

The name of the Zapatista National 
Liberation Army (EZLN) rebels is taken from 
the Emilano Zapata who played a major role 
in the Mexican Revolution {1910 - 1921}.  73 
years has passed since the Mexican 
Revolution .  The memory of Zapata had faded 
onto the worn pages of history.Indeed the 
heirs of the betrayers of Zapata, headed by 
the Institutional Revolutionary Party and 
President Carlos Sallinas, are in power 
today in Mexico.  They  have remained in 
power for the last 75 years.  But the 
Zapatistas have come back to haunt them.

A New Year a New Dawn.

On New Years Day of 1994 people awoke to the 
news that four towns in the south-eastern 
state of Chiapas had been taken over by a 
group calling itself the Zapatista National 
Liberation Army.  Militarily they had timed 
their strike against the Mexican army well 
and thus even managed to capture General 
Abslon Castellanos (former Chiapas 
Governor).  Initially they took San 
Cristobal de Las Casas then  Oxchuc a town 
36km away.  They ransacked 10 government 
offices.  They freed 179 prisoners from the 
prison in San Cristobal and attacked the 
army garrison on January 2nd. 

They stated:  "We have nothing to lose, 
absolutely nothing, no decent roof over our 
heads, no land, no work, poor health, no 
food, no education, no right to freely and 
democratically choose our leaders, no 
independence from foreign interests, and no 
justice for ourselves or our children.  But 
we say enough is enough! We are the 
descendants of those who truly built this 
nation, we are millions of dispossessed, and 
we call upon all our brethren to join our 
crusade, the only option to avoid dying of 
starvation !"

On January 4th the big guns hit back.  Ten 
towns in the surrounding area of San 
Cristobal were bombed.  Reports came in of 
at least 400 killed in the bombing.  Five 
reported EZLN rebels were found dead in 
Ocosingo.   In another town, the Zapatistas 
shot down a helicopter, burned down the city 
hall and then left.  The bodies of 38 people 
who had been killed by the federal army were 
found.  The next day 70 tanks arrived in the 
conflict zone and the army attacked a van 
killing 5 civilians including one 8 year old 
girl.  Various government ministries 
circulated black propaganda about the group 
labelling them radical with a professional 
foreign leadership.  The authorities also 
stated that the presence of human rights 
organisations "hinders the dismantling of 
such a movement".

Why Chiapas ? 

The EZLN is based amongst the indigenous 
people who live in and around the jungle of 
Lacandona, east of the high plains of 
Chiapas.  Chiapas is an atrociously poor 
area.  41% of the population have no running 
water.   34.9% are without electricity. 63% 
of the people live in accommodation of only 
one room.  19% of the labour force has no 
possible income and 67% of the labour force 
live on or below the minimum wage - in 
Mexico you can take this as being very 
little.  Despite Article 27(1) which 
promises Land Reform in the constitution 
nothing has happened in this area.  
President Sallinas recently changed Article 
27 further wiping out any hopes for agrarian 
reform.  Northern Mexico has developed 
factories to cater for companies making use 
of cheap labour.  The southern part of 
Mexico has been left to become a wilderness.  
The EZLN fears that NAFTA(2) (North American 
Free Trade Agreement) will keep Chiapas 
further isolated and underdeveloped.

After the first initial days of hostilities 
the EZLN withdrew to the Lacandona jungle 
where they now are involved in negotiations.  
A cease-fire which began on January 17th has 
held despite the army breaking on a number 
of occasions.  In February negotiations took 
place inside a belt composing of 
representatives from the NGO's (4non-
governmental agencies).  Invitations were 
issued to the various political parties 
asking them to participate in the peace 
talks.  No weapons have been handed over to 
the Mexican army.

The State adopted a more conciliatory 
approach after the international 
condemnation of the bombing raid on January 
5th.  The move towards negotiation seems 
only to have come about due to the light of 
international attention, as prior to this 
Mexico's record in human rights is a 
diabolical one.

"Torture was frequently used by law-
enforcement agents particularly the state 
and judicial police, throughout Mexico.  
Most victims were criminal suspects but some 
including leaders of indigenous communities 
and human rights activists were apparently 
targeted solely for their peaceful political 
activities."(3)  As of February'94  the 
Secretariat of Human rights of the main 
opposition party - Party of Democratic 
Revolution (PRD) - reported that 263 of 
their members, activists and supporters have 
been assassinated since the 1988 electoral 
campaign.  

The EZLN rejected a request to drop 
political points from the agenda saying that 
they were not going to force national 
agreements but that as Mexicans they had "a 
right to form opinions and to protest about 
aspects of Mexico's political life".  In 
this  letter they go on to say that "Peace 
without respect and dignity continues to be, 
for us, an undeclared war of the powerful 
against our people".  They then went on to 
show their willingness for 'peace with 
dignity' by withdrawing from certain towns 
and letting the International Red Cross move 
in and take control declaring them 'grey 
areas'.  They also said that they would 
allow free passage of civilians while 
maintaining mobile patrols to ensure no 
military, police, or government officials 
entered the 'grey zones'.

In another statement issued to national 
newspapers the EZLN asked "Why is everyone 
so quiet?  Is this the 'democracy' you 
wanted?  Complicity with lies?" Going on to 
say "How much blood must be spilt before 
they (PRI) understand that we want respect 
not charity ?"  The statement finishes with 
the important lines 

"The CCRI-CG (Clandestine Revolutionary 
Indigenous Committee General Command) of the 
EZLN will go to the negotiating table with 
reservation because of its lack of 
confidence of the federal government.  They 
want to buy us with a ton of promises.  They 
want us to sell the only thing we have left 
:  dignity.  The 1st of January was not 
enough for the government to learn to speak 
to its citizens as equals.  It seems that 
more than January 1 are necessary. 
...........Here Zapata lives.  Try to 
assassinate him again.  Our blood is a 
pledge.  That it be taken by he who is still 
ashamed." 

They also issued a communique to all the  
NGO's operating within the conflict zone 
saying that they continued to "respect and 
welcome their neutrality and humanitarian 
efforts".

The month of February and March is littered 
with accounts of the spreading popularity of 
the EZLN.  There was a march of 300kms by 
nearly 200 indigenous people to the 
outskirts of Mexico city.  Banners displayed 
read "This dialogue we don't understand" 
which was a reference to the massacre of 
students in 1968 and the more recent one in 
Chiapas.  A demonstration for agrarian 
reform in Oaxaca was attacked by police.  
Students calling themselves 'Zapatistas' 
protested at a stop by the presidential 
candidate of the PRI.  In Puebla local 
indigenous groups blocked the highway.  In 
Tamaulipas dissident oil workers at the 
state petro-chemical industry (PIMEX) broke 
with their unions and organised strikes, 
blockades and demonstrations at the plants.  
Unarmed Indians have staged land take-overs 
in the state of Chiapas - throughout the 
Mayan Highlands.  There are reports that 
over 120,000 hectares of land has been 
expropriated from large private land 
owners(5).  On April 10th, 77 years after 
the death of  Emilano Zapata large 
demonstrations were organised and took place 
in support of EZLN demands in Mexico city.  
In June the EZLN rejected a peace offer set 
forth by the Government. 

"Declaration of the Jungle" issued by the  
EZLN

"We call upon Article 39 of the Mexican 
Constitution which states 'the people have 
at all times the inalienable right to alter 
or change the nature of their government.'  
Therefore in accordance with our 
Constitution, we issue this DECLARATION OF 
WAR... People of Mexico, we call for your 
total participation in this struggle for 
work, land, housing, food, health care, 
education, independence, liberty, democracy, 
justice and peace."

Where are they coming from ?

"We are not Marxists, nor are we guerrillas.  
We are Zapatistas and we are an army."
	EZLN Major

The first days of 1994 saw the resurgence of 
the name of Zapata on the airwaves of the 
world.  The EZLN, are only the most public 
face of the Chiapas conflict.  The EZLN act 
as an army, under the direction of a larger 
organisation, the CRIC-GC .  The CRIC-GC is 
comprised of delegates from many indigenous 
communities and it is they who are 
responsible for the politics and 
organisation of the EZLN.  The CRIC-GC is 
the highest authority of the movement.  The 
EZLN is subservient to them and exists to 
carry out their wishes.

  Major Benjamin of the EZLN says "We are 
not Maoists or Marxists, sir.  We are a 
group of campesinos, workers and students 
for whom the government has left no other 
path than arms to resolve our ancestral 
problems.(6)"  

To understand what being a Zapatista means 
one has to go back to the origins of todays 
EZLN.  In 1983 twelve young  people entered 
Chiapas to organise the oppressed 
population.  A vital lesson taught to these 
young people was that of democratic 
organisation. Sub Commandante Marcos 
revealed "The Zapatista army was not born 
democratic, it was born as a political 
military organisation. But as it grew the 
organisational methods of the communities 
began to permeate and dominate our movement, 
to the degree that the leadership of the 
EZLN has become democratic in the indigenous 
manner."

The CRIC-GC is organised though a delegate 
based democracy.  It is composed of 
delegates from each town and community.  It 
is responsible for the politics and 
organisation of the EZLN and is its highest 
authority.   The decision to take up armed 
struggle came first and the CRIC-GC grew 
from this decision.

"So we decided that there is no way other 
than to organise and rise up like this in 
armed struggle.  So we began to organise 
ourselves like that, secretly, in a 
revolutionary organisation.  But, as it 
advanced, each people elected its 
representatives, its leaders.  By making the 
decision in that way , the people themselves 
proposed who will lead these organisations.  
The people themselves have named us.  So 
first, someone from each people has been 
named responsible.  In that way we advanced 
town by town, so that there was time, then 
to name delegates.  In that way we came to 
be the CCRI.(7)" Sub commander Marcos is 
answerable to the CRIC-GC but remains the 
leader when it comes to military matters. 

The delegate based democracy on which the 
CRIC-GC is based is best explained by a 
young Zapatista Isaac "if some member of the 
CCRI does not do their work, if they do not 
respect the people, well compa it is not 
your place to be there.  Then, well excuse 
us but we will have to put another in your 
place."  This is how the community 
understand democracy and it is easy to see 
why they see no relation to what the 
'democracy' the PRI currently exercise in 
Mexico.

The conditions these people find themselves 
in are harsh yet they can still operate a 
form of participatory democracy.  This 
disproves the lie put forth by Leninists 
that in difficult conditions a dictatorship 
over the people must take place in 'their 
interests'.  It comes as no surprise that 
the Zapatistas repeatedly deny being 
Marxists or Leninists as these forms of 
political ideology have difficulty with the 
idea of participatory democracy.  

Through this democratic process the EZLN 
developed politics on a wide range of 
issues.  For example the Women's 
revolutionary law supports the right of 
women to participate fully in the  
revolutionary struggle, control their own 
fertility, choose partners, and has regard 
to their health, education, and well being.  
This signifies a major advancement for women 
of the indigenous population.  The peace 
proposal offered by the government was 
rejected by 97% of the people in the 
Zapatista controlled areas after 
consultation took place with all those over 
the age of 12.

In the negotiations with the Government, the 
EZLN put forward ten conditions which had to 
be met before a peace could be agreed.  Many 
of these points for example the dissolution 
of the present government to be replaced by 
a transitional one until proper elections, 
were obviously not going to be met by the 
PRI.  Also the EZLN demanded that NAFTA be 
revised.  Within the core of Zapatista 
politics there seems to be an inherent flaw.  
On one hand they know that their demands 
will not be met by the authorities yet on 
the other hand, given this, the demands they 
make are watered down versions of their own 
political line.  The question is when the 
Zapatistas were preparing their 10 point 
peace plan, what was their political 
strategy?  Assuming that they knew the 
government would reject most of their points 
why didn't they include a fuller expression 
of their program.  Perhaps they did have 
illusions in the government granting some of 
their demands, perhaps they felt that 
anything more radical would alienate the 
rest of the Mexican people, we don't know!  
These questions remain unanswered.

They claim to have learned from the 
guerrilla movements in Latin America. 
Firstly, to greatly distrust the surrender 
of arms, and secondly not have confidence 
"only in the electoral systems"(8).  Yet 
this position seems to be contradicted by 
Marcos who refers to the creation of a 
"democratic space where the political 
parties, or groups that aren't parties, can 
air and discuss their social proposals."(9) 
The point is explained further in a 
communique by the CCRI-CG in June where it 
says "...this revolution will not end in a 
new class, faction of a class, or group in 
power.  It will end in a free and democratic 
space for political struggle."  The EZLN are 
fighting  a revolution for democratic space?  
Yet, the type of democracy which they wish 
is not tolerated in any Western society and 
is unlikely to be permitted in Mexico unless 
revolution spreads throughout the country.

While it is obvious that no such space 
exists in Mexico, even the creation of some 
form of social democracy will not bring 
about the changes which the Zapatistas so 
desperately need.  Social democracy does not 
provide liberty or justice.  This call for 
social democracy contrasts with the beliefs 
which Marcos says exist amongst the people 
that "they (politicians) are changing the 
leaves of the trees, but the roots are 
damaged...  We say  Let's uproot the tree 
and plant it again" .  The tree will not be 
uprooted though the creation of social 
democracy.

However the options for the EZLN seem 
limited.  Prior to the Presidential 
Elections in August they  organised a 
National Democratic Convention (CND) which 
took place in the Lacandona jungle.  This 
logistical miracle was attended by over 
7,000 people(10).  The conference was 
attended by many of the established voices 
of opposition to the Institutional 
Revolutionary Party (PRI).  Marcos said he 
wished to turn the CND into the leaders of 
civil society and that it should be they who 
decided how to respond to the PRI and the 
fraudulent State.  Marcos presented 
democratic change as something which should 
come via peaceful means. The military 
solution would be adopted solely as a matter 
of last recourse(11) and only be tried when 
the CND decided upon it. Two weeks later the 
PRI presidential candidate went on to win 
the election amongst accusations of fraud.  
The  creation of a democratic space through 
peaceful means to appears to have failed.  

Mexico still needs to build a strong 
revolutionary movement.  It will require 
greater numbers than the revolutionaries of 
the EZLN to destroy the rotten Mexican 
state.  This difficult task, facing all the 
people who wish for change in Mexico, is 
made more difficult because of its  dominant 
neighbour, the USA.

Within the EZLN, it seems, there is a 
widespread belief that their demands can 
only be met when as they say "the tree is 
uprooted."  They have developed a democratic 
structure from which ideas can flow and 
develop.  They have struck out against the 
system which causes them so much death, pain 
and suffering.  Support work has been done 
by the anarchist group 'Love and Rage' who 
have members in the USA and in Mexico.  They 
have sent people down to Chiapas to 
ascertain the facts, organised translations 
of EZLN communiques and helped in the 
production of a book on the EZLN.  Here in 
Ireland we in the WSM have held a picket on 
the Mexican Embassy and handed in a letter 
of protest.  This type of work though it may 
seem at first to be of minor importance, in 
fact ensures that the Mexican government 
knows that their actions are being monitored 
thus decreasing the likelihood of a 
government crackdown in the area.

The task facing Mexican revolutionaries is 
to spread their struggle and will for change 
to the cities and to the north of the 
Country.  Although Marcos and the CCRI-GC 
are emphasising the role of the media, it is 
more important for the EZLN activists to win 
support on the ground.

In the United States activists must work on 
raising  awareness of the EZLN amongst the 
resident Latino population.  Pickets can be 
organised.  Any  struggle that remains 
isolated will face certain annihilation.  It 
is the responsibility of all revolutionaries 
to ensure this will not happen. 

The job of anarchists in Mexico is to spread 
their ideas  and to share their experience 
as revolutionaries with the people of 
Chiapas.  The Zapatistas have already 
rejected the ideas of the authoritarian 
left.  The demands of the EZLN for liberty, 
justice, and democracy will not be realised 
under capitalism. These demands have never 
arisen out of reform of any system in any 
country.  Mexican anarchists should utilise 
the fertile ground that now exists for 
anarchist ideas in Chiapas.

What has happened in Chiapas is encouraging 
and needs to be supported.  The 
revolutionaries of the EZLN, however, have 
not stumbled onto something new.  The basic 
principle of participatory democracy is one 
of the foundation stones of anarchism.  The 
EZLN deserve praise for the way they have 
integrated democracy into their struggle 
against the state.   Now in Mexico where 
history stopped with the usurpation of power 
by the PRI seventy-five years ago, the 
people are still struggling towards having 
control over their own lives and destinies.  
True democracy needs to be established and 
implemented as part of the process of 
destroying the oppressive state which keeps 
all of us chained.

1  Article 27 in the Mexican Constituition 
is the one which promised agrarian reform.  
It was included in the constituition after 
the revolution and was always seen as the 
guarantee of similar land reforms as those  
Zapata implemented in his own region of 
Morelos during the revolution.
2  NAFTA will also drive down the prices 
paid for some of the basic crops produced by 
the indigeniuos people for their crops.  The 
timing of the uprising was to coincide with 
the first day that NAFTA was supposed to 
take effect in Mexico.
3 Quoted from an Amnesty International 
Report.
4   Non-Governmental Organisiations (NGO's) 
are groups such as the Red Cross, Amnesty 
International, etc.
5   Source Peter Martin Morelost who 
attended the National Democratic Convention 
and posted his report onto the internet..  
(24.9.94  Mexico's National Democratic 
Convention.)
6  Quoted from early newspaper coverage of 
events - listed in Chapter 2 - The first 
days.
7  Quoted from interview with Javier  of the 
CCRI 3/2/94  in La Jornada.
8  Quoted from interview  with Subcommander 
Marcos in La Jornada 4.2.94 - 7.2.94
9  Interview  with Marcos 11 May '94 
10  Attendance figure quoted from report by 
Peter Martin Morales.
11  Peter Martin Morales 

BOX Who was Emilano Zapata

Emilano Zapata was from the Morelos region.  
He joined the army after being caught as a 
highway man.  His other option was to be 
shot.  After his release in 1910 he 
supported the Liberals and had to take to 
the hills when they lost the elections 
despite having more votes.  He was now the 
leader of an army of peasants and they 
fought and defeated the tyrant Don Porphyry.  
Then the liberal Francesco Madero came to 
power and he spoke of freedom of the Press 
and Democratic elections. Zapata published a 
charter which called for 'Land and Liberty.'  
Despite the charter not much changed and 
eventually power struggles broke out again.  

In the course of the following years Zapata 
in the south and Pancho Villa in the north 
defeated many power mongers who tried to 
grip the reins of power.  Yet, despite many 
opportunities Zapata never took control 
himself.  "A strong people do not need a 
government" he once said.   Zapata was  
influenced by the manifesto drawn up by 
Ricardo Flores Magon {Mexico's leading 
Anarchist at the time who went on to die in 
an American Prison}.  In the manifesto 
issued by Zapata and signed by 35 officers 
in August 1914  he wrote "It (the country) 
wishes to destroy with one stroke the 
relationships of lord and serf, overseer and 
slave, which in the matter of agriculture 
are the only ones ruling from Tamaulipas to 
Chiapas and from Sonora to Yucatan".   
During the revolution the Zapistas destroyed 
public papers, deeds, property transfers, 
titles and mortgages in the hope that the 
land would return to the only true owners, 
the people.  In 1918 Zapata was lured into 
an ambush and killed.  Evidently there are 
some in Chiapas who still wish to destroy 
the relationship which Zapata spoke off 80 
years ago