¡Sí, se puede!- Members of our host families and residents of San Salvador Atenco By Dan Staples
For me, the highlight of this week was our trip to San Salvador Atenco, located in the eastern part of Mexico state. Atenco is a town that has been in a 7-year struggle against the federal government over their plans to construct an international airport over the community's vast ejido (communal) farmlands. We traveled to Atenco to meet with a group of organizers and hear their story of resistance. 
Atenco ejido territory
As an agricultural community, the people have a very intimate connection with the land. The earth not only serves as means of subsistence and trade, but very much constitutes a historical and collective identity. Called tierra madre, or “mother earth”, land is the source of life to the campesinos: the life of their children and the legacy of their grandparents.
The expropriation of this land would mean the destruction of a lifestyle, identity, and history of an entire community. The people of Atenco brought us to the top of a hill overlooking the expansive ejido territory to teach us the history of their continuing struggle. To see this beautiful, undeveloped farmland from horizon to horizon, in contrast to the urban sprawl I'm used to, really added an emotional impact to their story.
As you might expect, the federal government met organized resistance from the people of Atenco, who fought in self-defense of their basic human rights to land and self-determination. After a long and violently repressed campaign which started in late 2001, the town celebrated victory as the plans for a new airport were officially called off. However, this victory was not long lived. On May 3, 2006, a small quarrel between local flower vendors and the police over vending permits escalated into a two day terror campaign of unprecedented violence and human rights abuse perpetrated by federal troops.
As you might expect, the federal government met organized resistance from the people of Atenco, who fought in self-defense of their basic human rights to land and self-determination. After a long and violently repressed campaign which started in late 2001, the town celebrated victory as the plans for a new airport were officially called off. However, this victory was not long lived. On May 3, 2006, a small quarrel between local flower vendors and the police over vending permits escalated into a two day terror campaign of unprecedented violence and human rights abuse perpetrated by federal troops.
We learn the history of the struggle
Dozens were arrested and severely beaten, and many women, including the flower vendors, were raped and sexually abused in transport to prison. They were denied health treatment in jail, resulting in the death of one community member. Today, more than 20 compañeros remain in jail without access to a fair legal process, 3 of whom are serving near-life sentences in a maximum security prison. Still the people of Atenco, with the support of neighboring communities and international solidarity, remain strong and united in the face of brutal repression.
One thing that stuck out to me during the talk was the way various community members described how Atenco organized “naturally” and spontaneously in response to the government repression. Having read firsthand accounts and studies of various historic revolutions, the same spontaneous nature is always mentioned; revolutions are never planned, but are the result of collective consciousness provoked into action. However, this always arises from an active, informed citizenry invested in their collective interests and identity, not an apathetic or pacified public. In addition, the speakers we heard described the non-hierarchical, consensus-based organization in Atenco: from each according to their ability. This is part of the concept of participatory democracy we have been studying in class.
Glorieta [name changed for privacy], wife of one of the imprisoned compañeros, said, “We are fighting against the government, because the government is the enemy of the people. The government is ours.” I would add that the government is not just theirs, it is them. Autonomy, self-determination, egalitarianism, solidarity, and an active, informed citizenship: to me, Atenco represents what a true, participatory democracy can be. One that isn't based on institutions, political parties, and government “representatives”, but rather derives its power from below, in the people themselves.
Students, host families, and Atenco organizers ascending the hill of the ejido land
By Megan Vees
Sociologist Alberto Arroyo speaks to the class on the subject of democracy in Mexico.This past week, our group received a talk from sociologist Alberto Arroyo[1] about democracy in Mexico and the presidential elections of 2006. He explained a great deal about the nature of fraud within the Mexican political process, emphasizing the point that fraud is not just something that happens with numbers and figures on election day. He gave various examples of illegal practices (like the current president supporting a particular candidate) that were neither subject to penalty nor used as grounds to annul the elections as well as practices that were legal but illegitimate in his eyes (like procedures for selecting members of the boards that oversee elections). He discussed the use of a “politics of fear” in the slander attacks against the PRD candidate Lopez Obrador. This brought to mind something we heard the first week of the program, when the human resources director of a maquiladora in Ciudad Juarez described Lopez Obrador as a “Fidel Castro type”[2]. Though Arroyo clearly supported Lopez Obrador over the PAN candidate, Calderón, who “won” the election, he acknowledged that Lopez Obrador was not perfect and was perhaps at best the lesser of the evils from which the Mexican population had to choose. In relation to this, he noted a common saying in Mexico: “We have power for a day to vote for somebody who is going to oppress us.” Though this is often said in jest, he acknowledged that there is truth in it in that there are no means within the legal system to hold politicians to their promises.
Human Rights Activist Juliana García discusses the effects of militarization on social movements.
Human Rights Activist Juliana García discusses the effects of militarization on social movements.This brings me to our next talk of the week with Juliana García of the Comisión Independiente de Derechos Humanos[3] (the Independent Human Rights Comision). She spoke of the means used outside of the legal process, specifically social movements, to get politicians to respond to the needs of the people. In addition, she discussed the role of the government and military in the cycles of weakening and strengthening of social movements. Poverty and impunity, she explained, are the main obstacles to a democratic society. She elaborated on this by addressing poverty as a human rights violation and by describing how the government’s increasing (and unconstitutional) use of military forces to suppress social movements has been accepted by a large portion of the population as inevitable and even necessary.
Though both Arroyo and García see the impunity of the Mexican government as a major obstacle to a democratic political system and a society free of repression, both hold out hope for a more just and democratic future in Mexico. And though both also see how fear tactics have been used by the government and those in power to justify oppression or win political seats, both also express a belief that reform and education can help to diminish the use of such tactics and their effect on the public. After listening to these two speakers, I reflected on how the situation in the US compares to that here in Mexico when it comes to the liberty of social movements and the justice of the electoral process. Americans seem to have a lot more trust in their government and in the electoral process than do Mexicans, but I personally doubt that this trust is entirely warranted. In addition, I think Americans perceive a greater amount of liberty when it comes to participating in social movements in criticism of the government. While the US government may be less likely to violently suppress social movements, other forces – like the media – work to portray some movements as extremist or radical, damaging their credibility and allowing them to be easily dismissed by the American public. I believe that both the US and Mexico have progress to make when it comes to allowing for the voices of their people to be truly heard and represented.
Though both Arroyo and García see the impunity of the Mexican government as a major obstacle to a democratic political system and a society free of repression, both hold out hope for a more just and democratic future in Mexico. And though both also see how fear tactics have been used by the government and those in power to justify oppression or win political seats, both also express a belief that reform and education can help to diminish the use of such tactics and their effect on the public. After listening to these two speakers, I reflected on how the situation in the US compares to that here in Mexico when it comes to the liberty of social movements and the justice of the electoral process. Americans seem to have a lot more trust in their government and in the electoral process than do Mexicans, but I personally doubt that this trust is entirely warranted. In addition, I think Americans perceive a greater amount of liberty when it comes to participating in social movements in criticism of the government. While the US government may be less likely to violently suppress social movements, other forces – like the media – work to portray some movements as extremist or radical, damaging their credibility and allowing them to be easily dismissed by the American public. I believe that both the US and Mexico have progress to make when it comes to allowing for the voices of their people to be truly heard and represented.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario