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