The national and international press followed the electoral process very closely, and made large mention of the gains by opposition political parties, of both the center-right and center-left, who managed to shear away part of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party's 70-year old hegemony on political power in the country.
For the first time in its history, the PRI lost an absolute majority in the Chamber of Deputies, as well as the two-thirds majority necessary in the Senate in order to unilaterally approve constitutional reforms. The mayor's post in Mexico City--previously a post designated by the President--was won overwhelmingly by Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, two-time presidential candidate for the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution.
And, for the first time in its history, the PRI accepted its defeat on a national level.
However, the PRI's electoral loss was relative. While the opposition celebrates its gains, the ruling party continues to hold an important advantage in all positions of institutional power in Mexico. The presidency was not up for election on July 6th, and will be in the hands of the ruling party until the year 2000. The PRI also retains a solid majority in the Senate, and remains just short of a full majority in the Chamber of Deputies. The mayor's post of Mexico City, meanwhile, is largely symbolic, as all important decisions to be taken regarding the capital city must first pass through the hands of Congress, where the PRI easily remains the largest party.
Nevertheless, many have asked--and will probably continue to ask--where does all this leave the Zapatista movement? Is there now "democracy" in Mexico? Is this evidence that the electoral path is an effective (and the only legitimate) road toward change?
Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon, during a speech made last week at an official act to celebrate "National Lawyer's Day", gave his own rather disconcerting answers to these questions:
"Today", he said, "based on the strict and just application of the new [electoral] legality, we have and will continue to have a strengthened system of political parties which constitute a firm basis for the democratic life of the country....The elections proved that the law and democracy are the paths toward resolving our problems". The President added that this "new legality" and the electoral path "prove that in the new political life of the country there is no longer any room for radicalisms, intolerance, or violence as means for transforming the country toward more justice and social equity".
This is, indeed, the image the government is trying to project to the press, to the nation and to the world: that democracy exists in Mexico, and that the electoral path is now the only valid path toward change.
In this regard, several points must be made clear:
1) These elections have been described as the "freest" and "fairest" in Mexican history. However, this does not mean that Mexico's electoral system is fully "free" and "fair". Although opposition parties made significant gains across wide regions of Mexico, many indigenous communities viewed the electoral process from communities which were literally under military siege up until July 5th--and continued under military siege as of July 7th. In many parts of Mexico, and specifically in Chiapas, the electoral process appeared as little more than a bad joke; and the result was high abstentionism and regional boycotts.
2) The July 6th elections were held at a time in which the Mexican government was doing everything possible to ignore and forget the agreements it had signed with the Zapatista Army of National Liberation more than 16 months ago. A basic element of the San Andres Accords on Indigenous Rights and Culture deals with indigenous autonomy and the right of indigenous communities to practice their traditional, participatory, and highly democratic forms of electing their leaders and representatives. The refusal of the government to implement these agreements, and the subsequent demand that the indigenous communities take part in an electoral process with political parties which are generally foreign to them and their needs, is an imposition which does not in any way give shape to an improved democratic process for indigenous Mexico.
3) Ernesto Zedillo insists that the "new electoral legality" proves there is no longer room for intolerance and violence; it would certainly be a positive step for him to heed his own remarks. The government's intolerance, lies, and violence (both institutional violence and direct repression) continue. If, for the government, the consolidation of electoral democracy means a green light for increasing repression against all those who are struggling, even peacefully, for a participatory democracy which goes beyond simply casting ballots every three years, then these elections will mean very little in the long run. And to insist that the electoral process of these past few months invalidates any social demands not expressed within the confines of political parties, is dangerous and highly undemocratic.
4) President Zedillo has also made it clear that the PRI's relative defeat in last week's elections does not mean that the government is under any obligation to change its political and economic policies, which continue to impoverish and repress the population. This would mean that the "new electoral legality" in Mexico is nothing more than a decorative touch on an undemocratic system, simply implying a change of leadership at the top without any substantive change in the methods and forms of governance. The Zapatista struggle is to achieve a democracy in which those who govern, do so by constantly listening to and obeying the populace; not to simply elect new leaders every three years who can then do as they please until the next elections come around.
6) Elections in and of themselves clearly do not resolve the fundamental problems of democracy in Mexico. The Zapatista struggle fully recognizes the legitimacy of the electoral path under the proper conditions, but as simply one element of many which are necessary for the creation and consolidation of a democratic nation. To affirm that a political party system with periodic elections equals "democracy", is quite simply to miss the point. A true democracy necessarily entails a completely revised notion of the relationship between the governed and those who govern. The Zapatistas do not struggle for positions of institutionalized power, inside or outside the electoral process; rather, the struggle is for the organization and exercise of the power pertaining to the population as a whole, which has the right to impose its autonomous will on those exercising the power of the State. As long as those who hold political power at the top (whether from the PAN, PRI, or PRD) continue to act with disregard for the society at large, its needs, and its concerns, then the Zapatista struggle will continue, as necessary as ever.
Zapata lives, and the struggle continues--for greater democracy, justice, and freedom for all Mexicans.
-Joshua Paulson
Comite Civil Zapatista "Batallon San Patricio"
Mexico City, 15 July 1997
*ZAPATISMO NEWS SUPPLEMENT*-Editorial (July 16th, 1997)
A service of the Zapatista Front of National Liberation.
More information regarding the FZLN and the Zapatista struggle in Mexico
can be found at:
http://www.peak.org/~joshua/fzln (English)
http://spin.com.mx/~floresu/FZLN (Spanish)
Please send comments to: joshua@peak.org