[In the current series of articles, initials and pseudonyms will be used where local agreements do not permit us to specify details. Also, these articles will be numbered by the order of their publication, even if chronologically out of order because of changing events and the lack of computer facilities in the villages.]

February 19th, 2002
SV near Palenque

On the TV there is a video playing entitled, “Mujeres Unidas” about a women’s collective in the November 16 Autonomous Community. All the kids and a few of the women are lining the bench on one side of the room to watch. One of the women asks how long the video is. Maybe I’m wrong , but I suspect she is asking because on the TV at this time is a popular telenovela (soap opera) called, Salome. I confess that, despite my dislike of telenovelas, given the quality of the video, her concern is not unreasonable. Often the movement can produce boring videos. I’m torn between the feeling that at least the video is showing women and children like the ones in the room, whereas Salome, like other telenovelas, is concerned with the lives of rich bottle blondes that seem to come from another world than this village.

We are in the village of SV, not too far from Palenque, which is known for it’s Mayan ruins. The descendants of the Mayans who live in SV are on the front edge of the struggle in Chiapas. It is a struggle between the Zapatista Revolution’s focus on autonomy and refusal of Government help, and the more traditional reliance on political parties and the Government to help meet the health, education and development needs.

SV is a split village, that is, a village divided between Zapatistas and the supporters of the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party), and the PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution) [in some villages there will also be supporters of the PAN (National Action Party) and other smaller parties such as the PT (Workers Party)]. In itself, this may not sound too unusual. After all, most towns everywhere will have supporters of several parties. Yet, this creates a major difficulty for the indigenous people who live here. This is because elections and majority rule are not the indigenous way. The traditional way is for an assembly of the villagers to pick a council to manage village affairs for a year or more (local traditions vary with some areas requiring council members to stay out of positions of responsibility for a period after their term is over). In a split village there is not one assembly and council, but two, three or more and that is just the start.

Since the Zapatistas reject government help, their children do not attend the village school (which is a Government school) but go to the self organized, autonomous school, that autopromadores (individuals, NGO’s or others) have organized. Likewise, the village free clinic (Government) is also off limits for the Zapatistas and they must rely on the health service of the autopromadores (which do not have a clinic here), or, more likely, traditional medicine.

This divide goes much deeper even than this. Since the Zapatistas, following indigenous tradition, maintain common economies, ultimately everything, including the house the Zapatista lives in belong to the community, and is administered by the council (how strictly this is followed varies considerably, in SV it seems that individual families maintain significant individual land and possessions). When you don’t own your land and home, it can be a major problem to switch sides if you want to.

The Zapatistas maintain that all members are free to leave whenever they wish, but to do so could mean leaving their homes and farms, above and beyond abandoning their friends and neighbors. The idea is not exclusive to the Zapatistas. For example, much of the population of San Cristobal (the major market town of Chiapas) consists of Protestants who have had to leave their villages because of their conversion from Catholicism, and hence, their break with their community. This tradition creates great tensions, particularly, given the Government’s recent attempts to bribe members away from Zapatista communities. This policy is a move away from the organization of paramilitary groups to harass the Zapatistas (which, though lessened, still is practiced widely in Chiapas), but is possibly more dangerous.

The various government programs that exist in Chiapas, most of which were started in response to the ’94 uprising, provide small amounts of money or aid (seeds, fertilizers, etc.) to families, but only if they, in effect, break with the Zapatistas. For example, to get seeds and fertilizers for your milpa (agricultural field) you have to demonstrate ownership of your land, but to do so you would have to break with the communal ownership practiced by the Autonomous Communities. Since life is hard and money is in short supply, these inducements can be very tempting. As leaving the community means giving up your land and home, there is a strong incentive to convert the rest of your community into switching sides (and so keep your house and land). The tensions thus created can be explosive.

SV seems a quiet and pleasant place, but I was reminded this evening of the tensions underlying life here. I was in the local Zapatista carpentry shop at twilight when everyone suddenly went very quiet and stared out the door. Puzzled I wondered what was up and looking out I saw a group of young men collected on the street. Wary greetings were exchanged, and then it was determined that the young men were looking for a tattoo artist who was helping out in the workshop. The tensions slowly subsided as the tattoo artist brought out his sample book and went outside to discuss what the young men were interested in.

In a split community, people gathering outside your door can be cause for serious concern.

francisco rojas
frojas@genoaresistance.org
http://www.genoaresistance.org

In future articles, Zapatista bureaucracy, the Virgin of Guadeloupe, and the international human rights investigating commision.