Following the results of a national plebiscite sponsored by Mexico's Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) last year in which a majority of participants voted for the formation of a new, non-military Zapatista political force, the EZLN has begun to set up the Zapatista National Liberation Front (FZLN). PRISCILA PACHECO CASTILLO was one of 20 people the EZLN nominated to form the Special Commission for the Promotion of the FZLN, which is to begin this process. Green Left Weekly's NEVILLE SPENCER spoke to her in Mexico City.
Question: Why did the EZLN decide to form the FZLN, and what is its purpose?
The EZLN has been in a very interesting dialogue with wide sectors of society since 1994 without knowing how to relate to that society. There have been a lot of initiatives from the Zapatistas in order to establish this dialogue with civil society, mainly looking for it to organise itself. They realised it would be the job of those sectors to propose and organise a way out of this crisis.
So they called the National Democratic Convention [CND] and the National Liberation Movement. Those kinds of proposals from the Zapatistas were saying, "These are our demands. If they are also your demands, why don't you organise yourselves and fight for them?"
After a couple of years, we can say it proves that the EZLN alone can't force a transformation, but society alone can't either. So the idea of the FZLN is to build space in which they could work together.
The objectives are very ambitious: first of all to create a new political force that could be an environment for all those people who are tired of politics and have a negative vision of what it has meant to be a politician in Mexico for the last 60 years. Also, to be an instrument for those who have never been organised as well as for those who have been organised in social or citizens' organisations but are now moving to put together their efforts and work for one big objective, that is to change the situation in Mexico.
Question: The EZLN has said that the FZLN does not intend to take part in elections or aim to take power. What is its strategy for changing Mexican society?
When we say we don't want to take power, we don't mean we will remain neutral about power. When we talk of organising society, we are talking of power, but a different kind of power. We have a different conception of power; it is more a social kind of power. It does not have to be represented in a government.
The proposal is to "command without ruling". It sounds like just a phrase, but it is much more than that. To put this into place in civil committees, social organisations or labour organisations, you conceive an upside-down sort of society, turning upside down the way things work with no state or government on the backs of society. I think it is a very subversive idea.
When they talk about not being a party, it is not a criticism of the party as a form of organisation but more a criticism of what parties, including left parties, have made of their visions of transformation and social change and power. In the end it's the same idea from the left and the right that you take power by elections or other means, and then you are you are in conditions of transformation. There have been enough experiences to prove that things are not like that. If you don't organise society, if you don't change things in terms of social relations, it doesn't matter if you take government.
The people in the committees are the ones discussing what else is needed in terms of structure, functioning, principles and program for the front. Ideas about power, about democracy, about not going to elections, are tasks for the people to discuss and make proposals.
Question: Who are the people becoming involved in forming the FZLN?
It is a wide spectrum of people. There is a very interesting process in the rural areas, in the indigenous communities. They have had very quick organisational process in the indigenous forum, and this has helped discussion about the front. The problem here is scarcity of information and communication, but we are trying to attend to that. Chiapas, Veracruz and Oaxala are the main centres.
We have a slow, less massive but interesting process beginning in the unions. We have a lot of workers participating in the dialogue committees, but on the basis of the barrios where they live. Less but significant is the organisation of workers in workers' committees, but we are starting this and we have a special interest in pushing this. It's happening slowly, but it's happening.
Then you have a lot of students creating civilian dialogue committees at universities. Also amongst 15-17 year olds, we have had good experiences of creating committees.
In the urban sector it's more mixed. Because the committees are created on a geographic basis, you have a lot of committees where you have very young people, housekeepers and mechanics.
The sector with which we have been having some trouble is the women's movement, understood as the feminist groups. Not with the women in general — we have a big majority of women in every committee — but the women's movement has been more distant from the process.
Question: What relationship do you have or want to have with the other movements, left parties and the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD)?
Actually one of the definitions of the front is that it will be a promoter of a broader front with all those left organisations and even wider. We are talking of two levels, a left front in which the Zapatista Front would be just one part and maybe some social and political organisations from the left, and then the wide opposition front which could also include sectors like [leader of the left of the ruling PRI, Manuel] Camacho and even more to the right, even some sectors of the [right-wing opposition party] PAN.
Question: What is the current situation of the peace negotiations, and how close does an end to the peace process seem?
It's a very complicated thing because you have a problem of the timetable. The meeting has to cover five or six themes. We are now into the second theme. If you go by the timetable they made, you would be talking about finishing this process next February or March.
But then things get complicated when you look at the Zapatistas' position. They have said we could sign. If there are things which are useful for indigenous people or workers, then we are going sign. But those are not our demands, they say. They say peace will be possible when things change.
In this case, if there is no political space for the front to grow, to develop, to consolidate, if they start repression against the civilians, there's no way the Zapatistas could think of giving up their arms. They would not disarm themselves, and I don't think the government will be ready to start another round of negotiations; it's politically too expensive.
Question: The EZLN's previous attempt to build a broad opposition group, the Democratic National Convention (CND) did not prove to be enduring. What problems were there with the CND, and what problems do you think the FZLN faces?
The CND faced two problems. First, it was an initiative too much linked to the [August 1994] election. It was interpreted as an effort of a lot of people to get together, but behind that was the idea that [PRD presidential candidate Cuauhtémoc] Cárdenas would win the elections. A lot of people saw this organisational effort as a way of pushing that. This didn't happen, and it struck a strong blow to the CND.
The CND was at first taken very seriously by the PRD. After that it started to separate. It had its own party and it didn't need this organisational effort any more. Remaining were just the new, non-organised people and the old left. So then the CND became seen as something which you had to control or use for you own interests. In that way, we lost the main things that gave birth to the CND and gave it purpose.
And problems with the FZLN — more than problems, I think they are challenges. As a different organisation with a different way of doing things, we have a great challenge, because even though we have to go to people who have never organised, in this first effort most of us are people who come from previous organisational experiences. From those practices and those visions, there are a lot of things we have to change.
Another big problem that could emerge is the attitude of the government. In the last crisis we had experience of people from the front being repressed. This goes together with how the dialogue goes. They could want to close that political space, and that would be a problem.