Basta: Land & the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas
George A. Collier
Critical Review
by
Olivier Charnoz
George Collier has written a fascinating monograph that sheds light on a social movement that has been given a lot of publicity by the media but has remained poorly understood. The primary merit of his work is therefore its fostering a needed reflexion about the nature of the Zapatista movement that goes beyond simplistic caricatures.
One of Collier's central claims is that the Zapatista movement came out of both a tradition of peasant activism and a recent crisis of the Mexican economy that caused the government to embrace full-fledged neo-liberalism and political repression. On the whole, Collier claims that the Zapatista movement is the result of a quarter of century of 'modernization' forced upon the Mexican society.
In this paper I intend to first highlight what seemed to me to be the most valuable insights of Collier's work, and then point out its more problematic stances. This paper reflects a personal reaction to an undoubtedly stimulating work.
Positive
aspects
To me, the most valuable aspects of Collier work are 1) its providing a realistic view of the Zapatista movement that takes some distance from the media's caricature 2) its highlighting the complex set of social and economic causes that account for the uprising 3) its exemplifying, on the Mexican case, key aspects of modern politics in developing countries.
· A realistic view of
the Zapatista movement
The first element I appreciated in Collier's work is its insistence upon the necessity to give up the simplistic image of Zapatismo spread by the media. Collier criticizes journalists for their portraying the rebels as mere 'Maya Indians upset over years of poverty and discrimination'. They give a Manichean picture that opposes the 'poor, honest peasants' on the one side, and the 'greedy rancher and corrupt politicians' on the other.
As Collier emphasizes, 'this idealization of indigenous peasants is inaccurate, because some of the inequalities in the countryside are the result of stratification within the peasant communities' (p.10). I found totally relevant Collier's refusal to look at peasants as mere passive victims. Moreover, the Zapatista movement was far less 'spontaneous' than portrayed by the media: a group of organizers had been planning a revolution for more than a decade (p.54).
On the whole, it seems to me that Collier does avoid simplistic analysis. I very much liked his statement that 'Chiapas is a land filled with paradoxes that defy easy categorizations' (p.7). It only takes to mention the wealthy Ladinos who sympathize with the Zapatistas and the poor peasants who do not. Only by entering the complexity of the social context can one understand why a stable regime - based on an alliance with the peasants - has been challenged by some of its strongest traditional supporters.
In the same perspective I also enjoyed the rich picture of peasant political life Collier provides. Indeed, instead of making the Zapatista the representatives of the whole peasantry (as the media tend to do) Collier takes care of pointing out the many grassroots movements that criticize the Zapatista's violent strategy. Peasant groups compete to 'be the voice of the oppressed'. The rejection of peaceful tactics is the distinctive feature of Zapatismo.
Faced with Collier's analysis, I made to myself the following comment that I submit to my reader: I wondered what 'local empowerment' could ever mean in such a complex political setting. As Collier puts it: "intellectuals, grassroots organizers, elite colonial families and ranchers have each their political agenda". Who should be empowered?
Collier also convincingly demonstrates that the Zapatista rebellion started out as a peasant uprising - using the rhetoric of socialism - rather than as a Maya one (which again is the image spread by the media). It is only over time that the movement slowly turned into an Indian one, focusing on indigenous rights and 'autonomy'. Indeed far from springing from nowhere, the Zapatismo builds on two decades of peasant organizing in Chiapas.
· A complex set of
causes explains the uprising
The second aspect of Collier's work I greatly enjoyed is its multi-layered understanding of what caused the rebellion. Indeed, each of the first six chapters provides a different angle on the movement. The reader therefore ends up with a very rich understanding of what actually happened in Chiapas.
1. The first factor to be singled out is the 1992 suspension of land reform, decided by President Salinas de Gortari. This legal event damaged the long-standing social pact between the PRI and the peasants, by depriving many from their hope of ever farming their own land.
2. The second important factor is the role of the government in stimulating regional tensions. Collier does a good job of explaining the slow rise of political tension, due to the struggle of the peasant settlers who had to compete with loggers and ranchers for lands. It is sadly fascinating to note that the government, by trying to protect the rain forest, turned in the eye of the peasants, into a self-interested proprietor of national lands, thereby taking over the role of the hated large landowners. Also, by rewarding peasants loyal to the ruling party, the government set peasants against peasants. The State did not hesitate to use political and armed repression. In a nutshell the State became an enemy. As he puts it: " The Zapatista rebellion builds upon deep disillusion with both the national state and the independent peasant organizations".
3. Collier further points out the preexistence of evangelical rural networks that gave a basis to the nascent peasant organizations. I also found very relevant Collier's contention that competition between diverse churches created an environment in which only a secular movement, like the Zapatismo, could hope to unite peasants.
4. A central claim of the monograph is that both the 'modernization' based on energy development and the neo-liberal austerity program enforced in the aftermath of the debt crisis ('cut employment in the public sector, curtailed development projects') have had profoundly deleterious effects on Chiapas' society, notably by entailing rural exodus and by widening the gap between rich and poor. Indeed, it has largely destroyed the traditional relationships of mutual support and dependence that used to protect the poor.
It therefore seemed to me that Collier's work enables the reader to understand the deep roots of the rebellion and to see it as a response to the growing social inequalities between rich and poor and differential of political power between groups (even within Indian groups).
· Some aspects of modern
politics
Finally, I found Collier's work particularly good at highlighting, in the specific case of the Zapatista rebellion, some major aspects of modern politics applicable to many developing countries.
1.The
significance of media's power
Collier rightly
points out the significance of the media for the Zapatista rebellion.
Journalists from around the world witnessed the Zapatista's actions and
channeled idealized images ('icons' as Collier puts it) onto the rest of the
world. It is fascinating to see that it is only thanks to their skillful use of
the media (famously through their web page) that the Zapatista movement was not
military annihilated by the Mexican government. Without the attention and the
sympathy of the wider international community it would not have lived very
long. This well reflects the trend of growing importance of the media in
politics. This trend that has long since affected 'developed' countries, starts
to be felt in 'developing' ones - like Mexico.
2. The growing influence on national politics of the 'international community'
Collier makes the very interesting point that Nation States face nowadays the double pressure of 'globalization' (from outside) and movements for greater regional autonomy (from within). This is definitely a general trend of world politics that most countries are presently facing. One of the clearest example is to be found in the fifteen Nation States of the European Union: they are ever more asked to pass their political sovereignty onto the EU, while their regions claim ever growing autonomy. As Collier puts it, the Nation State's power is indeed being challenged 'from below and above' (p.172).
3. The use of 'development money' for
political aims
Finally, Collier's work was interesting to me because it confirms one of Ferguson's major conclusions in his work The Anti-Politics Machine, namely the fact that politics permeates all 'development' efforts. Very crudely, this means that a considerable part of 'development money' is used by national governments to serve their political ends. Just as the Lesotho government tried to buy off political support from the Thaba-Tseka population, the Mexican government financed development in the 80s 'in order to calm dissidents' (p.73) and used, in the 90s, the Solidarity Program as an 'instrument for ruling party clientelism' (p.142).
Problematic
aspects
The most problematic aspects of the argument seem to me to be the following three.
· The
lack of reflexion on the nature of 'development'
Having read Ferguson, one can only be frustrated by the fact that Collier does not thematically takes up any substantial discussion on the notion of 'development'. Still one could argue that this discussion is implicitly present in his account of the mistakes of the Mexican 'modernization' programs. Yet, Collier does not provide the reader with a clear view with of his own concept of what 'development' is or should be.
It is indeed
tempting to argue that Collier does not even have for himself a clear view on
this issue. This claim is strongly supported by the contradictory way in which
Collier talks about 'development'. Still very critical about the
'modernization' process, he sometimes seems to share the basic notions of what
Ferguson calls the 'development discourse', for instance in sentences like
"Chiapas lags behind the
rest of Mexico in almost every way measurable: household income, education, and
basic standards of living fall far behind the national average" (p.16)
Or when he
regrets that
" Many Chamula hamlets are not linked to major roads, which makes it expensive and difficult transporting produce or handicrafts to markets to San Cristobal de las Casas or other metropolitan centers" (p.108)
Collier's argument is far from clear. One the one hand he keeps pointing out the "quarter of century of Mexican development and modernization" as a major factor explaining the rebellion (p.146). On the other hand, it is the interruption of these very 'development' effort that is responsible for the uprising too !
" Economic restructuring has removed the essential government services of credit, technical assistance, insurance, marketing, and agricultural advising precisely at the time when peasants need such services to diversify and modernize their production" (p.152)
On the whole, it seems to me that Collier's work does not constitute a case against the 'development' discourse - contrary to Ferguson's. On the contrary, Collier seems to be very much into it. For instance, his criticism against neo-liberalism is based on the idea that it prevented the government from providing a needed 'development' aid. Collier laments about
" The marginalization of the
poorest peasant completely cut off from government services, political power
and economic opportunity" (p.11).
In a nutshell Collier should have clearly defined what he calls 'development' and 'modernization'.
· Lack
of clear reflexion on the optimal role of the State
Consequently Collier seems to hold a self-contradictory stance on the State's role as he both criticizes and praises it. It is not clear either to what extent and under what form the state should get involved in his view. When the State gets involved in large-scale projects (like oil development) Collier criticizes it. When it frees up markets and private initiatives Collier criticizes it. When it pours money into the region, it does nothing according to Collier, but 'buying off' political support from the Indians (p.126). When it cuts off its social programs, Collier finds it outrageous. At the end of the day the reader really wonders what the State should do in Collier's view. Still one can guess from his work that his ideal form of State involvement is a technical aid that empowers local populations rather than an exploitative form of 'development' that benefits everybody except the latter.
· Weakness and vagueness
of Collier's argument against neo-liberalism
One could make a strong argument that the so much denounced 'austerity' programs did not reflect an ideological move but an economic necessity. How could a country so heavily indebted keep spending heavy money on boosting agricultural prices - for instance?
There is
therefore a confusion in Collier's argument between 'neo-liberalism' and the
negative consequences of the debt crisis. These are not quite the same things.
Collier claims that Mexico "has sacrificed social safety nets in the name of
austerity and free-market minimal governance" (p.154). But it rather seems to
me that Mexico simply could not afford any more these 'safety nets' - so needed
to support a dictatorial regime.
I therefore believe that the key factor in the uprising of the Zapatista movement is the political repression to which Indian peasants have been subjected rather than the 'neo-liberal evil'. I do not understand the causal link Collier establishes between neo-liberalism and political repression or militarization. This does not make sense to me, as it is later contradicted by Collier's acknowledgement of the birth of a real civil society in Mexico thanks to liberal reforms.
If a dictatorial government has to rigidify its military hold on society because of economic difficulties, should one say that the problem in this society is the economic crisis or the dictatorial nature of the government?
Conclusion
Collier's work provides a rich view of the Zapatista movement that contrasts with the simplistic picture spread by the media. This is undoubtedly is a major achievement. Still he fails to clearly draw the implications for the 'development' discourse as such and to launch a needed reflexion on the optimal role of the State.
Finally, though Collier takes great care of avoiding any caricature, I find him too easily ready to see the Zapatista movement as an icon against the evils of mondialization and neo-liberalism.
From Collier's analysis it seems to me that the foremost factor explaining the uprising was the political oppression of Chiapas' peasant population rather than the 'neo-liberal evil' that was an inescapable consequence of the debt crisis.