I think that we have to move to a profound revision of the legal system that exists in Mexico because the demands that the indigenous peoples have put forth are not liable to be introduced in a coherent way into the constitutional and legal system that we have. Take municipal autonomy, for example. Municipal autonomy is acknowledged in the constitution, albeit under the condition of the existence of citizens who are equal throughout all of the distinct municipalities. What is appearing in the indigenous movement, and currently in other movements in Mexico, is difference not equality. What there is, is a need for recognition of the equality of differences. All of the differences should be treated under an idea of equality that is just and that gives to different social groups the possibility of resolving their problems--finding their own paths--without this necessarily signifying a rupture in their relationship with the rest of the country or with other groups.
But this implies a process that goes beyond law and requires a negotiation, for example, of improvement of social conditions. In this case, embedded in the problem of indigenous peoples is a degraded social condition in which they have reached a level of subsistence that requires, absolutely, immediate attention from other sectors of the country to help improve their condition--without contravening them in the improvement of their circumstances but nevertheless respecting their capacity as agents of their own development.
Indigenous Autonomy?
It seems to me that the problem of municipal autonomy and the idea that in these autonomous municipalities a different rule of law prevails than the general rule of law of the country--such as the idea of legalizing or legitimizing the "customs and traditions" of indigenous peoples--needs to be discussed at a general level. It cannot be a unilateral discussion by one group. But neither can it be impeded by the majority: the outcome must be that groups that constitute a minority have the right to express their point of view and to think about the best solutions for problems that are specific to them and different from those of other groups in the country.
So, first, we need a revision of law. Second, we need a general discussion of the demands that have been put forth. Third, we need a process of negotiation in which a formula can be found that respects the specific demands of indigenous peoples and is capable of providing a means of resolving these problems in an adequate political and social context in which other groups and institutions of the country are able to interpose themselves and possibly turn around the negative tendencies contributing to the actual condition in which indigenous peoples find themselves. For example, indigenous peoples require an improvement in income, education, and health conditions--they, at the very least, require services. They themselves can generate these services, but to do so they need resources, and these resources should come from some environment over which they can exercise certain control.
Whose Resources Are These?
However, there is a central part of the demands put forth with which I am not in agreement. One of the arguments, which the Zapatista movement has raised, for example, is the idea that a region should be able to utilize the resources that it generates, and that it should be able to appropriate a significant part of these resources in proportion to the quantity of these resources that get apportioned to the federation. In principle, I am in agreement with this. However, the problem is that we cannot grant everything that is of Chipas to Chiapas without taking away from Zacatecas an opportunity for development. Naturally, this has occurred in the inverse and that is unjust; it has happened that [Mexico] has taken away from Chiapas an enormous amount of the wealth that it produces--for example, in terms of petroleum extraction which belies the assumption that this wealth gets allocated toward the social, economic, agricultural or industrial development of the state of Chiapas.
But this is not just a problem of resource distribution between local and federal. It is also a problem of differing resource distribution between social groups [within the region], and the differing levels of educational and human-resource development as it pertains to the ability to assist directly the needs and generate more wealth.
Naturally, the relationship between the states and the center, or the states and federation, should change in terms of the distribution of the responsibilities and the use of the resources. Until now, the central government has retained the large majority of the resources generated in the country to later reassign them as a form of not only procuring development, but also of controlling politically certain sectors and certain zones of the country. This definitely should and can disappear, if they find a financially productive relationship that, at the same time, is going to attend to priorities that are not solely defined by the office of some bureaucrat in the central government, but rather priorities that are discussed and deliberated with the social groups and the people that are directly involved with the problem. I think that this is the perspective and these are the three or four elements of the next steps that should be taken in order to move in the direction of resolving the "indigenous issue" and guaranteeing indigenous rights.
