The Zapatista Movement

The Zapatista Movement also know as the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), is a global indigenous social justice group stemming from a revolutionary rural leftist militant group in Chiapas, Mexico. Springing into action on January 1 1994, the Zapatista Movement declared war against the government of Mexico, demanding governmental and constitution reform that address the concerns of the marginalized indigenous people of Mexico. Unique for their militarization and rejection of typical political classification, The Zapatista movement was the starting point for many global social movement. In recent years the movement has adopted similar cultural ideas that focus on the well-being of indigenious peoples in Mexico and on a global level along with abandoning the use of militant forces.

Example of a flag used during the EZLN movement

Contextual Background Information

Socio-political aspects before 1994

Upon the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores in the 1500s, indigenous groups in Mexico had suffered exploitation and the expropriation of their lands. At many times before and after the independence of Mexico, the northern ladinos (elites) would seek support from indigenous groups, promising them a return to their lands in exchange of their military efforts. In most cases, however, these promises were unfulfilled, and the indigenous groups and their resistance would be crushed by the elites. The situation for the indigenous people was further deteriorated by the annexation of Chiapas (1895) and the French intervention (1862-1867). In fact, during these times the liberal government sought to modernize the country by accelerating the process of land expropriation, which often targeted indigenous areas.

It wasn’t until the cruel and racist rule of Porfirio Diaz, however, that the Zapatista movement emerged. In fact, during the 35-year liberal oligarchy rule of porfiriato, also known as the period of the cienitifcos, the government sought to modernize, develop and accumulate wealth at the expense of the peasantry, indigenous groups and any other form of opposition. At this point, the process of modernization was explained on the racial basis, which often justified the exploitation and suppression of indigenous groups and their lands. This period was to “obliterate of all that was “backward” and attempted to assimilate and transform the indigenous community into “yeoman farmers, free laborers, and Mexicans.” These attempts could often be observed under the agrarian reforms known under the name of “el reparto”. As a result, resistance was formed under the Mexican liberal party and Zapatista movement in order to counter this era of modernization and its detrimental effects of the indigenous communities.

The beginning of the struggle for the Zapatista movement aimed at the armed overthrow government of Porfirio Diaz, and searched to recover the communal lands that had been taken away from indigenous communities. Under the new government of Madero, however, conditions for the indigenous communities remained unchanged. As a result, on November 22, 1911, the Plan Ayala was disclosed by the Zapatistas so as to to communicate their discontent, and inform the public why they remained armed and resistant. These and many efforts, like the agrarian law of October 1915, would be a continuous pressing to the government and wealthy elites for land redistribution and restructuring of the country.

At a peak of social unrest in 1914, a turn of events saw the Plan Ayala being implemented onto the conventional government of Carranza. Unfortunately, the success of this implementation was short lived, as the Carranza government, supported by the United States, refused to establish the articles of the Plan Ayala. On the contrary, the post-revolutionary period in Mexico saw further assimilation of indigenous communities into a heterogeneous Mexican culture.

Socio-Political aspects Leading up to the Rebellion of 1994

The socio-political and economic conditions following the Mexican revolution further entrenched the inequalities lived by the indigenous communities. In fact, during the 1980’s-1990’s, the dependency of indigenous communities was strengthened through the neo-liberal vicious circles of credit, material assistance, and land grants. This eroding economic situation became an incentive for not only indigenous communities but also intellectuals and leftist groups to rise against the government once again.

In the big picture, global phenomena like the Cuban revolution, economic crises, and the states' response increased the social unrest in the region. Nevertheless, it was a series of events that finally brought forth the rebellion of January 1st, 1994. These were a mixture of factors that exposed the prevailing governmental corruption through fraudulent elections which gave rise to the infamous Carlos Salinas and Patrocinio Gonzales Garrido. The elections of these political actors would secure the ongoing neo-liberal structure that would thus continue to accumulate wealth for a selected few and leave behind the oppressed communities. Adding on, at the international level, the Mexican government was about to sign the NAFTA agreement with Canada and the United States, which would set the country into a permanent state of dependency to the capitalist system.

Finally, on January 1st, 1994, the Zapatista army of National Liberation rebelled and declared war against the state, expressing the following: “We are a product of five hundred years of struggle, explicitly narrating a history of struggle not only of indigenous peoples against Spanish invaders, but of people of Mexico against invasion, dictatorship, poverty, and repression.”

Military Insurgence

Since the beginning of the Zapatistas movement and their struggle against indigenous oppression, they have utilised a series of mechanisms and tools to spread their ideals and resist oppression. This has often been the case in many other countries with a colonial past; the struggle has been fought with more violence.

In the first stages of the Zapatista movement, they found themselves in a period of social agitation and violence against the Porfiriato. During this period, the movement organized itself into two different segments or armies operating under the command of Emiliano Zapata and Pancho villa, one operating in the south, and the other in the north, respectively. It is important to note that despite this north-south unification, the peasantry groups remained autonomous and only owed nominal allegiance to the movement. Despite this “autonomous thread,” however, the cohesiveness and influence of the Zapatismo ideals allowed the communities from the North and South to come together and finally sent Diaz into exile with the overthrow of his government in less than a four month period.

Subcomandante Marcos and Comandante Tacho in La Realidad, Chiapas, 1999.

Despite the military success of the Zapatista armies, their tactics remained strongly tied to their goals. In other words, the military overthrow of the government by the Zapatistas ensured their access to power at different times between the Mexican revolution and before the 1994 rebellion. At every opportunity, however, the movement rejected the power and insisted on the access to the land by the “rightful owners.” As a result, many of their tactics in this period entailed the direct occupation of the lands and direct open conflict with the elite groups who occupied them.

Other tactics of the indigenous movement entailed the disclosure of plans that served to unify other autonomous peasantry groups. Documents like the Plan de Ayala and the agrarian law expressed the common grievances of the peasantry, and thus enabled their unification. Furthermore, these publications called for the continuance of direct occupation and confrontation with the elite while remaining armed. As a result, the struggle for land redistribution would remain a violent one until the final rebellion of 1994.

During the 1990’s, the violent tactics of the Zapatista movement were intensified as they adopted guerilla warfare. The guerilla implementation to the movement began in the early 1980’s, upon the arrival of members of past guerilla initiatives in the north of the country. Compared to other pro-socialist movements in Cuba and Colombia, however, the encounter between indigenous grievances and Marxist guerilla practices were incompatible. Thus, the Marxist tendencies were abandoned enabling the Zapatista army to recruit further support for their cause. These tactics would eventually lead to the organized rebellion of the Zapatista army, and the supporting peasantry groups who seized ranches, haciendas and other indigenous territory in the Chiapas region. It is not until the violence reached a peak at the end of the 1990’s that the massacres against indigenous and peasantry groups would gain global attention.

Context after 1994

On January 1st 1994, the day NAFTA came into effect, the EZLN and Zapatista declared war against the Mexican state via a written message sent to fax machines of businesses, government offices, and homes. They took over five cities in Chiapas, announced that they no longer recognized the legitimacy of the Mexican government, and declared NAFTA a vehicle to widen the inequality between rich and poor, segregate the indigenous population, and claim more land. The Zaptistas declared war on the Mexican government, and moved to reclaim the land stolen from them. They were met with counter attacks from Mexican army troops – the altercation lasted 12 days. Throughout Mexico, people demonstrated support for the Zapatista movement. The overwhelming support shown for the Zapatista demands ultimately led Mexican congress to legally recognize the Zapatista movement, and their mission. This recognition helped establish a ceasefire between the Mexican Military and the EZLN which, to this day, has been respected in an effort to avoid combat. The Mexican government, however, continue to attack the Zapatista, despite both parties having signed the ‘Peace Accord of San Andreas, 1996.” The focus of the Zapatista remained dismantling the system of global capitalism and shifting from violence to nonviolence.

The January 1st, 1994 armed rebellion of the EZLN facilitated improvements for Mayan women’s rights in Chiapas. With the rebellion came the ‘Women’s Revolutionary Law,’ a charter released at the time of the armed rebellion and declaration of war, which outlines women’s rights within the Zapatista movement. Within this document, women are granted equality of pay, access to education, employment, and the right to hold office. On March 1st, 1994, the EZLN made thirty-four demands of the Mexican Government, one of which was the ‘Petition by Indigenous Women,’ which served to further gender equality by requesting the establishment of health clinics, childcare facilities, schools, and other services specific to women’s rights and equality. Both the ‘Women’s Revolutionary Law,’ and the ‘Petition by Indigenous Women’ were unique in the political moment. They were used as a catalyst for women throughout Mexico, inspiring everyday individual and collective resistance to the subservience of women. Since this rebellion, an entire generation of young Indigenous women have been educated in the Zapatista school system, and hold council member status.Currently, there are female leaders within the highest rankings of the Zapatista movement and social organizations.

Ideology

Zapatismo

The revolutionary politics of the Neozapatismo movement is born out of the subsequent clash of urban revolutionary Marxist ideology and traditional indigenous—Mayan— perceptions of knowledge. New revolutionary discourse, the resultant of realizations that indigenous notions of world making, that of time, history and reality, are different than the urban conceptions. The impact of Neo-zapatismo shows how powerful taking historical, social and cultural contexts can be in creating change both locally and globally. The recognition of difference and it’s use as a mechanism for rewriting colonially imposed understandings of democracy and visualizing a New World, is an important aspect of the Zapatismo movement. The Zapatistas base their political pursuit on revised versions of democracy, liberty and justice. As such, these ideals no longer hold ground within a neoliberal framework, and are rather situated in an open and unfolding dialogical process of engagement with individuals in relation to their communities and contexts. These terms—democracy, liberty and justice— become situated in relation to the spaces and places within which people find themselves. These modifications critique the linkages to how power is controlled and instituted in liberal democratic societies, not only within Mexico, but abroad. Through recognition of difference, the Zapatista reject the notion of a singular transcendent truth, because within each personal or communal context, meanings can never be fixed.

Democracy

The Zapatista deconstruct the notion of democracy and its relation to the colonial ‘individual.’ That is, Zapatista democracy is one rooted in the capacity of individuals to not only participate in a political system, but to determine the very nature of that system. Moreover, this new conception of democracy provides a new mechanism in which participation is direct and voluntary, and the entangled nature of autonomy and community is appreciated. Autonomy is central to Zapatismo ideology, as it grants individuals dignity, and dignity is only possible when individuals and their communities have the freedom and responsibility to govern themselves. Furthermore, in gaining autonomy peoples must also acknowledge their dependence on one another, otherwise the world will continue to reproduce exclusion, division and violence. As such, it is the community that becomes the locus for change, rather than the individual. The boundaries of democracy are deconstructed, and thus remapped by the people. That is, the people themselves have ultimate authority over the manner in which their lives are lived.

Liberty

The Zapatista reconstruct liberty as the essential capacity for people to be able to freely choose for themselves what kind of lives they want to live, and the manner in which they choose to live it. As such, liberty is an autonomous but interconnected mechanism of decision-making within contextualized communities. More specifically, individuals should have the freedom to engage in actions based on self-determination and democratic decision-making processes. They are able to engage in a diverse social action and relationships, and determine which acts and relationship should be pursued. It should be noted, that though they advocated autonomy and freedom, it cannot be done selfishly. Decisions must be situated in relation to those with whom they share the world— a much different perspective to neoliberal ideology.

Justice and Equality

Spray paint artwork done to represent the role of Women in the EZLN movement,

Recalling the notion of dignity, justice is not only a call for the just application of the law or the reformation of the legal system, it is a means of situating respect and dignity as the primary societal standard of treatment of others. Respect and dignity require the recognition of difference and multiplicity as essential characteristics of existence. Difference is not something that should just be tolerated. Closely aligned with justice is equality that tends to standardize or homogenize individuals within liberal democratic ideology. As such, the Zapatista rewrite their understanding of equality as an appreciation and respect for difference and autonomy. To compare, Western ideologies tend to use inclusion of ‘individuals’ as a mechanism of assimilation in order to homogenize difference to consolidate their control. Moreover, justice and equality no longer focuses on the individual but rather the recognition of differences that exist among, between and within people. Moreover, a just society cannot be created.

Rejecting Neoliberal Ideology and Globalisation from the Bottom Up

Neoliberalism is the newest form of Western imperial power; rather than imposing control on large expanses of land, neoliberalism is a mask for the Global North elite to dominate economic and political life throughout the globe. By positioning success as a choice and something that requires the effort of the individual, neoliberalism can deny economic marginalization and structural racism that disenfranchises minority groups. The continuation of this new type of imperialism is impart due to hierarchical power structures that privilege the elite. Neoliberal ideology emphasizes the success of the individual—i.e. the dominant groups’ interests— and maintains that economic success can be achieved through persistence of the individual, and therefore erases notions of class, race, and gender. Furthermore, neoliberalism uses an exclusionary notion of democracy, putting non-privileged groups outside the decision making in public affairs.

The politics of the Zapatista’s revolutionary discourse serve to reject neoliberal dynamics that have destroyed the indigenous economy for its benefit. The manner through which the Zapatista decided to reject neoliberal ideology resonated profoundly among marginalized groups around the world. Situating their cause through the acknowledgement and appreciation of difference, while simultaneously rejecting the interest to grasp political power embodies a politics of inclusion that is ignored under neoliberal contexts. That is to say, they “walk questioning;” this slogan of the resistance movement embodies the belief that if one begins with answers and seeks to impose solutions—like the Mexican government or governments of the Global North— then systems of power and domination will continued to be (re)produced.

Like neoliberalism and its related themes of imperialism and cultural dominance, the power dynamic of globalization is skewed such that it favours the dominant elite. Some would consider the Zapatista to be an anti-globalization movement based on perspective of top-down globalization. That is to say it is characterized by close relations of political and economic institutions developing global capitalistic objectives. Non-privileged groups are exploited and condemned to provide goods according to the rules of promoters of top-down globalizers. Globalization may function as a mechanism of causing civil disarray, however, it also serves as a catalyst of resistance. Therefore, the Zapatista movement is considered to be a process of grassroots globalization, as it functions from the bottom up. It reconfigures the notion of globalization through the acknowledgement of difference and social relations between varying peoples and communities. The Zapatista Rebellion garnered international solidarity through it’s embrace of diverse revolutionary aspirations. This social solidarity is evident in the example of the First Intercontinental Meeting for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism in 1996, which served as a new mechanism for summoning diverse international social movements against global unilateralism. “Intergalactic meetings” became a new method for grassroots globalizations to protest against neoliberal institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, or World Economic Forum. Through grassroots globalization, the Zapatista are able to find common cause with other transnational social justice groups through their support of civil society as a instrument of resistance.

Government Response

At first, the Zapatista uprising appeared primarily to be a challenge to domestic policies in Mexico having to do with land and Indigenous affairs. The movement was seen as being characterized by leftist philosophies and freedom. Mexican Indigenous demanded rights to cultural self-determination, and to live according to traditional “usos y costumbres.” Essentially, this translates to "customs and traditions," referring to their insistence of self-government in accord with local practices and customs. The indigenous peoples of Mexico demanded recognition as collective units, and collective rights including bilingual education, the right to local and regional autonomy, and the recognition of communal land as the basis of their cultural reproduction. Part of the current political agenda of Mexico is to deal with the Indigenous communities that have been neglected for years, the long term mistreatment of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico, and proceeding with their rights to organize.

Federal Army stands in front of Zapatista protesters

The most apparent organizational shift in the EZLN was its decentralization and downsizing of maneuver forces. This took place within weeks of the initial attacks on the cities and towns of Chiapas. The other significant development was the EZLN’s campaign to attract NGOs and other members of “global civil society” to their cause. These non state actors helped constrain the Mexican government's military response to the uprising, even during a period when the United States may have been tactically interested in seeing a forceful crackdown on the rebels of the country. While reaching out to these nonstate political allies, the EZLN altered its own declaratory political goals, calling explicitly for reform instead of the overthrow of the government. As these changes occurred, the EZLN’s “war of the flea theory and practice gave way to the Zapatista movement’s “war of the swarm.”Demonstrations, marches, peace caravans, and protesters organized and stood in front of Mexican consulates in the United States, and within Mexico. The Zapatista leader, known as “Marcos,” and other EZLN leaders urged NGO representatives to come to Mexico. Likewise, the NGOs already present called for other NGOs to join mobilization- and then, a “bandwagon effect” took hold. This lead to the NGOs demanding, a list of criteria to result in the achievement of democracy through nonviolent means such as: human rights, a ceasefire and withdrawal by the army; peace negotiations, with the local bishop in Chiapas as mediator, freedom of information, and respect for NGO’s roles, including access to monitor conditions in the conflict zone.

Global Impact

Rooted in the history of the indigenous people of Mexico, the goals and objectives of the Zapatistas movement have transcended the national stage. These rebels were mainly poor indigenous Mayans from Chiapas who refused to be erased in the conversation of globalization who spoke to the common struggles of people around the world. This movement appealed to the emerging ideas and influence of international non-governmental organizations (IGOs), transnational social movements and the idea of a global civil society. The ideas of a cosmopolitan citizen, or global citizen, affected the way in which people around the world thought about the exchange of rights and obligations between state and society. Instead of focusing on individual interest, more people had begun the consider the idea of a collective good, where everyone is treated fairly and equally, and are able to benefit from each other. The Zapatistas focused their energy on creating and organizing a civil society that focuses on humanity as opposed to neoliberal agendas. Dubbed “the movement of movements,” the Zapatistas renewed hope and activism in the post Cold War Era for socio-political alternatives to resist hegemonic influences and exploitation. This was one of the first movements that had the courage to face their own government, and be successful in their efforts. Their efforts have sparked other movements, such as the protest against the World Trade Organization in Seattle in November of 1999. In the wake of the end of the Cold War and the declaration of neoliberal ideologies, the Zapatistas marked a new cycle of radical activism that encouraged people to rebel against that standards forced upon them by power hungry elitists. A small story about a masked indigenous group of merely 3,000 people standing up against neoliberal capitalist globalization has infiltrated the political imaginations of people around the world, providing a concrete example of a dedicated resistance against the supposedly inevitable project of capitalism.

Recognition and Globalism

The concept of recognition, is such a crucial element within a community and for a group of people. Hegel’s Recognition theory ties hand in hand with what the Zapatista leaders were hoping to achieve from the Mexican Government - Recognition-. In order for there to be stability,peace, and psychological importance, there must be recognition between all individuals, and that recognition must be true, and not bigoted or devaluing to a person's character or culture. Misrecognition hinders and destroys a person's successful relationships with themselves and others. It has been poignantly described how the victims of racism, colonialism and occupation have suffered severe psychological harm by being demeaned as inferior humans. Thus, recognition constitutes as a “vital human need’. When indigenous peoples don't receive recognition they urgently need and deserve, it becomes an extreme issue, and that is when groups such as the Zapatistas and the EZLN, rise up and fight for their space within society and demand their rights to organize. It’ is not just important for the Zapatistas to gain recognition from local Mexicans , but from other Indigenous populations around the world as well. Other indigenous people have stood in solidarity with the Indigenous of Mexico, such as the Indigenous peoples of Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, and Palestine (now Israel). People from countries all over the world have stood in solidarity with the Zapatista movement, and have supported the decision for the Zapatistas to create their own autonomy, their own independence, and reclaiming their lands which were taken for Neoliberal tactics and government gains.The 1994 Zapatista uprising in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas found extraordinary resonance beyond Mexico's borders and generated a range of transnational solidarity efforts. The Zapatistas retain many emancipatory ideals of earlier progressive groups, but formulate their social critique in a manner that is more democratic and global.

Effect of Globalism and Neoliberal Tactics on Mexico

Neo-liberal economic policies in Mexico: NAFTA; North American Free Trade Agreement: is a multilateral free trade agreement between the United States of America, Canada, and Mexico. When NAFTA came into effect in 1994, it laid the foundation to strengthen itself, it promised to create jobs and sustain economic growth within Mexico. However, not everyone believed what it was promising to do, the Zapatistas declared war on the Mexican government saying that NAFTA meant death to the Indigenous peoples of Mexico .The association between NAFTA and the Zapatistas became clear, in 1992, as a precondition for NAFTA to develope, the constitution of reform was introduced, this constitution essentially eliminated the last protection for Indigenous people, and the Mexican peasants, which was: the possibility of having land and keeping land out of the market, this reform was the last sign of a terrible destiny for the indigenous people of Mexico, and that is why on January 1st, 1994, the uprising of the Zapatistas started.

The Zapatistas struggled and continue to struggle for their freedom and justice, their mission was to change the relationship in the mexican society between the rulers and ruled. The Zapatistas control about a third of the territory of the state of Chiapas which they organized into five autonomous regions , and each region has a capital town or a seed of administrative government. The Indigenous continue to the struggle to regain a space within society, they feel the need and reserve the right to plant that seed of consciousness within society, they work hard for freedom of expression, their right to organize, freedom to set prices of their produce, because even when they produce goods - it is the buyer who sets prices for the product, and that is where the exploitation begins, their pay is as little as 1 peso for some products, and their labour hours are up to 16 hours of work per day. Mexico claims that its’ current political agenda includes dealing with these problems that have been neglected for years, and the mistreatment of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico.

Initial Success of the Zapatistas

Looking at the Zapatistas EZLN movement, the initial success of their efforts was tremendous. Days after their initial demonstration on January 1st 1994, the Zapatistas were recognized by the Mexican government, people and international society as an independent body of rebels, and were invited to negotiations with the President. Through these negotiations, the Zapatistas and the Mexican government were able to reach an agreement over indigenous rights. This included, “a commitment from the Chiapas state government to respect indigenous customs in the selection of local officials, [the] restructuring of some municipals to better represent the indigenous population, [along with promises] to bring before the National Assembly proposals for constitutional reforms which would recognize indigenous rights and grant indigenous peoples representation at various levels.” The Zapatistas pushed for change in the political system of Mexico, shifting the focus from state enterprise to humanity. Regardless of this progress, the initial agreement did not include ideas of indigenous territorial or personal autonomy, nor did it reach beyond the reach of those in Chiapas. Despite the ceasefire, federal troops also continued to push back EZLN militants, occupying most of the areas they once hated in the history of the indigenous people of Mexico, the goals and objectives of the Zapatistas movement have transcended the national stage. These rebels were mainly poor indigenous Mayans from Chiapas who refused to be erased in the conversation of globalization who spoke to the common struggles of people around the world. This movement appealed to the emerging ideas and influence of international non-governmental organizations (IGOs), transnational social movements and the idea of a global civil society. The ideas of a cosmopolitan citizen, or global citizen, affected the way in which people around the world thought about the exchange of rights and obligations between state and society. Instead of focusing on individual interest, more people had begun the consider the idea of a collective good, where everyone is treated fairly and equally, and are able to benefit from each other. The Zapatistas focused their energy on creating and organizing a civil society that focuses on humanity as opposed to neoliberal agendas. Dubbed “the movement of movements,” the Zapatistas renewed hope and activism in the post Cold War Era for socio-political alternatives to resist hegemonic influences and exploitation. This was one of the first movements that had the courage to face their own government, and be successful in their efforts. Their efforts have sparked other movements, such as the protest against the World Trade Organization in Seattle in November of 1999. In the wake of the end of the Cold War and the declaration of neoliberal ideologies, the Zapatistas marked a new cycle of radical activism that encouraged people to rebel against that standards forced upon them by power hungry elitists. A small story about a masked indigenous group of merely 3,000 people standing up against neoliberal capitalist globalization has infiltrated the political imaginations of people around the world, providing a concrete example of a dedicated resistance against the supposedly inevitable project of capitalism.

Implications and Consequences

De-colonial Work

The Zapatistas movement grew out of centuries of indigenous exploitation and colonization. After constant oppression and mistreatment by the government with little return, the Zapatistas announced the EZLN movement on January 1st, 1994, day the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect. From their perspective, NAFTA was the workings of the elite-driven liberal democracy, looking to enshrine the rights of capital over the people and environment. What was presented as an opportunity for Mexico to become a First World country like the US was in reality a continuation of the exploitation of Mexico as a Third World country. Settler colonialism is a phenomenon that affects thousands of indigenous communities around the world, leading to their mistreatment and abuse. In cases such as Mexico, the legacy of colonialism still heavily affects indigenous populations such as those in Chiapas. The Zapatistas movement, stemming away from postcolonial influences, sought to fight against the structural inequalities and violence that are a result of increased globalization and free trade. It is marginalized people who grow and collect the raw resources for exportation, and it is the marginalized people who are paid next to nothing with no guarantee of basic needs such as access to potable water, sewage systems, or education. This gross inequalities and mistreatment of indigenous people is what pushed the people of Chiapas to stand up and spark a global movement. Having resisted Spanish colonial influences before, the indigenous people of Mexico continue to resist the colonial influences of their own government.

Social Justice and Ideas of Solidarity

One of the major outcomes of the Zapatistas movement, and a pinnacle part of many social justice movements, is the idea of solidarity. Solidarity can be seen in three groups that are involved in the Zapatistas movement. The first group consisted of the indigenous people, who lived in Chiapas and openly supported the EZLN. The second group consisted of various people and groups within Mexico banding together to support the EZLN. The final group is composed of people outside of Mexico that recognized the importance of the Zapatistas struggle. The idea of solidarity among this movement was also heavily influenced by the utilization of masks by the EZLN.

Protesters raising fists as a sign of solidarity in the Zapatista movement

The use of a mask by the Zapatistas was to create an image of an anonymous, faceless movement, rather than allow the emergence of a cult personality. This was their method to maintain a collective and grassroots movement, and fight corruption. The masks help maintain the idea of a collective leadership, and became a symbol of the struggles experienced by those marginalized, oppressed and exploited by the current system. Without faces or voices, people became fuel for colonialism, imperialism, modernization and capitalism. The mask evoked the status of indigenous people, and the idea that even the most marginalized people in the world can fight for attention in a system of neoliberal capitalism. The anonymity and facelessness allows for people to see themselves as capable to stand up against their oppressors, and start their own social movements.

Limitations of the EZLN Movement

Despite the many successes the Zapatista have achieved, certain aspects of the movement have limited their success. Originally starting as a militant group, the EZLN is quite uncommon - this type of militarization has not been used effectively elsewhere. Their initial use of violence brought misconceptions of their intent. Occupying cities and directly challenging the Mexican government created the illusion that their goal was to overthrow the existing system. This type of goal can be seen throughout history, however, this is not the case for the Zapatistas. They believe in the collective benefit of everyone – specifically of indigenous peoples who have continuously been marginalized throughout history. This militant aspect can also create a sense of insecurity or potential threat given the use of weapons. Adding on the fact this movement began in Mexico, some may feel issues addressed here are not applicable to their own lives. They may see the motives of the group focused on what is best for Mexico, not the entire population of indigenous people.

One the main spokesperson for the EZLN movement, Subcomandate Marcos, can also be viewed as limiting the success of the movement. The use of the mask was essential to create an idea of collaborative leadership, the face of the movement was meant to be what is most important – the people. Having Marcos become the key communicator for the Zapatista struggle to the world created a misconception of a sole leader for the insurgency. Marco is a central icon for alter-globalization movement, however he is not the leader behind the Zapatistas, despite the fact that his involvement as a public figure for the movement can be interpreted differently.

Current Obstacles Faced by the Zapatismo’

The obstacles faced by the Zapatistas today are the counterinsurgency campaign the Mexican government carries out against them, which includes negative media campaigning, but also the problems that all Mexicans face which are the tremendous reforms pushed through by the right winged president, Enrique Pena Nieto, which is rolling back the remaining positive things left over from the Mexican revolution for the people.