La Jornada
April 27, 2001
Sergio Rodri'guez Lascano

The constitutional changes regarding indigenous issues which were approved by the Senate of the Republic - along with the vote of all the parties, to the shame of the PRD - is closer to the Zedillo Law than to the Cocopa Law in its fundamental aspects. Once again the political parties have not been sensitive to the demands of the indigenous, which are supported by millions of non-indigenous Mexicans, to provide them with a legal framework which will allow them to achieve a two-fold objective: to participate as a subject with legal recognition in the reorganization of the national State, and to achieve that through the legal recognition of their own mechanisms for regulating their social, political, economic and cultural life.

In the draft proposed by the Senate - which the Chamber of Deputies will most certainly support - there is movement towards a general definition concerning the concept of autonomy or concerning indigenous peoples - where the consciousness of their identity is incorporated - only to immediately cancel it or limit it to the greatest degree when it goes on to more concrete definitions. Further on, if we compare the Law proposed by the Cocopa with the one Zedillo presented and with the one currently being promoted, we can see that it is a Law which, in some instances, is even more regressive than the previous President's.

There are four points in the current legislative proposal which are the most questionable:

1). - In the original Cocopa text the indigenous communities are proposed as "entities of public right." In the Zedillo Law this was changed, and it noted "the indigenous communities as subjects of public interest." The Senate proposal suggests "such as the recognition of the communities as entities of public interest." Between Cocopa and Zedillo, the Senate chose the latter. What does this difference imply? In the Cocopa proposal, the communities are recognized as subjects of public right, that is, as part of the State. In the Zedillo proposal, being backed by the Senate today, the Mexican indigenous communities are treated in a similar fashion to a Conasupo store, by being considered in the public interest. All of this contradicts Paragraph 1, Article 2 of the Senate proposal, which reads, literally: "The nation has a multicultural composition, based originally in its indigenous peoples." How can they say that and then recognize those peoples with a legal status similar to that of a Conasupo store?

2). - In the original Cocopa text, the following is proposed: "To gain access collectively to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources of their lands and territories, those being understood as the totality of the habitat which the indigenous peoples use and occupy, except for those whose direct control corresponds to the nation." The Zedillo proposal said: "To gain access to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources of their lands, respecting the forms, methods and limitations established for ownership by this Constitution and the laws." The Senate proposal says: "To gain access, with respect for the forms and means of ownership and possession of land established in this Constitution and laws in these matters, as well as to the rights acquired by third parties or by members of the community, to the preferential use and enjoyment of the natural resources of those places the communities inhabit and occupy, except for those which correspond to strategic areas, in the terms of this Constitution." Once again there is no doubt that the Zedillo Law had more weight than the Cocopa one. The territorial concept, which is key for understanding and defining autonomy, has disappeared. In this way, the geographical space in which autonomy can be exercised is maximally limited, violating the agreement established in San Andre's that all the problems of Land Ownership should be discussed in Table 3 on Justice and Development.

3). - In the original Cocopa text it says: "The exercise of free self-determination by the indigenous peoples will be respected in each of the arenas and levels in which their autonomy is asserted, being able to take in one or more indigenous peoples, according to the individual and specific circumstances of each federal state. The indigenous communities as entities of public right, and those municipalities which recognize that they belong to an indigenous people, will have the power to freely associate in order to coordinate their actions." The Zedillo Law stated: "The communities of the indigenous peoples as entities of public interest, and those municipalities with a primarily indigenous population, will have the option to freely associate for the purpose of coordinating their actions, always respecting the political-administrative divisions in each federal state." The Senate proposal says: "The indigenous communities, within the municipal arena, will be able to coordinate and to associate under the terms, and to the ends, provided by this law." This even backpedals from the Zedillo law. The possibility for associating in regional terms - beyond the existing municipalities - which is the mechanism which represents the only guarantee for the rebuilding of the indigenous peoples following more than 500 years of fragmentation and marginalization -disappears completely here. The addition to Article 115 which is being proposed represents an absolute mockery of the Indian peoples.

4). - In the Cocopa Law it stated: "In order to establish the territorial demarcation of the uninominal districts and the plurinominal districts, the location of the indigenous peoples should be taken into account, in order to ensure their participation and political representation in the national arena." The Zedillo proposal said: "In order to establish the territorial demarcation of uninominal electoral districts, the location of the indigenous peoples should be taken into account, in order to ensure their participation and political representation in the national arena." In the Senate proposal, in the provisional third party, it states; "In order to establish the territorial demarcation of uninominal districts, the location of the indigenous peoples and communities should, when feasible, be taken into consideration, in order to foster their political participation." Once more the Senate proposal backpedals even from Zedillo's. It is not only against the Indian peoples - the ones who are the original foundation of the Nation - having a specific representation, through their own plurinominal constituency - but now "the location of the indigenous peoples should be taken into account" only when it is feasible.

When Ernesto Zedillo presented his proposal, he noted that 85% of the Cocopa proposal had been incorporated. The problem was that the remaining 15% contained the heart of the indigenous autonomy program. Now, with the Senate proposal, it can be said that it incorporates 80% (5% less than in Zedillo's), but the 20% that has been left out is the backbone of indigenous autonomy.

The Senate's omission cannot be replaced with general and abstract suggestions concerning autonomy or with government welfare proposals (the entire Part B of the proposal), whose placement within the body of the Constitution is a disgrace. In addition, those proposals were the political platform of a system which was defeated on July 2.

It is truly deplorable that once again the Senate (the same one which refused to listen to the zapatistas and to the members of the National Indigenous Congress), and very probably the Chamber of Deputies, are turning their backs on the indigenous peoples of Mexico. The conviction that this decision will be closing an historical wound is not only a fiction, it is also a joke in very bad taste. If this legislative proposal is approved in the Chamber of Deputies, and then in the state Congresses, a file will have been closed, but the serious problems of more than 10 million Mexicans will not be resolved, The struggle for indigenous rights and culture will continue to be an unresolved issue and an insult for the nation.