It has been noted, perhaps somewhat unfairly, that by this stage there are probably more books and papers written about the Zapatistas than there are actual Zapatista milicianos. Niels Barmeyer’s new work, Developing Zapatista Autonomy: Conflict and NGO Involvement in Rebel Chiapas adds to this cannon, but distinguishes itself by coming from the perspective of a militant anthropologist, an embedded solidarity activist investigating— from below—the inner workings of the EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) and the solidarity and NGO organizations surrounding it. It also distinguishes itself by being more critical than most, certainly of those ostensibly coming from a sympathetic position. 
It has been noted, perhaps somewhat unfairly, that by this stage there are probably more books and papers written about the Zapatistas than there are actual Zapatista milicianos. Niels Barmeyer’s new work, Developing Zapatista Autonomy: Conflict and NGO Involvement in Rebel Chiapas adds to this cannon, but distinguishes itself by coming from the perspective of a militant anthropologist, an embedded solidarity activist investigating— from below—the inner workings of the EZLN (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) and the solidarity and NGO organizations surrounding it. It also distinguishes itself by being more critical than most, certainly of those ostensibly coming from a sympathetic position.
The German anthropologist went to Chiapas in the 1990s, “drawn, like most other internationals, by notions of egalitarianism, communal living and independence from globalized economies.”Barmeyer relates how he was originally captivated by the dynamic Zapatista movement through his involvement in the left/autonomous scene in Berlin which exposed him to ideas about participatory democracy and horizontal forms of social organization. He put these theories into practice through working in solidarity with the Zapatistas in Chiapas , first as a human rights activist in peace camps, and later as a volunteer installing water systems in indigenous rebel villages.
But as he methodically dissects his extensive research and experience in Zapatista communities over the years, Barmeyer’s gaze moves from that of a bright-eyed solidarity activist to that of a cold and critical anthropological student, thus ensuring a rigid, unsparing and often scathing appraisal of his subjects.
"Even fifteen years after the uprising [of 1994]," writes Barmeyer, "there is a great gap between the impression that the rebels have managed to create among a worldwide sympathetic audience and the realities on the ground."
But Barmeyer’s experience is not simply the familiar narrative of a white European going to a foreign land in search of the exotic other, and finding only disillusionment and disenchantment with the reality there. His is a careful study of a revolutionary initiative and its repercussions, specifically the problem of reconciling the language and posture of the actors (local, national and international) and the actual situation.
“It struck me that in its portrayal of social organization in the communities under its control,” writes Barmeyer, “the EZLN readily catered for utopian visions so cherished by their sympathizers around the globe. Accounts from rebel villages were rather vague, leaving it up to readers to fill in the gaps with their own favored images; poetic fiction characteristic for Marcos communiques has usually prevailed over concrete and self-critical assessments of the situation on the ground.”
It is this proliferation of idealized images that Barmeyer deconstructs in this work. His focus is on the space between the actual Zapatista communities and the indigenous culture as he experiences and sees them, and the imagined and illusionary notion of the rebel movement. These idealized images are, he posits, forged in the writings of Zapatista spokesperson Subcommander Marcos, and reproduced by solidarity groups and NGO organizations working in the region. The result is "rosy portrayals" that are "stunningly uncritical" in their analysis, presenting an image that reflects more what the people outside want to hear than the reality on the ground.
What kind of idealized images is he taking aim at? Taking a closer look at the much-feted workings of Zapatista governance—generally understood as an extension of a deeply rooted egalitarian indigenous culture and a good example of the ‘horizontalist’ model of organizing—Barmeyer describes how decision-making structures are, in practice, less a model of grassroots participatory democracy than a process often dominated by men, older community members and those who can dispense patronage.
"Autonomous administrative structures and the way today’s rebel municipalities are run have little to do with Mayan heritage but are actually a hodgepodge of practices ranging from the Catholic cult of village saints imposed by the Spanish crown to the ejidal administration structures laid down in Mexico’s Agrarian Law and organizational elements introduced by cataquistas (lay preachers) and Maoist students in the 1970’s," writes Barmeyer.
It could also be argued that any kind of emancipatory democracy that emerges from such authoritarian roots should be commended. While the notion of Zapatista horizontal democracy seems more aspirational than actual, the reality is that within the Zapatista movement there is a constant struggle between the old forms of exercising power and new, emancipatory ones. The inclusion of more women and youth in the decision-making process is, as Barmeyer points out, evidence of a shifting paradigm.
‘Never Trust a Peasant’
Next, Barmeyer takes to task the common misconception that the Zapatistas are made up of a uniform mass of dispossessed indigenous peasants perpetually up in arms against the outside oppressor. On the contrary, the EZLN and its base of support are composed of a small, hardcore base of adherents with a larger fluctuating support base among the widerChiapas population. Barmeyer dwells a lot on the problem of shifting allegiances within the indigenous communities, suggesting that there is a fundamental lack of political or ideological commitment among the base. Ultimately, it is an economic imperative that draws impoverishedcampesinos to the rebel organization and the same motive that cause them to leave and assume a pro-government position.
“Frequent shifts of affiliation among the inhabitants of the Selva Lacandona and Las Canadas [Zapatista strongholds] confirm that they are pragmatic planners of their fate, willing to throw their lot with whomever they trust to help them along the way to fulfilling their aspirations.”
Coincidentally, Barmeyer’s observations call to mind Lenin’s infamous words – ‘never trust a peasant’ – questioning the revolutionary potential of the rural proletariat.
In one particularly stark passage, the author returns to a former Zapatista community and probes the residents on their reasons for desertion. Ex-Zapatista Lorena blames the ongoing level of poverty suffered by the villagers, for although she “approved of what Marcos had done and continued to do, she also said that, in her view, the EZLN had never really delivered anything of what was needed in the community.” The government on the other hand, she points out, ” might only give a little bit, but at least they give something.”
But while the Mexican government’s ongoing counter-insurgency strategy of buying off individuals or whole communities has certainly inflicted a lot of damage to the EZLN, it has not defeated them. It seems remarkable that despite the obvious economic hardship that comes with Zapatista affiliation, a sizable hardcore of the Zapatista base remain loyal to the cause. Even fifteen years after the initial uprising, the EZLN can still count on a considerable body of the indigenous population to rally to their call—even if it is a fraction of the amount they could mobilize at the height of their popularity.
This manifestation of ideological steadfastness is recognized by the anthropologist in the final words of his book, granting that a whole new generation of indigenous rebels “particularly among the inhabitants of the new Zapatista settlements where revolutionary practice is part of everyday life, bears witness to the fact that these people are indeed committed to a cause that transcends their own immediate benefit.”
Informants and Informers
Academic texts are often turgid to read, and laborious to decipher. Barmeyer’s work (conducted in the context of a Ph.D. course) is salvaged by a lively, informative and often witty tone of narration. Caught between his activist and academic caps, he is mischievous in his descriptions, as his friends become ‘informants’ (informers some would say), while his home in San Cristobal where he invites Zapatistas to stay, his ‘center of research.’ He befriends one local Zapatista—Cipriano, a self-described wild rover—and he and his extended family become the ongoing object of Barmeyer’s research. Therein lies the dubious academic practice of befriending people on the ground to study them.
Early in the book, Barmeyer describes how one local NGO operative refused to allow him to participate in their particular solidarity project because he was an anthropologist. How could this kind of anthropological research benefit the communities, asks the solidarity worker, arguing that a publication ofBarmeyer’s findings could only help the Zapatista’s enemies. Indeed, in the midst of ongoing low-intensity warfare, it doesn’t seem overtly paranoid to think that military intelligence and other counter-insurgency elements are not using this kind of insider information for their own ends. It is a moot point, never fully answered byBarmeyer. Perhaps by replacing one´s activist cap with an academic cap, one can distance oneself sufficiently from such moral dilemma’s.
But it can also be argued that an extensive and thorough investigation into the failures of the Zapatista movement, such as Barmeyer’s work, can strengthen and consolidate the movement. Despite its’ stinging critique, Developing Zapatista Autonomy is a work that portends not so much to undermine the validity of the rebel project, but, at its base, to dispense with idealized or imagined images. Instead of harboring untenable illusions or offering unconditional solidarity for revolutionary groups, Barmeyer’s work allows Zapatista supporters an opportunity for reflection on the development of the Zapatista project for autonomy so far.
Finally, it should be remembered to put things into perspective. As Mexico slides deeper into crisis with an illegitimate government implementing increasingly discreditedneo -liberal policies and relying on the military to deal with pressing social and political conflict, it would seem the need for an emancipatory Zapatista movement is desirable and indeed necessary now more than ever. In that wider context, the criticisms emphasized in Developing Zapatista Autonomy may seem like nitpicking, without giving enough credit for the impressive achievements of the rebel organization.
As Marcos pointed out (in one of his possibly less romantic and idealized comments), “We are not trying to make an orthodox revolution, but something much more difficult: a revolution which makes possible the revolution.”
Ramor Ryan is an Irish journalist based in Chiapas, Mexico. His book Clandestines: the Pirate Journals of an Irish Exile was published by AK Press in 2006.
Copyright 2003-2018 Upside Down World