Zapatista Inspiration for Development

Zapatista Inspiration for Development

Glocal Integrative Seminar

Theory and Practice:

The Pears Seminar in Community Development

Final Paper by

Yael Or

Glocal, Community Development Studies, MA Program

The Faculty of Social Sciences

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

June 30, 2014

Table of contents

Introduction

The Zapatistas' story

The Zapatista autonomous agenda: Politics & Economy,

Women's participation and status and Healthcare & Education systems

The Zapatista "NetWar" as an instrument for transnational solidarity network

Lessons to be learnt from the Zapatista social organization

Case studies: Jana Sahayog, Bangalore, India and Unitierra, Oaxaca, Mexico

Challenges and constrains

Conclusions

References

Introduction

When I was in Mexico, exploring community development efforts by local and international

NGOs, I found myself doubting many of the methods I had seen implemented in the name of

community development, participation and empowerment. Almost randomly, I had the chance

to join the Zapatistas in the state of Chiapas for a week long course they named "La

Libertad según l@s Zapatistas" which means "liberty according to the Zapatistas", where

I found true community development happening by the people, for the people. My

experience with the Zapatistas was humbling and enriching but above all it gave me a new

perspective towards development. Actually, in the native languages the different

Zapatista members speak, there is no word for development, the Zapatistas refer to their

actions as resistance and as a mode of self- organizing.

Chiapas has both the greatest abundance of Mexico’s natural resources and the poorest of

the country’s indigenous populations. Today, over twenty years since the Zapatistas

began their rebellion, those indigenous communities still aligned with the struggle are

living independent of state assistance and largely without capital investment. While

they receive various forms of support from international solidarity organizations, the

autonomous municipalities are driven by the capacity of the women and men who live there

to care for one another.

Originally I named this paper "Zapatista models for development" but during the writing

process I realized "models" started meaning rigidity to me and reminded me of the

notorious "one size fits all" critical phrase. I decided to change the name to

"Zapatista inspiration for development" and I hope that whoever reads this paper will

find the inspiration that I found in the Zapatista movement. In this paper I will

explore the Zapatista mode of self-organizing and living as a community in resistance

and will offer lessons to be learnt.

The Zapatistas' Story

In 1983, a small group of Mexicans traveled to the Lacandon jungle in Mexico's

southernmost state of Chiapas, with the dream of organizing a national revolution. It

was November 17, 1983 when the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) was founded.

For the next ten years they lived with the indigenous Mayan communities there,

listening, learning and blending with them. This was the beginning of the Zapatista

(named “Zapatista” after Mexico’s famed father of the revolution, Emilio Zapata)

movement, which made its dramatic public debut on January 1, 1994 when thousands of

armed indigenous people from many indigenous communities of Chiapas, occupied seven

Chiapas towns and declared war on the Mexican government. Their demands- not just for

the oppressed and poverty stricken indigenous communities, but for all Mexicans- were

clear: equality, democracy, liberty, justice, independence, employment, land, food,

housing, health, education and peace. (Ramírez, 2008) The Zapatista rebellion (and the

violence that followed in the wake of the creation of indigenous autonomous communities)

was not only an armed uprising against corrupt local non-Indians who had obtained

indigenous lands by heinous means and stole indigenous labor and resources, as well as

an uprising against the Mexican state that had forgotten its early 20th century

revolutionary compact with indigenous peoples in its enthusiastic pursuit of late 20th

century capitalism. It was also a decisive battle in a long virtual civil-war within the

Indian community itself, between impoverished Tzotzil and Tzeltal Mayans in the

highlands of Chiapas, on the one hand, and a corrupt indigenous oligarchy, on the other.

Over decades, the latter had taken over the leadership in their towns which they ran as

personal fiefdoms, maintained Mexico‘s strong arm single party system in the countryside

in exchange for patronage from state officials, suppressed alternative peasant and

religious organizations that challenged traditional‖ oligarchic authority, and freely

killed, maimed, or expulsed individuals who opposed the status quo, thus creating, on

the eve of the rebellion, many thousands of displaced and aggrieved Chiapas' indigenous

ready to support the Zapatista cause. Although the armed conflict between the government

forces of the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) and the indigenous rebels lasted

only twelve days of fighting, it marked the beginning of the Zapatista uprising and some

say that since, Chiapas is undergoing a “low-intensity war.” In the days following the

rebellion, some 100,000 people rallied in Mexico City chanting, "We are all

Zapatistas".  The Mexican army, countered soon after New Year's Day, pushing the poorly

armed rebels out of the towns they had seized. "Without that broader popular support,

the government would have destroyed them in the most violent way," says Blanche Petrich,

a journalist with La Journada newspaper in Mexico who has covered the Zapatistas since the

uprising (Arsenault, 2011). At the time of the Zapatista uprising, poverty in the area,

(measured by dollar-per-day threshold) was around 56% with many families lacking access

to basic healthcare and education, while a small elite controlled much of the arable

land, in near-feudal conditions and in rural communities, an estimated 20% of children

died before the age of five (Arsenault, 2011), thus there is no wonder why the

Zapatistas timed the rebellion to the very same day that the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, the US and Mexico came into effect. This meant

increased neoliberal economic reforms (Patrinos & Hall, 2010).They called NAFTA a "death

sentence", as it removed from the Mexican constitution Article 27, designed to guarantee

collective property rights to those who worked the land. Vocal opposition to NAFTA

gained the rebels support from trade unions and other social movements who tried - and

failed - to stop the agreement. Peace negotiations followed a unilateral ceasefire by

the Zapatistas. The dialogue process between the EZLN and the Mexican Federal

Government, focused on Indigenous Rights and Culture. These discussions centered around

respect for the diversity of indigenous communities; the conservation of natural

resources; the participation of indigenous communities in determining their own

development plans, as well as their own juridical and administrative affairs; and the

autonomy of the indigenous communities in relation to the state framework. The group

pressed for indigenous autonomy over traditional territories, protection of culture and

values of Mexican indigenous, and better access to health, education, justice, democracy

and land (Arsenault, 2011). The dialogue process resulted in the stillborn peace accords

of San Andrés, designed to bring peace to the region by dealing with root causes of the

conflict, signed by the Mexican government and EZLN in February 16, 1996, which

allegedly granted the indigenous people the right to self-determination. Yet this has

not been respected; the government, never implemented the accords and what actually

occurred was the escalated penetration to indigenous communities by military and

paramilitary units. Already, three of the newly declared autonomous regions had been

dismantled by the government, with disastrous consequences for the local population: The

Mexican military maintained a large force in the area during this period with harassment

- including well-documented rapes and killings by the military or paramilitary allies of

large land-owners, and the appearance of checkpoints. The military destroyed physical

facilities and arrested Zapatista members. The death toll mounted, as did the number of

displaced people (Zakrison,1999).To push for the spirit of the accords, In 2001, months

after Vicente Fox defeated the candidate of the PRI, becoming the first opposition

president of Mexico in 87 years, a huge Zapatista mobilization journey travelling

throughout Mexico, pushing for an end to military harassment in Chiapas as well as

reinforcing their message of improving indigenous rights across the country, brought

thousands of rebels to the Mexican capitol and to national center stage with the

question of autonomy. At the climax, up to 400,000 people, and much of the world's

media, packed the main square in Mexico City to hear the Zapatistas' message. But, as in

San Andrés, popular support did not bring institutional change from the government and

the Zapatistas returned to Chiapas, decided not to wait for the state to grant autonomy

(Arsenault, 2011).Soon after, the Mexican Senate took the previously negotiated San

Andrés Accords and removed language it felt was threatening, once again demonstrating

the state’s fears of granting recognition to local autonomy (Simonelli & Earle, 2003).

In 2002, Zapatista communities declared themselves as autonomous municipalities. As

declared by their autonomous municipal Councils, the autonomy of the

Zapatista communities was made legal when the government signed the accords. From the

time when the government broke the promises made in the accords, one of the central

distinguishing characteristics of autonomy for the Zapatistas had become complete

independence from government resources, and since declaring themselves as autonomous

municipalities in 2002, Zapatista communities live without paying for water,

electricity, or the use of land, as they view these basics resources of daily living as

already theirs. These resources are also an issue that drew non-Zapatista indigenous

people to consult with their indigenous neighbors. These inquiries were received with

open arms. Declaring “somos el mismo pobre” (we are all the same poor) the councils are

encouraged to maintain cooperative relationships and to follow the popular Zapatista

slogan, demanding "everything for everyone, nothing for ourselves". In 2003, the

Zapatistas announced the creation of Juntas de Buen Gobierno (good government committees) to

commence a form of social organization autonomous from the Mexican state. The Juntas

mediated disputes within Zapatista territories, through a parallel justice system, and

attempted to coordinate better development to improve living standards in the

communities. The movement was being effectively marginalized by the Mexican government,

leading the Zapatistas to refocus and re-enter the greater imagination of the national

and international community. To recapture some attention, they launched "La Otra Campaña

(The Other Campaign) in 2006, with military chief and spokesman of the EZLN,

Subcomandante Marcos, traveling across Mexico on a motorbike to build grass-roots

support, as an alternative campaign to presidential elections which took place at the

same time, with the objective to develop a national plan of struggle and a new

constitution. The other campaign did not achieve its goals and didn’t enjoy the same

buzz as when the uprising occurred. Since then the Zapatistas had relatively stayed away

from the media, still they received international support (Arsenault, 2011). During the

more violent years, a multitude of foreign observers came to the region to try and

prevent violence towards the Zapatistas by the military, reminding the military that

their every move is being documented by international eyes. This seemed to deter the

violence that had been inflicted on communities sympathetic to or allied with the EZLN,

while at the same time, pro- government paramilitary groups with names like “Peace and

Justice” recruited mostly indigenous young men with incentives of money or “a good job

in the city” to do the actual killing—as in the pro-Zapatista community of Acteal on

December 22, 1997, where 45 people were shot while attending mass (Zakrison, 1999).

Although the Zapatistas hadn’t been exposing themselves as much to the media in the

years after the other campaign, they did not disappear, rather they tried (and still

trying) to get better conditions of living for themselves. The Zapatistas' problems had

not been solved but the fact that they had recovered their dignity, as indigenous

people, has been their first big achievement (Arsenault, 2011). In the Zapatistas'

communities, populated by an estimated 100,000 indigenous supporters, poverty still

exists, however there have been tangible, material successes, not just advances in

dignity and other abstract concepts. Pablo Gonzalez Casanova, the former rector of

Mexico’s National Autonomous University, conducted a public health study comparing

Zapatista communities in Chiapas to their non-Zapatista counterparts. Zapatista health

providers extended coverage to 63% of all expectant mothers, double the average for non-

Zapatista communities in the area. 74% of Zapatista homes have access to toilets, as

opposed to 54% in non-Zapatista homes. Zapatista communities also have significantly

better statistics for infant mortality than other rural areas in Chiapas. "The position

of women in the communities has increased greatly," Petrich says. "They used to be kept

in the margins, basically treated like domestic animals. Now the role they play is

crucial. This is not a minor result," she says, adding that the Zapatistas have also

made major strides in education. As a broader political movement, they managed to light

the fire of resentment boiling within Mexico. However, Petrich believes the Zapatistas

"did not go as far as they expected" (Arsenault, 2011).

The Zapatista Autonomous Agenda

Politics and Economy: Asserting the rights of the indigenous people of Chiapas to

express their cultural autonomy, the autonomous, rebellious, political, cultural, and

economic centers of the Zapatista movement, known as Caracoles (literally, a snail

shell, a central symbol in Mayan beliefs representing the universe and the human heart),

embody autonomous capacity building. Coordination among all Zapatista communities is at

the regional level- the Caracol. Today, the movement’s indigenous bases of support are

comprised of five Caracoles and the regional autonomous municipalities tied to them. The

Caracol is also home to the regional authority, the Junta de Buen Gobierno (Good Governance

committee). Since The birth of these governing bodies in August of 2003, The Juntas de Buen

Gobierno, are the highest civil authority within the Zapatista movement. Among its

responsibilities are the equitable distribution of resources and the oversight of

community building projects within their region. These good governance committees were

developed to challenge the military-community hierarchy that had been present in the

Zapatista movement up until that point. As stated in the Sixth Declaration of the

Lacandon jungle: "We also saw that the EZLN, with its political-military component, was

involving itself in decisions which belonged to the democratic authorities, ‘civilians’

as they say. And here the problem is that the political-military component of the EZLN

is not democratic, because it is an army. And we saw that the military being above, and

the democratic below, was not good, because what is democratic should not be decided

militarily, it should be the reverse: the democratic-political governing above, and the

military obeying below." Passing actions and decisions to the civil authorities within

the movement, separated the political-military functions of the movement from the

autonomous and democratic components of the Zapatista organization. The Juntas have

sought to level the authorities within the movement and to distribute incoming aid in a

way that evens out the material realties of the autonomous municipalities. The Zapatista

democracy is practiced in three levels of authority: beneath the five regional Juntas,

situated in the five Caracols, each municipality has a municipal council and each

community has its own communal council. In all three levels of governance, voting is the

tool in making decisions and participation in this still relatively young system of

self-governance happens through rotating temporary positions.

The Caracol demonstrates the dynamic relationship between place-making and people-making

in a region where the indigenous populations continue to face systematic oppression and

how active place-making is fundamental to personal and community growth within the

formation of a social movement. As an autonomous space it is an arena for generating and

expressing the non-capitalist values and identity that are the foundations of Zapatismo.

The physical site of the Caracol provides the terrain needed to reshape the conditions

of possibility for resistance, and to create the transformations in social relationships

necessary for the collective realization of that resistance. The Caracol is an example

of the mutually constitutive nature of the physical sites and the socio-political

relationships that make up community. Among the Caracol's facilities are an auditorium,

a Junta de Buen Gobierno office and other offices for different committees, women’s

cooperatives, a communal kitchen, a Spanish and Mayan language school, an autonomous

primary school, integrated health facilities, cafes and stores, a basketball court, a

volleyball net, an internet spot, a chapel, a music building, an outdoor stage and a

local factory- for example the famous Zapatista boot factory. Taken as unit, the Caracol

is a model of an anti-capitalist alternative to development that addresses the

political, economic and cultural aspects of how to organize society. It is a gathering

place for all those playing a role in the continued creation of Zapatista autonomy, a

site for members of indigenous communities in resistance. Given that autonomy for the

Zapatistas is in many ways an interdependent project with others involved in struggle,

place becomes a tool for not only gathering but also the coordination of resources, the

distribution of products, the provision of services, and the training of future

generations of movement actors. Such place-based resistances are made possible by the

creative organization of the human resources of indigenous actors and, in part, by the

material contributions of civil society. Place-making and autonomous capacity building

can thereby be seen as interactive processes challenging the hegemony of the neoliberal

order by redefining social relationships within and between communities (Hollon & Lopez,

2007).

In their fight against oppression, the autonomous rebel Zapatista communities are

regenerating the ancient indigenous cargo system as a way to appoint duties within the

movement’s support bases. Within the collective practice of cargo, traditional social

structures are built from community-determined and service-oriented responsibilities. In

the cargo system individuals are given a role that reflects their capacity, their

potential, and the necessary operations of the community as a whole. An individual’s

work is enacted as a service to the community, viewing service as an expression of

commitment and dedication. Once a cargo is selected, an individual cannot deny the

responsibility, and collective survival is based on the inner-workings and abilities of

each person in the community. The community selects a person’s role, drawn from personal

abilities and virtues, in a way that serves the greater whole, determined by people’s

needs, duties, and rights, rather than marketplace relationships and profit potentials.

The cargo system offers a social economy based in a political movement. Working largely

without any monetary compensation, the collective struggle mediates social ties in the

lives of indigenous Zapatistas. Economic progress is only meaningful if it makes a

community stronger by stabilizing the lives of residents and improves their capacity to

resist neoliberalism’s co-opting influence and resources' value is determined by their

use for the community and the rebellion, not by their speculative value. For the

Zapatistas, alternatives to state-led development are a critical component of movement

building, these are achieved through Capacity building projects aimed to improve the

material realities of daily life while advancing people’s collective ability to

construct autonomy over the long-term. Autonomous capacity building, where autonomy is

both a means and object of the process, is used by the Zapatistas as a weapon for

combating the intricately intertwined hegemony of neoliberalism and coercion of the

nation-state, through systems, places, and practices that build independence from this

hegemony. Paving the way for the next generations of Chiapas’ indigenous to continue the

rebellion, autonomous capacity building for the Zapatistas means investing the future in

those who will live it. Autonomy can thereby be viewed in terms of the social

relationships that allow for the creation of alternatives to capitalist and state-

dependent development. In this sense, autonomy is a project rooted in both community and

rebellion, where community-based resistance redefines the terms on which relationship

building occurs. The Caracoles and indigenous autonomous municipalities are an active

attempt to build independence from the community of money, the coercion of the state,

and the destructive impacts of neoliberalization. Rather than capital or the state, the

Zapatistas effectively put the capacity to sustain themselves and advance their struggle

at the center of their agenda. Thus capacity building for the Zapatistas should not be

evaluated by abstract measures of growth, but by concrete improvements in their ability

to care for and govern themselves. Autonomous space are the sites in which people build

this ability, and where resolutions to conflict are found within the struggle, not

outside of it. Within these spaces, internal interdependence is more important than

outside investments and mutual aid is more vital to survival than the market. The

Caracoles and autonomous municipalities are the current manifestation of a community-

based resistance that sees the construction of self-sustaining change, through

decentralized and community-based form of self-guidance, as a long-term project. In the

caracol, a processes of political socialization maximizes the human capacity for self-

governance and rebellion. The construction of autonomous space is presented as a

cornerstone for the Zapatista's independence from the state and for their continued

struggle towards “un mundo donde quepan muchos mundos” (a world where many worlds fit).

The practices of self-governance and self-care within these communities rely on a grasp

of interdependence within resistance, so that communities must support one another’s

struggle in order for any of them to move forward. Thus, confronting the pitfalls of

both solitary communitarian ideology and capitalist social relations immersed in

competition. In the same sense, the way Zapatista social actors develop their collective

human agency is fundamental to how they are building their rebellion, and is based on

generating mutual commitments in the struggle. The objective of the people in the rebel

Zapatista communities is not to take power but rather to take care of their people.

Self-governance asserted their community’s right to implement their own justice system,

to educate themselves, to cure themselves and most principally to obey themselves.

Central to the practice of autonomy in Zapatista municipalities is a community’s ability

to handle its own problems, and to sustain itself ethically on available resources.

Building from this intention, the agenda of capacity building within the

Zapatista movement is focused on healthcare, education, and cooperative economic

projects. Cooperative economic projects, such as agricultural ones or traditional

weavings for example, enable indigenous Zapatistas increased management over their own

finances. Complemented by community-based militantism and indigenous justice systems,

the Caracoles and autonomous municipalities are actively replacing four of the key

functions of the state: the implementation of justice, economic management, defense and

security, and social reproduction (Hollon & Lopez, 2007).The Zapatista justice system

reflects a culturally sensitive method of maintaining justice where there is no specific

written law, where those with positions of influence do not receive a salary, and where

the highest authority is the community. A special committee is in charge on

investigating each case and no one is immune from being interrogated. In cases where

there is a conflict or violation of justice between a Zapatista and non-Zapatista

municipality, the autonomous municipality’s council will involve the state affiliated

municipality in the resolution process, and when necessary will involve the Junta. It is

not uncommon for all members of a community to be involved in a resolution process that

at first may only seem to impact a limited number of individuals. All of these projects

are run by extensions of the indigenous cargo system, and made possible by the extremely

high level of responsibility Zapatistas assume for their communities. Social

responsibility provides the foundations for how alternatives to development can be

sustained on limited resources. In Chiapas, Zapatistas view their efforts as part of a

struggle to support all those indigenous communities living in a shared context of

poverty and isolation. Meanwhile, a key separating factor between the Zapatistas and

their indigenous neighbors is the autonomous municipalities’ relative independence from

the money economy. Most Zapatistas are farmers. Plots are divided between families, but

also communal plots exist where work is done collectively as a community. The produce is

used to feed the community and the rest is sold to an outer market. The communal earned

money is invested in communal projects and in the Zapatista banking system which is

designated to support families struggling with illness or death. If there is a death in

the family, the debt is canceled. In other cases, a family will have to repay the debt,

not necessarily by monetary means, they could also pay back with agricultural produce or

working hours in the communal plots. For the Zapatistas, when envisioning the future of

their communities, money is not a significant factor. This is both because of money’s

relative non-existence and because of the dependence that it implies. Rather than being

mediated by money, social relations are mediated by shared understandings of dignity,

collective responsibility, and the rebellion.

Women's participation and status: Historically, women in the communities were the most

marginalized: as women, indigenous and poor. But during the years before the uprising,

when young indigenous women who joined the movement, had developed their capacities

more, it had consequences in the communities. Insurgent women became more advanced, or

in better conditions as women and this began to have an impact on their communities

(Ramírez, 2008). In 1994, when the EZLN rose up demanding governmental autonomy to

protect their own culture and to promote development in their own way, at the same time,

the Zapatista movement strongly emphasized promoting women’s right and increasing

political participation of indigenous women, which has not been seen as “traditional”

culture of the Mexican indigenous community. The Zapatista movement is famous for having

many female militants among their ranks and for treating them equal to the other male

members. As a result of the collective organizing efforts of women within the movement,

not only has the Zapatista movement developed an egalitarian culture between men and

women for their own organization, but the "Revolutionary Women’s Law" was passed in

1993. This law gives equal rights to women no matter their race, belief, color or

political affiliation, both in society and in the Zapatista Army, recognizing women’s

rights to political participation, to work and receive fair pay, to choose their own

partners, to determine the number of children they would have, to live without sexual

and domestic violence, to education, to primary healthcare and food (for their children

as well) and to have directorial positions in any organizations and military positions

in the Revolutionary Armed Forces. The egalitarian culture between men and women

represented through the Women’s Revolutionary Law demonstrates that the Zapatista

movement has developed a unique culture that seems to be distinct from the original

culture of its own members. They modified the original feminist proposal through a

process of constant negotiation and interpretation of those ideas in the context of the

existing grassroots’ cultural model. During this process, a more individualistic

approach to the women’s rights has been modified into a more collective approach to

women’s rights. By accepting communities’ interpretation of the proposed ideas, the

Zapatista movement achieved broader success in opening a feminist space within the

movement and brought unexpected success in increasing participation of women in

indigenous communities (Park, 2007). Due to Mayan cultural model of gender roles which

has complementary understanding of gender roles and women’s political participation (an

issue which this paper is too short to cover), there has not been serious problem in

embracing the idea of women’s participation in political, economic and social spheres.

The indigenous communities interpreted women’s participation within their traditional

cultural model and defined it as participation for collective rights and interests, not

for individual rights. However, the individualistic rights of women such as right to

choose their partners and to decide the number of children they have, faced great

resistance from the masses. As a result, the notion of women's rights, which were seen

as very individualistic, or western, evolved into being a more collectivist form of

women’s right focusing on bettering their community through improving gender relations.

In turn, this interpretation of “women’s right” in terms of collective goods and

economic improvement certainly influenced the Zapatista movement leaders, and they

changed their focus from “individual” women’s rights to “collective” women’s rights with

more emphasis on traditional indigenous values. Indeed, the Zapatista movement is not

focused on individualistic women’s rights as much as were explicitly laid out in the

Women’s Revolutionary Law, they became very cautious about promoting abortion rights and

freedom of choice of a partner. However, they actively promoted collective programs and

equal rights to land entitlement and education. Movement leaders now interpret women’s

rights as a collective right of the community and try to find a way not to confront each

community’s autonomous decisions on women’s issues without totally giving up the idea of

freedom of choice. As we can see in the process of meaning construction, this collective

approach to women’s right did not prevail because powerful leaders in the movement

initially supported this approach. The leaders of the movement originally proposed a

more radical and individualistic set of rights but had to encounter a different

interpretation of women’s right from the communities, which caused the leaders to alter

their perspective. This “moderate” stance on women’s rights was created in the process

of meaning construction through various interpretation and negotiations among

communities, indigenous women, and leaders of Zapatista movements. Both the leaders and

the masses are creators of the resulting approach to women’s rights. The leadership

faced a different interpretation of women’s right from the masses and thusly had to

modify its own notion of women’s rights. Once the agenda to promote women’s rights

became a reality in the Women’s Revolutionary Law, the grassroots interpreted every

detail of the agenda reflecting their own cultural model (Park, 2007). This law laid the

ground for the transformation of both the place of women within the movement, and

consequently the ways they view their own lives. Many projects mainly through women’s

cooperatives (bakeries, restaurants, handicrafts and more) mark the ways that Zapatistas

women are relating with the outside world, financially supporting their families and

communities, and strengthening social ties among themselves. While these cooperatives

make women the owners of their means of production and their relationship to the market,

they also create networks of women in the struggle between and within communities. In

addition to these woman-run spaces, Zapatista women are increasingly represented in

decision-making positions within the communities. Today we can see more and more women

in committees and women commanders as well as women in leadership positions in the junta

and all authority levels. It is evident that more women participate where the Zapatista

educational system is well established, where women and girls who usually stayed home

cooking and caring for younger brothers and sisters now go to school, although it's

still not complete. And despite the objection in the early years, it's now almost

nonexistent to find marriage by payment in Zapatista community (Ramírez, 2008).

Healthcare: Before declaring autonomy, many indigenous people had no access to health

care, in state hospitals, physicians’ fees surpassed what anyone could afford and even

only paying for the transportation to get there was impossible for most. Now, in the

Zapatista territories, the indigenous people exercise more control over their lives and

their future, by taking charge of their health. The health system in the Zapatista

communities is a network of community micro-clinics named "Casas de Salud", it includes a

pharmacy and a medical examination room. Some include a dental examination room there

are few full-sized clinic equipped with ambulances and the capacity to perform basic

surgeries. The Casa de Salud offers integrated healthcare program, offering community

members access to care through means of a health promoters who provide medical services

and also accompany patients to the nearest hospital if needed. The health promoters are

selected by the community, and then receive training within their municipality, from

experienced Zapatista health promoters and international health organizations like

Doctors without Borders, Doctors of the World, Marie Stopes, and other Mexican NGO’s.

The integrated healthcare program uses traditional medicine and the practices of

herbalists, curranderas (healers), and hueseros (Traditional medicine specialist who master

the techniques aimed at treatment of various disorders of the musculoskeletal system),

combined with modern medicine practices. The promoters employ the most pragmatic method

whether traditional or modern practices, essentially, whatever is best for the patient

(Wilson, 2008). The Autonomous health care is culturally sensitive, as it originated by

a demand of the community, implemented by the community and is coordinated on a regional

level to meet the needs of each specific region. Moreover, the health promoters speak

the same language, belong to the same political organization, share the same cultural

values and are of the same ethnicity as community members who use their services.

Because the health care promoter model is based within a community and works to deliver

care to patients who would otherwise not have health care access, it seems that this

program addresses the problem of accessibility. In places where Community members have

an income from selling goods such as corn or coffee, the health promoter uses a fee-for-

service system, in which community members pay a small fee for medications and

treatments. In other communities which engage mainly in collective work, the services

are "free" accordingly. While the minimal fee does not cover all expenses of running a

clinic, the fee does help in purchasing new medicines. As the Zapatistas still rely on

outside sources for funding and supplies for their clinics, this model is not completely

financially independent and the Zapatista community's health suffers as a result of

insufficient medication and supplies and due to its inability to address all health

needs at their own facilities. Sovereign control over healthcare remains a need of the

Zapatista community before they can change the status quo and in order to ensure

sustainability, still, taking under consideration the current social situation as well

as the effects of the military presence in Chiapas, it seems that health promoters have

created an effective solution given the current political situation (Wilson, 2008).

Education: In Chiapas the indigenous peoples share a 500-year history of struggle and

resistance, and this history is passed from generation to generation within the present

Zapatista movement. The sharing of this history provides the foundation for the

contemporary social memory of resistance, and fuels the fires of individual and

collective dignity within indigenous processes of political socialization. Over a decade

ago, the Zapatistas started reclaiming and regenerating the conditions in which people

traditionally learned in their own ways. The people in the villages knew very well that

state schools prevents their children from learning what they need to know to continue

living in their communities, contributing to the common well-being and that of their

soils, their places, and that school does not prepare them for life or work outside the

community. They knew by experience what usually happens to those who abandon their

communities to get “higher education” - they get lost in the cities, in degraded jobs (A

recent study found that only eight percent of graduates of Mexican universities will be

able to work in the field they graduated in) (Esteva, 2007). In this light, Born in

2004, the Zapatista education system was commenced with primary schools. The schools

provide sites for children and youth to gain academic skills, to study the history of

their people’s struggle, and to learn about the continued threats to their communities.

Similar to the healthcare system, the education system is also run by promoters. The

fact that the autonomous rebellious schools do not have teachers, but rather promoters,

is meant to reveal that in the classroom ideas flow from all directions and there is no

singular fountain of knowledge (Hollon & Lopez, 2007).The Zapatistas’ frequently use the

verb “capacitar” (“to capacitate” or “to build capacity”) to describe the intentional

shaping of human potential through education. Their approach to human development is

interwoven with the political socialization of new generations of social actors in the

struggle. When young people are capacitated to be educators then future generations will

directly benefit, “if they learn, another teacher is born” in their words. In many

respects the system of training educators is a particular response to the general

question posed by Zapatismo: what does our community need and how can we provide that

for ourselves? According to their philosophy of education, similar and perhaps inspired

by Freire's Popular Education, teachers, students, and parents assist each child as they

move at their own pace through levels of learning. Children can read, write, do math,

have a good grasp of the history of the world and their relationship to it, read and

write poetry and enjoy music and art. It is a compassionate and effective system.

Teachers are raised up from their own communities and return from training to share

their skills (Simonelli & Earle, 2003). By creating conditions for apprenticeship they

allow access to real opportunities to learn in freedom. In many cases, they can learn

with parents, uncles, and grandparents- talking to them, listening to their stories,

observing them in their daily trade. Unlike the city lifestyle, where everybody is too

busy and don't have patience anymore to share with the new generation the wisdom

accumulated in a culture, the Zapatistas allow for learning to occur not only through

"education", but by creating conditions for decent living, a community (Esteva, 2007).

The Zapatista "NetWar" as an instrument for transnational

solidarity network

Unlike revolutionaries who preceded them, the Zapatistas did not speak in certainties;

their words were more poetry than political polemics. It was their style of speaking,

specifically the words of the iconic pipe-smoking military chief and spokesman of the

EZLN, Subcomandante Marcos, who expressed something new and electrifying for an

insurgent group. "They had a lot of political imagination and successfully used the

Internet and new communications technology," says Professor Flores. The Zapatistas

wanted "to listen and learn about struggles...to shake the country from below and turn

it on its head" and to create "a world where many worlds fit". And those ideas

resonated, in Mexico and beyond (Arsenault, 2011). The term "NetWar" was used to

describe the successful efforts by the Zapatistas in Mexico to harness the Internet in

projecting power. The concept of "NetWar" as articulated by John Arquilla and David

Ronfeldt in the 1990s, which essentially postulated a new form of low intensity social

conflict (including activism), characterized by networked, decentralized decision-making

and a reliance on strong communication channels (Kalathil, 2011).The global Zapatista

solidarity network has emerged since the Zapatista uprising in 1994 which immediately

caught the imagination of people both in Mexico and abroad. The large number of

demonstrations and protests in the first years of the Zapatista uprising and the

increasing number of people travelling to Chiapas, kept bringing new nodes into the

network. The first efforts of the solidarity network called for a peaceful solution to

the armed confrontations between the Mexican Army and the Zapatistas in the weeks

following the uprising. These activities sought to put pressure on the Mexican

government and to inform the public, especially in Europe and the USA, about events in

Chiapas. They were undoubtedly part of the reason why the Mexican government decided to

sign a ceasefire and start negotiations with the Zapatistas after 12 days of fighting.

Rather than disappearing after this apparent success the transnational solidarity

network surrounding the Zapatistas has remained active and since 1994 there has been a

wide range of other occasions when people have met physically in Chiapas or elsewhere

through participation in peace camps, delegations and specific projects, aimed at

supporting the Zapatistas and the indigenous people of Chiapas. These initiatives have

provided vast opportunities for the establishment of interpersonal and inter-

organizational contacts which created and strengthen the network. The Zapatistas have

staged a number of public events in which solidarity activists have been invited to

participate. The first event was the National Democratic Convention which took place in

1994 and drew about 6000 people from a large number and variety of organizations. In

1995 the National Consultation for Peace and Democracy, in which the Zapatistas asked

the Mexican population to express its view on the Zapatistas and their future direction,

the voters opted for the creation of non-military organization related to the Zapatistas

which eventually resulted in the formation of the Zapatista Front of National Liberation

(FZLN). Few of the important functions of the FZLN today with regard to the

transnational Zapatista solidarity network are the distribution of daily e-mail messages

primarily containing excerpts from Mexican newspapers relevant to Chiapas and the

Zapatistas, distribution of action alert messages calling for national and transnational

solidarity activities when events in Chiapas and Mexico seem to demand action,

maintaining pages in English, French and Portuguese on its website and generally paying

attention to transnational Zapatista related activities.

The transnational Zapatista solidarity network had its own development: at the

beginning, transnational activists met in Mexico to protest against the armed

confrontations. Still, the network did not have an infrastructure of its own, and

activities used existing networks and movements. The year after, the network started to

develop an infrastructure of its own and its activities were mainly aimed at monitoring

the human rights situation in Chiapas, following the failed attempt by the Mexican Army

to capture the Zapatista leadership. A year later the network became more politicized

and began to overlap with other transnational networks. The politicization was largely a

result of the Zapatistas’ call for the Continental American Encounter for Humanity and

against Neo-liberalism which took place in 1996, drew about 300 participants from all

over the American continent to discuss the effects of the neo-liberal development model

and to start a debate about alternatives, which was followed by the First

Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and against Neoliberalism in Chiapas in 1996

which attracted more than 3000 people from all over the world to the Lacandon jungle.

Following the Acteal massacre in Chiapas in December 1997, in which a paramilitary group

murdered 45 indigenous men, women and children, the solidarity network experienced its

most intense period of activities, concerned with human rights violations and the

militarization of Chiapas. The following years were fairly ‘quiet’ in terms of

transnational solidarity activities, partly due to prolonged periods of silence on the

part of the Zapatistas. It did, however, experience a significant revival with the March

for Indigenous Dignity in 2001. The network consists of non-Mexican actors who have an

interest in the impact of the Zapatista uprising, share some of the political views of

the Zapatistas and engage in political activities, information distribution, material

aid delivery, human rights observation and lobbying efforts in relation to Chiapas and

the Zapatistas, or Mexican actors with the above characteristics whose activities

involve regular contact with actors outside Mexico. The Zapatistas acknowledge the

importance of the solidarity network as a kind of protection against repressive measures

from local and national authorities and they have entered into an intimate relationship

with it. Communiqués (the Zapatista communication notices) are almost always addressed

to international civil society among others. Until this day, the Zapatistas take part in

public dialogue and the solidarity network, remained active, with members playing

different roles: as peace observers, as supports (financially or otherwise) and as

followers trying to promote Zapatista inspired community activities in their countries.

In the last year, for the first time, the Zapatista opened their gates to thousands of

people to join their communities and caracoles for a week long course named "liberty

according to the Zapatistas" to learn the ways in which they organize themselves and the

way they live in their communities. They are planning a second level course, which will

be offered for the graduates of the first course.

It seems like the transnational Zapatista solidarity network formation took place

through some important gatherings, in which new established personal and organizational

ties led to the exchange of information and experience. Of course the large turnout and

the worldwide awareness would hardly have been possible without the network's extensive

use of the Internet (Olsen, 2004).

Lessons to be learnt from the Zapatista Social Organization

Despite their growing visibility around the world, NGOs’ contribution to development

remains limited. While many small-scale successes have been secured, there has been

little impact on the systems and structures that determine the distribution of power and

resources within and between societies. As a result, the impact of NGOs on the lives of

poor people remains highly localized and often short-lived. This shortfall is largely

the result of the failure of NGOs to make the right linkages between their work at micro

level and the wider systems and structures of which they form a part. Another reason for

this shortfall is some NGOs tendency to act as service providers. By doing only that,

they are essentially avoiding confrontation with the structural problems that created

poverty and injustice. To be realistic, not in all cases, probably not in most cases,

complete separation from the government is suitable or feasible, hence, In this section

I will suggest that alongside autonomous capacity building, NGOs should concentrate on

putting pressure on governments to grant equal rights, local autonomy, control over

resources etc. through advocacy, lobbying, and influencing public opinion. Deliberate

networking strategies and information exchange with other NGOs and intended

beneficiaries at the grass-roots level are also crucial. Regarding service providence,

unfortunately, in many places, providing such services is a matter of survival, so I do

not mean to dismiss it, but only to say that offering services without the advocacy

element is basically perpetuating the situation and avoiding the root causes of the

issues dealt with. (Madon & Sahay, 2002)

The first step towards securing rights as an indigenous people is being recognized as

such by the nation-state wherein the group resides. Recognition of indigenous peoples

needs to chart a middle course that neither reduces their identity to a primordial

culture with a fixed subsistence form and relationship to land nor ignores contemporary

realities where indigenous identities also emerged in historical contexts of developing

political economies. Indigenous demands for rights extend beyond their territorial

resources. These demands hinge on the right to self-determination and include the right

to control and protect their cultural knowledge and performances, material remains,

languages, indigenous knowledge and most importantly to determine their own development

(Patrinos & Hall, 2010).

The Zapatistas view social movements and the capacity to challenge neoliberal hegemony

as central components to widespread positive social change. In their view, mainstream

development, driven by the state or the market, has little or no accountability to the

values or social networks of the communities it seeks to change. On the other hand,

‘Autonomous Capacity Building’ views indigenous customs, identity, and community

strength as resources for growth rather than targets for destruction. By capacity they

mean collective human agency, and those physical spaces that both result from and enable

its progression. Growth, in this sense, can only be measured by the ability of a

movement’s community bases to achieve their own vision for their future. Progress

becomes a question of social solidarity, built on mutual aid, shared long-term

interests, and collective strength.

It is undeniable that the post-WW2 development paradigm has laid the foundation for

processes of neoliberalization. As growing numbers of resources are privatized and

corporations gain increasing levels of influence over people’s lives, the Zapatistas

demonstrate an alternative to state-led development that strengthens their communities’

capacity to determine their own future as well as their ability to challenge neoliberal

hegemony, an example that holds autonomous space, indigenous knowledge and grassroots

community improvement as primary values.

Economically speaking, the Zapatista cargo system is a system deeply embedded into

indigenous culture with a history of thousands of years, hence it is not necessarily

realistic to think about how it can be transplanted to the other places. However, it is

certainly possible for other communities to develop systems of mutual support and

commitment that provide the cornerstones of community building. Compared to western

notions of individually determined life paths, the cargo system challenges the

commodification of human relationships. As it is being deployed by the Zapatistas today,

the cargo system offers a social economy based in a political movement. Working without

any monetary compensation, the collective struggle mediates social ties in the lives of

indigenous Zapatistas. In places where mainstream development is grounded first and

foremost in the market, community relations often begin to mirror market relations

concerned primarily with competition and visions of economic growth. In the autonomous

municipalities of Chiapas, economic progress is only meaningful if it makes a community

stronger by stabilizing the lives of residents and improves their capacity to resist

neoliberalism’s co-opting influence and the value of resources is determined by their

use for the community and the rebellion, not by their speculative value.

Strengthening communities can be done through capacity building projects which can

improve the material realities of daily life while advancing people’s collective ability

to construct autonomy over the long-term.  Autonomy can be used as means and object in

the process of Autonomous capacity building, meaning those systems, places, and

practices that build independence from the neoliberal hegemony. It is an alternative to

development which resists and attempts to dismantle the co-opting influence of global

capital over community futures, and desires much more than a world where every corner of

the earth is turned into a site for productive investment. Autonomy can be viewed in

terms of the social relationships that allow for the creation of alternatives to

capitalist and state-dependent development. In this sense, autonomy is a project rooted

in both community and rebellion, where community-based resistance redefines the terms on

which relationship building occurs. While the examples of autonomous capacity building

modeled by the Zapatistas are specific to their situation, their approach is full of

lessons for those working to construct autonomy and build social movements in starkly

different environments. Autonomous spaces are uniquely capable of creating new

generations of social actors for community-based resistance, especially when the

interplay between place-making and people-making is mediated by long-term struggle.

Though various criteria for and levels of participation are certainly present within the

Zapatista movement, the autonomous capacity building model is based on an active

understanding of interdependence and inclusiveness within struggle. The

Zapatista struggle is largely determined by the strength of the relationships Zapatistas

have to each other. It is this strength that keeps the movement progressing, and which

fuels the construction of autonomous spaces. Strong social relationships allow the

movement to address its internal challenges, and are the catalyst for the revolutions

internal to the revolution that are necessary for the struggle’s continued growth

(Hollon & Lopez, 2007). Although achieving complete autonomy might seem almost

impossible in some cases, demanding greater local control seems a reasonable position

for a rebel group representing indigenous and peasant issues or any other group

representing its community. It is a compromise between the impossibility of total

autonomy (secession) and the intolerability of government ineptitude and corruption. The

very manner in which leadership operates in the Zapatista struggle, “to lead by

obeying,” suggests serious suspicion of the legitimacy of authority as we know it in

other parts of the world, especially in the way it must consult with its constituents

over most decisions and in its general use of consensus to reach decisions. Autonomy

means some escape from the authoritarian actions of a centralized institution,

sustainability achieved through having control over the development trajectory

(Simonelli & Earle, 2003). In the case of the Caracol, the construction of the

autonomous geography is premised on a place-based process of collective self-

determination. A clear implication of this is that a space cannot be at once imitative

and autonomous any more than it can be both duplicative and self-determined. Efforts to

copy the dynamics of an autonomous space can only happen at the expense of the unique

possibilities offered by a community’s physical and relational context. Any

transplantation runs the risk of destroying the specific social and spatial conditions

of resistance contained in a site. It is in many ways these socio-spatial and geo-

relational dynamics that provide the basis for radical place-making in the first place.

Moreover, the very notion that models are transferable seems, in part, a symptom of

those place-destroying characteristics of neoliberalism that seek to homogenize space in

an attempt to open and protect investment terrains. Hence the beauty of the Zapatistas

call for, “a world where many worlds fit.” In order to create lasting cultures of

resistance it is vital that every community is built from the uniqueness of its

residents, its geography, its social dynamics, and its particular history of oppression

and struggle (this is the reason why this paper offers inspiration rather than models).

This means an approach to autonomous place-making that nurtures the distinctness within

all our struggles, where communities learn from each other so that they are better able

to guide themselves, and where we build from the unique dynamics of our own contexts so

that we can transform them. Examples of radical place-making serve as inspirational

sites wherein we can advance visions for a movement without limits, without borders, and

without prescribed formulas. They are spaces determined by people’s needs and abilities,

in which we can reevaluate the way we understand and talk about our own practices of

resistance. In an environment where the programs of social change organizations are

often informed by policy climates and foundation funding categories, autonomous

community spaces can help us to realize the ways in which our political agenda is itself

shaped by outside forces. Places are inhabitable sites where the values of life in

resistance can be reinforced by daily experience. Autonomous sites are designated areas

for confronting the subtle oppressions within our own practice, for envisioning the next

steps of our movement building, for solidifying our commitments to one another, for

enabling our learning from one another, and for strengthening our subjectivities of

struggle. For the Zapatistas the question of movement subjectivities is intricately

connected to continued engagement with ‘the other,’ with those outside of their

immediate sphere of resistance. Among many other things, the Caracol is a designated

space for those outside of Chiapas’ indigenous communities to come and visit an

autonomous and rebellious Zapatista space. Not content to only receive visitors, in 2006

the Zapatistas launched their campaign “La Otra Campaña” to travel and listen to the

struggles of groups across Mexico, an important example for an attempt at building

relationships with other groups dealing with similar situations, which can be important

tool to be used in other contexts. Addressing the question of “how do we open ourselves

up to the other?” the campaign was about listening instead of speaking, and sharing to

create unity, which are important tools, often ignored in development efforts around the

world. In Zapatista eyes, these are tools to allow political relationships necessary to

reach grassroots democracy and to build a new civil society, that is both grassroots and

anti-capitalist, unified enough to bring about fundamental transformation. For those

working to challenge the hegemony of the state and the neoliberal order, "La Otra Campaña"

is a powerful lesson in how a movement cannot put the question of what needs to be done

ahead of the level of politicization needed to do it. The autonomous rebel Zapatista

communities and "La Otra Campaña" are reminders that the horizon is a highly contested

terrain and that resistance is in many ways a struggle over the conditions of

possibility for radical change. Both are instructive, teaching that unless our movements

at least challenge government power and capitalism at deeper levels, our struggles are

largely already framed for us. Autonomous spaces do not exist until they are constructed

and as low-income marginalized communities are increasingly left to develop their own

resources, their own governance structures, and their own defenses, and as no community

can effectively struggle in isolation, development organizations need to create the

spaces for building a shared agenda and mutual preparedness out of a shared context

(Hollon & Lopez, 2007).The case of the Zapatista movement offers another valuable

lessons, providing an example of how networks are powerful tools for transfer of

information and knowledge which can promote debate, discussion, and eventual change.

Extensive use of the Internet allowed the Zapatistas to create a network of support

groups across the world, making it almost impossible for the Mexican government to use

large-scale repression. The Zapatistas case shows how a grass-roots movement can engage

in a prolonged debate and eventually execute social change (Madon & Sahay, 2002) .Strong

community networks and collective commitments to struggle are preconditions for

constructing and maintaining autonomous spaces in low-income neighborhoods or

communities. It is in the practice of everyday life where these networks and commitments

are formed and reinforced. Community life is an arena for connecting regular personal

investments in one’s surroundings with those emerging channels that link struggles

across place, thereby building dynamic networks and support structures both within and

between communities. In order to support such dynamic networks within communities it is

imperative to confront those internal tensions among fellow residents that result

largely from systematic oppression over time. In the case of women’s rights and the

struggle against patriarchy among the Zapatistas, this was manifested as the “revolution

before the revolution”. Capacity building efforts must look towards the daily work of

community building. Communities’ internal divisions are serious obstacles to the

potential dynamism made possible by the diverse lived experiences held within a

community. At the same time, the diversity of lived experiences among community members

can become a source of strength rather than division. The pattern of turnover and

burnout that all too often accompanies social change lifestyles can be explained by the

fact that activism is often only lived within designated spaces, and is often not

transferred into other spaces like the home. The space of one’s organizing and one’s

residency are frequently disconnected and as a result activists are separated from the

support structures made available by strong community. The Zapatista struggle is

embedded into the daily lives of the movement’s social actors and this integration of

struggle and everyday life contributes to the movement’s sustainability. For those

living in the autonomous rebel Zapatista communities the spirit of resistance is present

in every aspect of life. Zapatismo is in the interpersonal exchanges of those fighting

together, in the alternative economy projects, and in the school system. Radically

practical ideas of democracy, autonomy, justice, anti-capitalism, and equality are

discussed regularly, and are consistently reflected in the language of Zapatista social

actors. The culture of resistance is present in the murals that decorate nearly all of

the Caracol, in the handicrafts and in the revolutionary songs that are a normal sound

in the homes where people live. These are the defining characteristics of place that are

generated in autonomous space and that make resistance culture inhabitable. The Caracol

points to how reaching a higher political consciousness is possible by making one’s

resistance more fully integrated into daily routines. Thus an integral part of capacity

building goals and strategies for making struggle more sustainable, is the integration

of our various life spheres and the creation of life-affirming cultures of resistance

(Hollon & Lopez, 2007).

There are also valuable lessons to learn from the healthcare and education systems of

the Zapatistas. As development of healthcare solutions that are medically effective,

cost-effective, and culturally appropriate becomes an ever more urgent priority,

integrated healthcare programs, which feature both traditional and western medicine can

offer a solution. These can improve health of indigenous communities and also help

conserve the traditional knowledge of the community, while being culturally sensitive

end empowering to the members involve. Integrated healthcare practices need to work with

limited natural resources and address local and time specific factors to create a

holistic solution that addresses social, cultural, political and economic contexts. The

program should incorporate health workers selected from their respective communities to

deliver healthcare and provide training through workshops. It can also be based on a

combination of participants sharing their traditional healing practices and health

workers’ training. This could also be done through sponsored Shamans and Apprentices

program, which works to encourage young members of the community to study with the

shamans. This strategy can help protect dwindling traditional knowledge, and provide a

sense of empowerment to the communities involved so that they can assume ownership of

the project. Learning from the Zapatistas failures and successes, in implementing such

program, we should place special emphasis on developing leadership skills to increase

autonomy, incorporate income-generating efforts to ensure the longevity and

sustainability of the programs, and continue to focus on government collaboration, if

possible and desirable, to maintain local support from the national government (Wilson,

2008).

The Zapatista education philosophy, much like Paulo Freire's Popular Education

philosophy, seeks to inspire a sense of pride, dignity, and confidence in the

participants so that they may become autonomous politically and socially. Freire

referred to popular education as pedagogy for social change, and because of this it

defines its educational activity as a “cultural action". Freire also developed a

Pedagogy of the Oppressed. He believed education could improve the human condition,

counteracting the effects of a psychology of oppression. Freire's popular education

believes in teaching to change the world and sees social justice education is the only

option. Basing its educative practices in individual and collective experiences, popular

education takes the previously acquired knowledge of population very seriously and works

in groups more than on an individual basis. To the extent that the state and the school

represent places where dominant relationships take place, this pedagogy advocates for

the creation of non-academic alternatives and of non-state alternatives inserted in the

heart of civil society, as present in the Zapatista communities (Torres & Jones, 2009).

Lastly, Self-development demonstrated by the Zapatistas, meaning maintaining control, is

contrasted with development done by others, the standard model of “we teach, you learn.”

I believe it is an attitude which exist in many NGO programs and found in many of the

former official government development projects as well. The whole fight in Chiapas

seems to be about gaining greater control over life and what happens in the shared

future. For me, it became clear that autonomy, local ability to gain greater control

over one’s own life and the lives of those people for whom one feels responsible, is an

essential part of the Community Development equation (Simonelli & Earle, 2003).

Case studies: Jana Sahayog, Bangalore, India & Unitierra, Oaxaca,

Mexico

The next case studies present two different NGOs practicing different aspects of the

Zapatista way of organizing and living as a community in resistance, through different

projects in different contexts.

The Jana Sahayog case study demonstrates an information-based NGO mediation model

employed by an organization called Jana Sahayog (literally translated as “peoples’

cooperation”), an urban resource center of Samuha, a development agency ,which works to

uplift slum dwellers in the city of Bangalore in the south Indian state of Karnataka. It

shows how slum dwellers in Bangalore use information to ensure that they understand

government legislation and programs and that the government and other people hear them

but more importantly that they unit and support each other in their shared struggle.

Jana Sahayog works in twenty slums of Bangalore and in seven other cities within the

state, organizing slum dwellers around issues that affect them - land titles, basic

amenities, and other community issues with a strong focus on information provision. The

NGO aims to stimulate information gathering and circulation by and for slum dwellers

with the goal of building up their capacity to bring about change for themselves through

informed self-help groups. In keeping with this objective, Jana Sahayog essentially acts

as an information link between the slum dwellers and the government agencies and

facilitates purposeful negotiation between the two. Slum Suddi is a vernacular monthly

newspaper which covers issues of concern to slum dwellers, it is written, edited, and

published by the slum dwellers themselves, with Jana Sahayog merely playing a

facilitator’s role. Coverage of slum-related issues in prominent dailies is included in

Slum Suddi, enabling slum dwellers to not only keep up with them but also to react to

them through informed public debate and follow-up action. Guided by the philosophy that

if the poor work as a group, they can cope by themselves, Jana Sahayog aims to build and

strengthen slum unions. Although not many of the slums in the city have these unions at

present, the impact of such debate gets carried over to all squatter settlements,

fostering a sense of identity. Slum Suddi alerts slum dwellers to human rights

violations, police atrocities, corruption of middlemen, and other common forms of

exploitation. The nine members of the Slum Suddi editorial board, eight of whom are slum

dwellers, meet every month to conduct a post mortem of the previous issue and discuss

the next edition in term of topics to be covered, budget, and follow-up campaigns. It

distributes 1500 complementary copies among local government officials to promote the

flow of information from slum dwellers to the authorities. The impact of Slum Suddi can

be evaluated by the fear the newspaper evokes among government of officials. Another

technique used by Jana Sahayog to pressure government to take action is to publicize

factual information on the monies spent by different agencies and their performance in

terms of actual provision of services. This information is used to nudge government

agencies toward corrective action, and if this approach does not work they are coerced

into action via public-interest litigation. For example, funds earmarked for

improvements in a particular slum category were diverted to others. Slum activists

brought this to the attention of people through Slum Suddi and asked the authorities for

an explanation. As a result, ongoing works were stopped and the allocated funds were

redirected to the appropriate slum. At the global level, Jana Sahayog maintains a web

site in order to enlist the interest and support of the international community of

activists, researchers, and other groups. This web site has triggered the formation of a

substantial network of researchers interested in the issue of urban governance and

poverty in Bangalore.

Jana Sahayog uses diverse information sources to build awareness and generate debate.

Its collection and dissemination of formal and informal information and accompanying

intervention strategies have forced the pace of reform to speed up. It is an example for

an NGO facilitating a community way of struggle within the existing framework. This

particular model of NGO mediation that is heavily reliant on networking and information

exchange, also uses networks with other NGOs and the media and facilitates lateral

transfer of information among groups who can form broader coalitions. Jana Sahayog has

been equally instrumental in forming partnerships with slum dwellers, creating an

environment for debate among slum dwellers themselves and alongside acting as the

advocate for the slum community, the NGO makes political statements on behalf of local

communities in order to pressurize the government to take action.

Jana Sahayog believes that the dissemination of information has value only when it

generates debates that pressure government to take stock of the situation and to carry

out requisite action. Its strategy ranges from direct lobbying of key individuals within

government agencies, to publications, conferences, and participation in joint

committees. Prior to the establishment of Jana Sahayog, basic information about slums

was produced by the government and was neither shared with other organizations nor made

available to slum dwellers in a way that they could understand or respond to. In this

way, power rested with the authorities and the slum dwellers had no say in formulation

of policies and programs that impacted them. Since Jana Sahayog came into existence,

information flow has gradually increased in the direction of slum dwellers, and vice

versa, from slum dwellers to government agencies. This two-way information flow has

altered the power equation in favor of the slum dwellers. The ability of the network to

transfer information and knowledge to its nodes has shifted power away from the center

to the periphery. In this way, networking induces structural change that transcends the

agendas of specific interest groups. Mapping of information flows is a crucial exercise

in understanding issues related to equity and participation in local governance (Madon &

Sahay, 2002).

The Unitierra case study demonstrates an NGO adopting the general leading moto of the

Zapatistas - autonomy. Unitierra is a Mexican organization working with communities

around Oaxaca to achieve increased autonomy and solidarity in the communities. It does

not have a set model of development for each community, rather they go and rethink

together with the communities which invited them, what is right for them and in what

areas they want to see change happen and how.

Unitierra's main role is to act as an alternative concept to university (Tierra=soil,

land) by offering alternative education opportunities for all with an emphasis on

relevant skills and professions for community life and skills for autonomous living.

This role is directly inspired by the Zapatista education system and was born to combat

the same phenomenon of young people of more rural communities seeking for higher

education outside of the community, in order to climb up the socio economic latter, but

eventually they cannot find a job in their field of study and they end up in degraded

jobs in the city, outside of the community, with no support system. In Unitierra, Young

men and women without any diploma, and better yet no schooling, can come and learn

whatever they want to learn - practical trades like urban agriculture, video production,

or social research, or fields of study, like philosophy or communication. They learn the

skills of the trade or field of study as apprentices of someone practicing those

activities. They also learn how to learn with modern tools and practices not available

in their communities. As soon as the young people arrive at Unitierra, they start to

work as apprentices. They discover that they need specific skills to do what they want

to do. Most of the time, they get those skills by practicing the trade, with or without

their mentors. They may choose to attend specific workshops, to shorten the time needed

to get those skills. Unitierra reports that their “students” have been learning faster

than they expected. After a few months they are usually called to return to the living

present of their communities to do there what they have learned. They seem to be very

useful there. Some of them are combining different lines of learning in a creative way.

"One of them, for example, combined organic agriculture and soil regeneration, with

vernacular architecture. He is now not offering professional services that allow him to

move towards the middle class standard of living by selling services and commodities,

but is learning how to share, like peasants, what it means to be a cherished member of

his community and commons, as has been done through time immemorial—before the modern

rupture" reports Gustavo, one of the founding members of Unitierra. After one or two

years of learning, once their peers think they have enough competence in a specific

trade, Unitierra gives their “students” a university diploma, offering them the social

recognition denied to them by the educational system. Instead of certifying the number

of class-hours, as conventional diplomas do, they certify a specific competence,

immediately appreciated by the communities, and protect their “students” against the

usual discrimination. Unitierra's diplomas have no use for those who wish to show off or

to ask for a job or any privilege. They are an expression of people's autonomy. As a

symbol, they represent the commitment of their “students” to their own communities, not

a right to demand anything. Unitierra reports that a 100% of their “graduates” are doing

productive work in the area they studied. Unitierra sees their activities as highly

subversive. In a sense, they are subverting all the institutions of the modern, economic

society. In packaging their activities as one of the most respected sacred cows of

modernity – education - they protect their freedom from the attacks of the system. In

Gustavo's words: "In my place, every I is a we. And thus we live together, in our living

present, rooted in our social and cultural soil, nourishing hopes at a time in which all

of us, inspired by the Zapatistas, are creating a whole new world".(Esteva, 2007)

Challenges and Constrains

"We resist, we organize, not because we know it will be better for us, but because maybe

our children and our grandchildren won’t have to live like we do…We realize that we are

not the ones who will enjoy the fruits of our labor". This position leads to incredible

patience and the ability to acknowledge that moving out of marginalization means

accepting that change through Community Development will take place slowly. It requires

strategic planning and the fortitude to devote resources to development, especially in

times of extreme scarcity (Simonelli & Earle, 2003). Time is probably the deepest

challenge and constraint in trying to promote this kind of community organization. It

takes time, patience and great human agency. Unfortunately, in today's development

world, dependency on donations dictates commitment to donors which is not lessen then

the commitment to the community working with. This reality dictates in turn, relatively

quick fixes, through relatively short term programs. Although 4-5 years might sound a

lot, when looking at it in the light of the twenty years of Zapatista dedication to

their cause, my point might seem clearer.

Self-sustaining social changes are the product of struggle over long periods of time.

Before the Zapatista rebellion started twenty years ago, there were 500 years of anti-

colonial struggle among the indigenous people in the Chiapas area. Calling on their

history of oppression and legacy of resistance, the Zapatistas demonstrate both that

social memory is a major resource for movement building and that resistance must be

built to last if it has any hope of effecting revolutionary changes (Hollon & Lopez,

2007). Here lies another deep challenge: social memory and identity were and still are a

huge factor dictating the level of dedication and determination in the Zapatistas' quest

for a new world. This dedication had the power to mobilize thousands of people. In many

communities around the world, the opposite mental state prevails. Many poor communities

have reached the state of desperation, torn identities and extreme conditions which in

turn led to social tear in the community, and the unity required to initiate and execute

social and structural change is long gone. On the other hand, some communities have

developed "learned helplessness" due to years of relying on funding and aid which is

dependent on the inability of the community to assist itself, thus realizing that by

improving their conditions, the funding flow will stop.

Another major challenge is the question of the possibility of challenging capitalism’s

destructive impacts. In a world where escaping capitalism seems impossible, it might

seem possible and vital to build an anti-capitalist frame only to the ones on the

receiving end of systematic oppression, as did the Zapatistas for themselves. Such

grassroots anti-capitalism requires that community leaders challenge mainstream

understandings of social issues, arriving at definitions and proposals that make sense

for their community and will allow a community to prefer the collective betterment over

the capitalist dream of individual opportunities. Due to the unique dynamics and

geographies of daily life across places, it is neither possible nor desirable to

prescribe solutions for one another, thus leaving the Zapatista way as an inspiration

and not a model to replicate. Moreover, it is a challenge on its own to overcome

people's cynicism (and probably also of NGOs) when daring to imagine another world, like

the Zapatistas did.

Conclusions

I want to start this concluding chapter with mentioning education and Freire's popular

education in particular. Two of its specific characteristics, the prioritizing of basic

education and an emphasis on the quality of education, also characterize the educational

agenda of the World Bank. However, to the extent that the World Bank is composed

primarily of economists and not of educators, the final objective of the educational

policy is economic efficiency, the liberalization of markets and the globalization of

capital, in all of which there is an overemphasis on quantitative methods to measure the

success of an educational policy (Torres & Jones, 2009). As long as development NGOs work in

the light of the World Bank MDGs, and as long as measurements of success are

quantitative ones, focusing on economic efficiency, development efforts will never be

able to be culturally sensitive and therefore will be more damaging then promoting or

will be unsustainable due to lack of compatibility to the local context. I suggest of

course using more qualitative measurements, still realizing that context is crucial.

When I started reading materials for this paper, I came across so many different

definitions for indigenous populations, which point to the diversity of these groups

around the world. This diversity requires looking into each case separately. For some

communities, like the Zapatistas, a community escaping from the capitalist system,

development cannot be measured by income. This diversity also requires context-sensitive

initiatives that address the entire framework in which a community exists, incorporating

the interplay of social, economic, and political factors and propose a unique answer to

addressing disparities globally. In order for any program to survive and flourish, these

initiatives require strong leadership, strong communication in horizontal and vertical

directions and the existence of a high level of trust in developing the community.

Development projects are often based on a westernized idea formatted for western

cultures, requiring communities to change from their traditional ways to accommodate

these projects, this might also create a paternalistic relationship. Thus, local

ownership of the project is of high importance. Strong leadership skills and autonomy of

the programs will prevent paternalistic relationships and ensure indigenous ownership on

the programs. I believe that development should learn to care for people in their worlds

not ours.

I believe NGOs must play an important role in representing marginalized communities in

trying to impact policy making, alongside to careful community-based approaches (in

places where it is welcomed by the community), which empower the individuals involved,

as individuals and as a collective and ultimately build the capacity of the community as

a whole to be autonomous and gain control. A good metaphor for a role that NGOs could

take in development work is the Zapatista phrase "manda obediciendo", meaning to lead by

obedience.

My almost final comment is also tied to a Zapatista saying, “Poco a poco. Así es”,

meaning little by little. So it is.

The indigenous Zapatistas view their struggle as an explicitly long-term project, with

no end to the rebellion in sight. To keep the movement alive the Zapatistas are

continuously preparing their people for future leadership, and are actively cultivating

a politics that values the role of every generation in the rebellion. Preparing future

generations to lead this rebellion requires securing young peoples’ attachment to their

communities and creating spaces for them to help guide their communities. This vision of

politicization, rooted in long-term community building rather than isolated campaigns,

aligns well with the Zapatista saying, “caminamos, no corremos, porque estamos viajando

lejos” (“we walk, we do not run, because we are going far”). This is true for every

community development efforts. I see the Zapatista way of living, with all its

difficulties, a huge success, still they have a lot of progress to make, in their own

terms. As the history of the Zapatista movement reveals, these people have a long story

to tell and their twenty years of struggle are only the beginning. This is an important

realization for all development organizations - only truly long term, autonomous

projects will bring true lasting change.

I will end with one last Zapatista phrase- “caminar preguntando” meaning to walk

questioning. One of the keys to the survival of the Zapatista movement is the value

placed on learning. Putting learning into practice, the Zapatistas show us how claiming

autonomous space is a critical tool for asking ourselves tough questions about the ways

we hope to create lasting change. 

References

1. C. A. Torres & L. Jones (2009) "The struggle for memory and social justice education:

popular education and social movements reclaiming Latin American civil society",

Globalizacao, Educacao e Movimentos Sociais: 40 anos da Pedagogia do Oprimido, 37-60.

2. G. M. Ramírez (2008) "The Fire and the Word: A History of the Zapatista Movement",

City Light Books, San Francisco.

3. H. Patrinos & G. Hall, "Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Development", Draft

Manuscript 2010.

4. J. Simonelli & D. Earle (2003) "Meeting Resistance: Autonomy, Development, and

''Informed Permission'' in Chiapas, Mexico", Qualitative Inquiry, 9:1, 74-89.

5. J. Wilson. (2008) "Joining Effective Care Delivery and Cultural Conservation: A

comparative review of practices in the application of integrated healthcare models

in indigenous regions of South and Central America", Amazon Conservation Team.

6. R. Hollon & K. Lopez (2007) "Autonomous Capacity Building: Zapatista Bases of

Support, Radical Commercial Corridors, and the Battle for the Horizon in the Urban

U.S.", A Journal of Radical Theory, Culture and Action, 1:1, 49-68.

7. S. Madon & S. Sahay (2002) "An Information-Based Model of NGO Mediation for the

Empowerment of Slum Dwellers in Bangalore", The Information Society: An International Journal,

18:1, 13-19.

8. T. Olsen (2004) "The transnational Zapatista solidarity network: an infrastructure

analysis", Global Networks 4:1, 89–107.

9. T. Zakrison (1999) "Chiapas: a state of health in a state of siege", Canadian medical

association journal, 160(4), 538-539.

10. Y. J. Park. "Constructing New Meanings through Traditional Values: Feminism and

the Promotion of Women’s Rights in the Mexican Zapatista Movement", Cleveland

State University, 2007.

11. Action Aid. "Why we work on Governance".

http://www.actionaid.org/what-we-do/governance/why-we-work-governance

12. Aljazeera. "Zapatistas: The war with no breath?" Chris Arsenault, 01 Jan 2011.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/01/20111183946608868.html

13. World Bank. "Deconstructing People Power", Shanthi Kalathil, 23 Feb, 2011.

http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/node/5662

14. G. Esteva (2007) "Reclaiming Our Freedom to Learn", Yes Magazine

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/liberate-your-space/reclaiming-our-freedom-to-

learn