On March 21, 15,000 polling places were set up at the EZLN’s initiative, in order for Mexicans to express their opinions regarding indigenous rights. More than 2.5 million Mexicans responded to the call, and 96% of them voted affirmatively on the four questions (see consultation text elsewhere in this issue). At some of the polling places, one could observe two Zapatista representatives, a man and a woman, sometimes with a child in arms, masked with their customary red scarves. In some cases they were protected by a security band made up of local civil society groups.

In the Fifth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle in July 1998, the EZLN launched the idea of a national consultation on indigenous rights and culture as agreed to in the San Andres Accords. The details for this consultation were discussed during the meeting with civil society, from November 20 -22, 1998, since civil society’s participation and logistical support were necessary for it to be carried out.

Civil society groups began organizing the publicity stage of the consultation in January 1999, calling for the formation of promotional brigades. According to the Contact Office (that registered the brigades), some 2000 brigades were formed throughout Mexico, with more than 18,000 persons participating. Mexicans living abroad were also invited to express their opinions, and brigades were formed in some 156 cities in 23 countries throughout the world. Some indigenous in the US also decided to promote and to participate in the consultation, since they argued that borders did not exist, and it was their right to express their opinions concerning the rights and culture of indigenous peoples.

Nine days prior to the consultation, 5000 EZLN delegates (2500 couples) gathered in the five Aguascalientes in Chiapas. From there they departed to all 32 states in the country in order to promote the event. The government’s coordinator for negotiations in Chiapas, Emilio Rabasa, said that in order to avoid problems, the Zapatista delegates should not carry arms, and he also mentioned that the participation of foreigners in the consultation would not be allowed. Subsequently, in one of the EZLN communiqués, Sub-commander Marcos clarified that the delegates would be civilian supporters of the EZLN, not individuals with a military position.

The promotion of the consultation in Mexico presented a great challenge: how to be able to promote indigenous rights and culture throughout the country, among non-indigenous people living far from Chiapas, and how to explain the differences between the COCOPA’s legislative proposal that came out of the San Andres Accords and the proposal made by the government in March of 1998. In addition, the consultation had to be promoted without much support from the media. And, in those places with little media access, rumors circulate with greater ease. In some communities, among the humble people, it was said that: “If you participate in the consultation, the Zapatistas are going to take you away by force and make you fight with them.”

The Episcopal Commission for Indigenous Ministry of the Mexican Bishops Conference decided to support the consultation. Even though it had been called by the EZLN, according to the Commission, it was in fact a consultation for the benefit of the indigenous peoples who deserve fair attention to their demands for dignity and development. The Papal Nuncio, Justo Mullor, however, came out against the consultation. Similarly, the Interior Minister, Francisco Labastida Ochoa, stated that the vote was rigged, with questions that were the equivalent of: “Would you rather be poor or rich? Sad or happy?”

It is true that the questions were composed in such a way as to make it almost impossible to vote “no.” Thus, those who did not support this process abstained from voting. But, according to the EZLN, the results were not as important as the massive mobilization and participation of civil society generated by the consultation. In fact, the level of participation was greater than in the first consultation, convened by the EZLN in 1995 in which 1,300,000 citizens expressed themselves.

Generally speaking, the consultation was carried out without problems. In some cases there were denunciations of harassment of Zapatista delegates and/or of brigade coordinators by police forces or paramilitary groups in different states in order to prevent them from holding it. In some counties in Chiapas, Tabasco, Michoacan, Oaxaca and Veracruz, the consultation was not held because the security of the Zapatista delegates could not be guaranteed, since some of the brigade coordinators had received death threats directed towards the delegates. After the consultation, organizers in the county of San Juan Lalana, Oaxaca also received threats that they were going to be jailed. They were accused of being part of the EPR (Popular Revolutionary Army).

In the communities that decided to do so, the indigenous and peasants could express themselves in the manner of their traditional “practices and customs.” In the communities of the county of Amatan, for example, up to four assemblies were held: one for men, one for women, one for young people and one for children (over the age of 12). The autonomous counties also held assemblies where agreement was reached through consensus. In several counties in Chiapas, communal assemblies were held between the 15^th and the 20^th of March. The organizers were afraid that aid from some government programs might arrive on the 21^st (the day of the national vote) in order to divert the peasants’ attention and reduce participation in the assemblies.

The Rosenblueth Foundation, which oversaw the vote count, closed the counting with 85% of the polling places and assemblies tabulated. They counted a total of 2.5 million votes in Mexico. Almost 50% of the votes had come from four states: Chiapas, the Federal District, Oaxaca and Veracruz. Abroad, with 60% of the votes counted, there had been a total of 45,000 votes. Another 8000 votes from non-Mexican persons abroad were tallied.

Reactions to the consultation results varied according to the source. For the Interior Minister, the fact that 5000 hooded Zapatistas could travel freely throughout the Republic demonstrated that it was not true that a military siege existed, nor a war of extermination in Chiapas. In his statements, Secretary Labastida said: “It is inconsistent that an armed group goes around asking for demilitarization and disarmament, when what that group has to do first is to disarm itself.” Negotiations coordinator Emilio Rabasa echoed Labastida’s thoughts, saying that if the EZLN wanted to speak out politically, it should lay down its arms. He also urged the EZLN to return to the negotiating table with the government if it says that it is for peace in Chiapas.

According to some sectors of civil society, the consultation was a success, because for them, this initiative demonstrated the capacity for organization, creativity and unity of thousands of men and women throughout the country. Some thousands of indigenous were able to make their case directly to different sectors of Mexican society: students, businesspersons, workers, sports figures, women, etc.

On April 17-18, an evaluation meeting was held in Chiapas, attended by 200 people. Organizers repeatedly emphasized that they felt satisfied and strengthened by the process: “We overcame the fear,” “We worked side-by-side with some groups that we normally have no contact with,” “We saw a lot of new faces.” The EZLN has invited civil society groups to join in a meeting May 7-10 at the Aguascalientes in La Realidad in order to analyze the results of the consultation and to discuss follow-up plans.

… … … … … …

Text of the National Consultation

“For the Recognition of the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples and For an End to the War of Extermination”

1. Do you agree that the indigenous peoples, in all their strength and richness, should be included in the national project and take an active part in the building of the new Mexico?
2. Do you agree that indigenous rights should be recognized in the Mexican Constitution in accordance with the San Andres Accords and the corresponding proposal by the Commission for Agreement and Pacification of the Congress of the Union?
3. Do you agree that we should achieve true peace through the path of dialogue, demilitarizing the country with the return of the soldiers to their barracks, as established by the Constitution and the laws?
4. Do you agree that the people should organize themselves and demand that the government “govern obeying” in all aspects of national life?