La Jornada
May 13, 2001
By Jesu's Rami'rez Cuevas

The constitutional changes in indigenous matters approved by the Congress of the Union last April have been called into question by various sectors of society. While the EZLN and the CNI [National Indigenous Congress] have called for mobilizing in favor of the Cocopa legislative proposal, legislators, especially those from the PRI, the PAN and a few PRD senators - have fanatically defended their decisions. The polemic which has been ignited over the parliamentary decision arises from the fact that the reforms do not achieve the objectives which had been set out from the start: they do not contribute to peace in Chiapas, nor do they resolve the nation's debt to the Indian peoples. The material which follows is an analysis of the advances and omissions contained in the reform.

Since the approval of the San Andre's Accords (1996), the central purpose of legal reforms has been the constitutional recognition of indigenous rights, an indispensable step in allowing the communities to be reconstituted as peoples. This legal change will, in addition, help in reinitiating dialogue between the EZLN and the federal government and in securing a peace with justice and dignity in Chiapas and in the country (peace in the broad sense, which includes an end to the economic war against the poor).

In both regards, the reforms approved by the Congress of the Union fail achieve these objectives, and they have not lived up to the expectations which had been raised in the population. The form in which the indigenous rights and culture law was approved has confirmed the triumph of conservatism. That is why the reforms have provoked a true political crisis, by imposing racist interests and feelings on social sensibilities which have been generated by the indigenous cause and on the vast support for a peaceful solution in Chiapas.

The legislators have, once again, been insensitive to the demands of the indigenous, which have been embraced by millions of non-indigenous Mexicans, for the creation of a legal framework which will allow a two-fold objective to be achieved: for Indians to be subjects with legal recognition in the reorganization of a multicultural national State; and for the peoples to be able to be reconstituted through the legal recognition of those mechanisms which regulate their social, political, economic and cultural lives.

In the midst of this debate which has been unleashed, an explanation is essential of the omissions, advances and setbacks of the reform in question.

The San Andre's Accords proposed the creation, through a social pact, of a new relationship between the Mexican State and the indigenous peoples. By way of a summary, in one of the three basic conclusions of those documents, signed by the federal government and the EZLN on February 16, 1996, it states: "The government assumes the commitment of building, with the different sectors of society and in a new federalism, a new social pact which changes the fundamental social, political, economic and cultural relationships with the indigenous peoples. The pact should eradicate those daily, public forms which create and reinforce subordination, inequality and discrimination. It should also make effective those rights and guarantees which belong to them: the right to cultural difference; the right to their habitat; the use and enjoyment of territory, in accordance with Article 13.2 of Convention 169 of the ILO; the right to community political self-management; the right to the development of their culture; the right to their traditional systems of production; the right to the management and carrying out of their own development projects."

The reform which was approved by the Congress does not guarantee the objectives and principles which were agreed to at San Andre's. In the new legislation, each right which is recognized for the indigenous is followed by constraints which limit and condition its exercise to the point of invalidating it.

* What is omitted?

Throughout the altered text, a series of conditions are set forth for the indigenous peoples. These are, in reality, very obvious repetitions of the Constitution of the Republic, such as respect for individual guarantees, the federal pact, the sovereignty of the states. These are the primary points where the reform does not recognize what was signed at San Andre's and the proposal drawn up by the Cocopa.

- The exercise of free determination by the indigenous peoples is not recognized.

Not included is a municipal reform which clearly specifies the scope of autonomy and allows the conditions for its exercise. It does not even accept redistricting in order to create indigenous municipalities where they would be necessary. It does not grant the right to regional association between peoples, communities and municipalities.

- It leaves out the definition of indigenous peoples and communities as subjects of public law. It does not define the territorial arena of autonomy, or it confines it to the space of the community. It excessively restricts the use and enjoyment of natural resources in indigenous lands.

- Respect for the election of indigenous authorities is not ensured, nor is political representation for the indigenous guaranteed, nor the territorial reorganization of single party districts and multi-party jurisdictions.

- The right of the peoples and communities to their own media is not guaranteed.

- Welfare policies are included which replicate that traditional, client-based paternalism which was the life-blood of the PRI regime.

* Advances, Disguised Setbacks

The reform approved by the Congress modifies Article 1 and adds that "all forms of discrimination are prohibited which are motivated by ethnic or national origin, gender, age, different abilities, social condition, health conditions, religion, opinions, preferences (PAN Senator Diego Ferna'ndez was opposed to the inclusion of sexual preferences), civil state or any other which threatens human dignity and whose objective is to destroy or to infringe upon any person's rights or liberties."

The incorporation of the right to not be discriminated against is important, since millions of Mexican suffer it every day. The recognition is a bit belated, however, since the Federal Penal Code classifies any form of discrimination as a crime. This point is being used in order to dilute criticisms of the omissions and distortions in the approved changes. Even in the Senate, Manuel Bartlett stated that this article was worth the entire reform.

Something positive: an exclusive article on indigenous rights was created (Article 2), but its content is in dispute in comparison with the San Andre's Accords and the Cocopa proposal.

"Where It Says People, We Only See Communities"

In the altered Article 2, the multicultural composition of the nation is accepted, "based originally in its indigenous peoples, who are those who descended from populations which inhabited the current territory of the country at the beginning of colonization, and which have preserved their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, or parts of them." Those indigenous descended from groups which inhabited the country prior to the establishment of the current frontiers are excluded. Some people were opposed to this point because, they argued, "they are extra-territorial regulations, since they could include various indigenous populations in the United States." In addition, Article 2 includes the principle of "self-assignment" (Article 169 of the ILO), which is, indubitably, an advance: "The consciousness of their indigenous identity should be the fundamental criterion in determining those to whom the regulations on indigenous peoples should be applied."

Throughout the debate on indigenous rights, representatives from the conservative wing (PAN and PRI) were opposed to recognizing the indigenous peoples as the subject of law. In its place, they spoke only of communities. The Indian peoples are recognized in the reform as the collective subject of law, and the communities as members of same. This is an advance, but, on the other hand, the scope of the people are restricted to the municipal arena, and the conditions for their reconstitution are not guaranteed.

- Autonomy With Shackles

The autonomy of the indigenous peoples is recognized in the Congress of the Union's reform, but the various shackles which were approved prevent the full exercise of this right. Indigenous autonomy remains under suspicion of affecting the integrity of the nation, the general principles of the Constitution, third-party rights, forms of ownership and decision-making at the different levels of government.

This is why Article 2 begins with the statement: "The Mexican nation is unique and indivisible." Three paragraphs further along it affirms: "The right of the indigenous peoples to free determination shall be exercised within a constitutional framework of autonomy that insures national unity. The recognition of the indigenous peoples and communities will take place in the Constitutions and laws of the federal states, which should take into account, in addition, generally established principles, ethno-linguistic criteria and physical settlement."

In Paragraph A (Section VII) of this article, it is specified that "the Constitutions and laws of the states shall establish the features of free determination and autonomy which best express the circumstances and aspirations of the indigenous peoples in each state, as well as regulations for the recognition of the indigenous communities as entities of public interest."

According to a statement by the CNI: "To leave the definition of the characteristics of indigenous autonomy, and the mechanisms for carrying it out, in the hands of the states cancels out our rights of free determination expressed through autonomy within the State framework and the aspirations of our people for their full recognition."

With the legislatures determining the forms of recognition of autonomy, this then becomes a local matter, and it will be done based on ethno-linguistic and physical settlement criteria. If the federal Constitution does not recognize and define collective rights, they will be subject to negotiation and the volition of state governments and legislatures (and with this, that recognition enters into the traditional sphere of haggling, long suffered by the indigenous). State Congresses will define not only the characteristics and regulations of autonomy, but also the very recognition of the peoples who will exercise it. This could lead, for example, to the Mixtec people - who reside in Oaxaca, Puebla and Guerrero - having three different forms for exercising their rights, according to how it is decided in each of those states.

In Section III (Article 2), the right is recognized for the indigenous "to choose, in accordance with their traditional rules, procedures and practices, authorities or representatives for the exercise of their own forms of internal government, guaranteeing the participation of women in equal circumstances to men, in a framework which respects the federal pact and the sovereignty of the state." Once again obedience to the Constitution is reiterated (it is mentioned five times in seven paragraphs of Section A), which, since it is unnecessary, is more evidence of their distrust of the indigenous.

- Neither Territory Nor Community Exploitation of Natural Resources

The reform does not recognize the right to the collective use of natural resources, nor does it admit to the existence of territories of the indigenous peoples. While the Cocopa proposal posited the right of "collective access to the use and enjoyment of natural resources of their lands and territories - understood to be the totality of the habitat which the indigenous use and occupy, except for those which are under the direct control of the nation" - the reform which was approved states: "To have access - with respect for the forms and methods of land ownership and possession established in this Constitution and for the laws on this matter, as well as those rights acquired by third parties or by members of the community - to preferential use and enjoyment of the natural resources of those places which communities inhabit and occupy, except for those which belong to strategic areas, under the terms of this Constitution. To these ends, the communities shall be able to assoc! iate with each other under the terms of the law."

Although the word 'preferential' is included - which is an advance - this right is limited, with the repetition of Article 27 of the Constitution (the issue of land possession was not discussed during the 1995-1996 negotiations, since it was part of Table 7 which dealt with "Justice and Development").

Indigenous culture, built from a basis of community practices, develops on the foundation of the collective relationships of the Indians with the land and nature. The legislators do not wish to recognize this.

The Congress has refused to use concepts such as indigenous lands and territories regarding access to and exploitation of natural resources as the Cocopa proposal and the San Andre's Accords stated (as established in Convention 169 of the ILO).

This definition was clearly expressed in San Andre's: "Territory: All indigenous peoples are situated in a territory which includes the totality of the habitat which the indigenous are occupying or using in some way. Territory is the material basis of their development as a people, and it is an expression of the indissoluble man-land-nature unity."

The concept of territory is essential for understanding and defining the idea which the indigenous people have of autonomy. This is the most important point in the debate about free determination. The indigenous are demanding not only ownership of the land, but also the legal guarantee to be able to protect it in order to preserve their culture and future as peoples. In this regard, the right of ownership should not be confused with the right of the Indian peoples to preserve the natural resources of their territories or the places they consider sacred.

Upon winning the debate on autonomy, which the PRI and the PAN opposed using the phantom of balkanization and national division, the legislative majority focused their attention on refusing to recognize territorial rights for the indigenous, because, they said, it would promote agrarian and territorial conflicts. It would be, they repeated, an invitation to the indigenous occupation of owners' lands.

The Cocopa proposal did not entail any dangers for landowners, and it guaranteed the rights of the nation to strategic resources. The legislators, however, decided to include constraints favoring large and small landowners, and they restricted the rights of the peoples and communities. In fact, the three forms of ownership recognized by law (community, ejido and small ownership) already exist in the lands the indigenous inhabit, without this signifying any contradiction. The problem is not agrarian, but rather one of guaranteeing the protection of indigenous lands.

There is an observation regarding this in the San Andre's Accords: "The EZLN delegation insists on noting the lack of a solution to the serious national agrarian problem, and for the necessity for reforming Article 27 of the Constitution, which should once again embrace the spirit of Emiliano Zapata, summarized in two basic demands: the land belongs to he who works it, and land and liberty" (joint Proposed Documents of the federal government and the EZLN).

This reform legitimizes the counter-reform of Article 27, which was modified in 1992, allowing the privatization of communal and ejidal lands. Through failing to guarantee the legal protection of ownership of indigenous lands, the indigenous are left exposed to speculation and transfer benefiting large agro-industrial and property companies. We find an example of this in Article 4 of the Constitution (1992), which promotes "the protection of the integrity of the lands of indigenous groups." This is an empty point, which has not prevented the plundering of indigenous lands and their natural resources.

- They Are Treated Like Archeological Ruins

The "new legal framework" proposed in San Andre's includes the "recognition in national legislation of the communities as entities of public law, the right to associate freely in municipalities with a majority indigenous population, as well as the right of various municipalities to associate among themselves, for the purpose of coordinating their actions as indigenous peoples."

The original text of the Cocopa includes this commitment: "The exercise of free self-determination by the indigenous peoples shall be respected in each one of the arenas and levels in which they assert their autonomy, being able to take in one or more indigenous peoples, in accordance with the particular and specific circumstances of each state. The indigenous peoples as entities of public law, and those municipalities which recognize that they belong to an indigenous people, shall have the authority to associate freely for the purpose of coordinating their actions."

The congressional reform posits: "The recognition of the communities as entities of public interest."

The use of words is significant. Speaking of communities as subjects of public law is to assume them to be an integral part of the state. In the reform which was approved, by considering them of public interest, they are treated in a fashion similar to political parties or state bodies charged with social policies, or archeological areas. The indigenous people are relegated to the role of recipients, to objects of public policy. There are now no longer actors and subjects in the organization of the State and in government decisions. The right to participation in the defining of public policies and in the planning of government programs is left out, in order to bureaucratize the issue and state responsibility.

- The State Is Not Obligated To Recognize Traditional Justice

The approved reform recognizes the application of the indigenous' "regulatory systems in the regulation and resolution of internal conflicts, respecting individual guaranties, human rights and, notably, the dignity and safety of women."

Lastly, there is a statement differing from the Cocopa proposal, according to which "their procedures, judgments and decisions will be recognized by the jurisdictional authorities of the State." The reform says: "The law shall establish the cases of and procedures for recognition by the appropriate judges or courts." It should be noted that, instead of uses and customs, the more suitable term, "regulatory systems", is used. But the reform omits the Judicial Branch's obligation to recognize those resolutions issued by the indigenous peoples' authorities. Consequently, legal status is not given to their regulatory systems, nor to their resolutions. Such a controversial task requires greater meticulousness.

The reform at least includes one important issue from the Cocopa proposal: "The indigenous have the right, at all times, to be assisted by interpreters and defenders who have knowledge of their languages and culture."

- Fear Of Their Joining Together

The Congress did everything possible to limit authority within the municipalities. That is why they accepted only one change to Article 115 of the Constitution: "The indigenous communities, within the municipal arena, shall be able to coordinate and to associate under the terms, and to the ends, stipulated by this law."

As a consequence, the association of several communities, peoples and municipalities in a region is not guaranteed. This is a basic condition for the reconstitution of the Indian peoples and for their ability to abandon the divisions of today. Even though the Congress modified this article in 1999 in order to permit the association of several municipalities, by not explicitly recognizing this right for those communities, peoples and municipalities which have a majority indigenous population, opportunities for this association are being left to decisions by state Congresses and governments.

It notes in the San Andre's Accords that Article 115 will be modified "in order to strengthen the federal pact and to guarantee the participation of the indigenous communities in the formation of councils and municipalities with a majority indigenous population in public matters."

In the Cocopa proposal there are five changes in this article. In one part it mentions the participation of population groups "in municipal development plans and in the programs which arise from them." "Mechanisms for citizens' participation shall be established in each municipality in order to co-advise with the councils in the program planning, exercise, evaluation and control of resources, including federal ones, which are earmarked for social development." Why was this eliminated? No reasons were given, but one can make certain assumptions.

The Cocopa proposed, in Section IX: "Free determination of the indigenous peoples shall be respected in each one of the arenas and levels in which they assert their authority, being able to take in one or more indigenous peoples, in accordance with their particular and specific circumstances in each state." This is one of the most serious omissions in the approved reform. The ability for the Indian communities, municipalities and peoples to associate and to coordinate is proposed according to their current distribution and regional cohesion, in order to lend viability to their development processes and conditions for their growth. The indigenous communities, separate, will be easy prey for businesses and capital which are only looking for lucrative profits, without caring about the future of the inhabitants.

In Section X, the Cocopa proposed: "In those municipalities, communities and auxiliary bodies of the council and related bodies which assume membership in an indigenous people, the right shall be recognized for their inhabitants to define, in accordance with each one of their own traditional political practices, the procedures for choosing their authorities (...) The state legislature shall establish the foundations and methods for ensuring the full exercise of that right."

It adds: "The legislatures shall be able to proceed to the redistricting of the territories in which the indigenous peoples are situated, which should be carried out in consultation with the involved populations." The Congress of the Union simply omitted the need for redistricting which exists in a great many locations.

In order to understand the dimension of this absence, according to figures from 1995, out of the more than 2300 municipalities which exist in the country, 500 are primarily indigenous. In 803 other municipalities, more than 30% of the inhabitants are indigenous. A third of Mexican Indians (more than 3 million) are living in indigenous communities within municipalities without an indigenous majority (Pueblos y municipio, Dolores Gonza'lez Saravia C.).

- Political Representation For the Peoples When It Is Feasible

Concerning political rights, the Cocopa proposal stated: "In order to establish the territorial demarcation of uninominal districts and multi-party jurisdictions, the location of the indigenous peoples should be taken into account, in order to ensure their political participation and representation in the national arena." In their proposal for changes to Article 116, they add: "In order to guarantee the representation of the indigenous peoples in state legislatures according to the principle of relative majority, electoral districts should be adjusted according to the geographic distribution of said peoples."

The Congress approved a provisional article on this issue: "In order to establish the territorial demarcation of uninominal districts, the location of indigenous peoples and communities should be taken into account, when it is feasible, in order to foster their political participation (...)." When it is feasible? What does this mean in a law? Instead of fostering real reform, which would guarantee the political representation of the Indian peoples in the institutions of the State, the legislators have dodged the issue, merely urging electoral officials to make changes "when it is feasible." One of the characteristics of the Constitution is that rights which are recognized should be respected in a compulsory manner, but the decision is left to the volition of acting officials.

- No To Participatory Democracy, Yes To Campaign Promises

Various actions and programs of the Federation, states and municipalities are enumerated in the congressional reform "in order to overcome the wants and lack of development which affect the indigenous peoples and communities" (Article 2, Section B): "Promoting regional development in indigenous areas"; "guaranteeing and increasing levels of education, fostering bilingual and intercultural education, literacy, the completion of basic education", etc; "ensuring effective access to health services"; "improving conditions in the indigenous communities and in their spaces for coexistence and recreation"; "fostering the incorporation of indigenous women in development, through support for economic programs"; "extending the communications network"; "supporting the economic activities and sustainable development of indigenous communities"; "establishing social policies in order to protect migrants from the indigenous peoples"; "consulting the indigenous peoples in the drawing up of the National Development Plan and those of the states and municipalities". Except for this last point, all the others are part of the campaign promises, not components of a law.

"In order to guarantee the fulfillment of the noted obligations," states the approved reform, "the legislatures of the states and councils (...) shall establish specific line items earmarked for the fulfillment of these obligations in the budgets (...) as well as methods and procedures for the communities to participate in the exercise and monitoring of the same."

This area is open to question because the federal Constitution establishes rights and obligations, and, in this instance, the actions and proposals correspond more to a government plan than to constitutional rights. By emphasizing the State's obligations, in its welfare aspect, the door is opened for those old practices of corporatism, caciquismo and vote-buying, the basis of the PRI's political control over large segments of the population.

In reference to education, the Congress's legal changes repeat the state's obligations, but ignore the collective rights of the peoples who, contributing their cultural difference, would participate in the planning of educational policies and of cultural training in their regions.

- Spectators Without Media

At San Andre's the zapatistas and the government agreed that "for the purpose of fostering an intercultural dialogue from the community level to the national one, which will allow for a new and positive relationship between the indigenous peoples, and between them and the rest of society, it is essential for these peoples to be provided with their own media, which are also key elements for the development of cultures. It shall, therefore, be proposed that the appropriate national bodies draw up a new communications law which will allow the indigenous peoples to acquire, operate and administer their own media." The Congressional reform only commits itself to "establishing conditions so that the indigenous peoples and communities can acquire, operate and administer media, under the terms determined by laws in the matter." As in other instances, the principle of constitutional supremacy is not respected here: that no regulatory or secondary law is above that which is specifie! d in the federal Constitution. A right (in this case that of possessing and operating media) cannot be subordinated to a regulatory law which rescinds it in actions.

In this way the legislators have evaded their responsibility and have referred the indigenous to what is stipulated under current laws, that is, to continue like they are, without their own media. Also omitted was the proposal at San Andre's to transfer the twenty radio stations which are in the hands of the National Indigenist Institute to the Indian peoples.

* The Congress Should Rectify the Situation *

The constitutional reform, as it was approved, does not, according to many, meet the demands of the Indian peoples. The EZLN has called for a mobilization to have the Congress rectify the situation and to approve the Cocopa law. This legislative failure constitutes a new factor for destabilization, not only in the southeast, but also in the entire country. Through their conduct, the legislators have undermined confidence in institutions and legal avenues. This distancing between institutions and citizens is the cause of disagreements which end in violence, and an example is the armed uprising in Chiapas. The Indian mobilization against the reform is growing. There are many voices demanding that this reform be amended or discarded, so that one can be approved which will indeed fully recognize indigenous rights. There are various means by which this could take place. One could be the President sending a new reform and compelling the Congress to discuss the issue again. ! Another route, more dignified for the legislators, would be to recognize, in the spirit of self-critique, that an incomplete reform is of no use to anyone, not to the indigenous, not to the peace process, not to the country.

WHAT ARE INDIGENOUS RIGHTS?

ORIGINAL OBJECTIVE OF THE REFORM

The central purpose of the San Andre's Accords, signed by the federal government and the EZLN, is to foster "a new relationship between the indigenous people and the State" which puts an end to the relationship of subordination, inequality, discrimination, poverty, exploitation and political exclusion of the indigenous. In order to achieve this objective, the government commits itself to fostering the constitutional recognition of the rights of the Indian peoples, individual and collective.

"The new relationship between the Mexican State and the indigenous peoples is based on respect for difference, on the recognition of indigenous identities as intrinsic components of our nationality, and on the acceptance of their special characteristics as inherent, basic elements of our legal order, based on multiculturalism." (San Andre's Accords, "Document 1. Joint Statement which the federal government and the EZLN will send to the bodies of debate and national decision-making").

This relationship between the State and the indigenous, the Accords state, requires a profound State reform and a new social pact which respects the autonomy of the Indian peoples. In order to obtain this respect, all actions, programs or development projects which the state promotes should guarantee the active participation of these peoples.

Among the commitments which the government took on with the indigenous at San Andre's are the recognition of the Indian peoples in the Constitution and their right to free determination within a framework of autonomy; broadening participation and political representation; guaranteeing full access by the Indian peoples to State justice, to the jurisdiction of the State and the recognition of their internal regulatory systems; promoting their cultural expressions; ensuring their education and training and availing themselves of, and respecting, their traditional knowledge; meeting their basic needs; promoting production and employment, and protecting indigenous migrants.

In the constitutional reform, the political, economic, legal, social and cultural rights of the indigenous should be recognized. According to the San Andre's text, the political rights of the Indian peoples have two dimensions: internally, recognizing the ability to have their own governments and to choose authorities according to their traditions; externally, broadening their political representation in the state and federal Congresses.

Legal rights refer to their internal regulatory systems (called, with a certain contempt, "uses and customs"): their methods of choosing their own authorities, their methods of imparting justice, correcting offenses and deciding on issues of internal conflicts. Social and citizens rights define the forms of social organization and participation in decision-making, and the planning of those public policies which affect them. Economic rights are limited to those decisions which define organization for work, the enjoyment of their resources, production, employment and the satisfaction of their basic necessities. Cultural rights shall promote, foster and guarantee the indigenous peoples' own culture.

The Congress of the Union did not give any consideration to these rights in their decision.

HOW THE STATE AND THE INDIGNEOUS PEOPLES WILL RELATE TO EACH OTHER

The San Andre's Accords defined some principles of the new relationship between the indigenous and the State:

Free determination and autonomy: "The State shall respect the exercise of free determination by the indigenous peoples, in each one of the arenas and levels in which they shall assert and practice their diverse autonomy, without impinging on national sovereignty, and within the new regulatory framework for the indigenous peoples." The government cannot take unilateral actions, and it must respect the approaches and plans of the indigenous peoples, communities and organizations.

Participation: The peoples and communities must be active subjects in the design, planning, execution and evaluation of programs and projects that are decided upon, along with the government. "Given that policies in indigenous areas should not be only conceived with the peoples themselves, but also established with them, the present indigenist social development institutions which are operating should be transformed into others which plan and operate jointly, and in concert with, the indigenous peoples themselves."

Pluralism: "Interaction between the peoples and cultures which make up Mexican society must be based on respect for their differences, under the assumption of fundamental equality." This principle seeks respect for the diversity of the country's indigenous and for the State "to actively fight all forms of discrimination and to correct economic and social inequalities."

Comprehensiveness: This means the following: government programs and actions which affect the lives of the indigenous will be coordinated and integrated at all levels. "That there be honest and transparent management of public resources earmarked for the indigenous peoples, through greater indigenous participation in decision-making and through the societal accounting of public spending."

Sustainability: It is important that projects and programs do not damage the environment or the resources of the Indian peoples. Respect is sought for nature and the culture of the indigenous peoples and culture.

The Congressional reform does not respect these principles.