Ancient systems of self-governance

BY STAN GOTLIEB

Long before the Spanish came to Mexico, many City-States governed themselves through a system of town meetings that came to be known in Spanish as "usos y costumbres" (uses and customs). In those places where the local warlord didn't simply rule by force, there were elaborate social structures in place to determine who became "eligible" to lead. Often, the job of leader was an onerous if honorable burden, taking away time the leader needed to use in the daily grind of feeding his family (in most places, women, while sometimes allowed to deliberate in the body of the whole, could not hold office).
Typically, one became eligible by virtue of previous service to the community: organizing and working on public works projects, preparing and presenting major fiestas, taking a turn as town policeman or jailer, etc. Often, the "president," the "treasurer," etc., were chosen by a town council of elders and presented to the citizens for ratification.

Land in these communities (usually the only source of wealth) was held communally. If someone wanted a piece for more farming, or to build a house for a newly-wed couple, they would have to apply to the proper agency or "cargado" (person charged with handling the issue).

When the Spanish came, they incorporated these structures into the "encomiendos" (giant estates granted by the Crown--Cortés, for example, was granted much of what is now Oaxaca state)--a situation that pretty much held until the Revolution of 1910-1924 during which Emilio Zapata's battle cry was "Land and Liberty." In the blood bath that followed the Revolution (both Zapata and his co-revolutionary Pancho Villa were hunted down and killed for their continued militancy) much of the promised return of land to the peasants that used to own it evaporated. It was not until the administration of Lázaro Cárdenas in the late '30s that serious "land reform" occurred, and it took the political class until the presidency of Carlos Salinas Gortari in the early '90s to begin the destruction of the "Ejidos," as the areas of communal land ownership were called.

Salinas changed the law that forbade private ownership of land in Ejidos, leaving individuals free to sell the land on which they lived and farmed (not to mention the mineral and botanical rights). Developers, mining companies, loggers, pharmaceutical companies and others were now free to buy large tracts of land from the new "individual owners" and do what they wanted there without permission from the community. [It should be noted that in many cases, outside investors were aided by town councils and/or municipal leaders: We're not talking about paragons of socialist virtue here, just normal--and often poverty stricken--human beings.]

The result, in many places, has been disastrous. The biggest disaster is yet to occur: Huge areas of the Mije mountains just south of Oaxaca city are now owned by Canadian gold and silver mining companies who plan to strip mine the area.

Still, local governments, even where the land has been parceled and sold, hold on to their way of governance, and in many cases--including in many areas targeted for destruction by the miners--are using their constituted authority to slow down the process. This has angered the pro-business neo-conservative government of Mexico, and many state and local officials, who hope to make a lot of money "helping" the "legitimate businesses" with their plans. The result has been a two-pronged attack on "usos y costumbres," the ultimate goal of which is to replace them with more "modern," more pliable "elected officials." In Oaxaca state, where I live, this is no small matter: One in five towns is governed by "usos y costumbres," and most are in resource-rich rural areas.

The primary attack is being conducted in the national legislature, where bills have been entered to change the Constitution to do away with the system of "usos y costumbres." The effect would be to introduce the Party system into these communities, thus institutionalizing the political spoils system, and making it easier for national and state governments to enforce their will on the locals. There is no question that the political class is in favor of this, but they are a little nervous because they perceive that there is a strong constituency throughout the country for what is thought to be--rightly or wrongly--a more purely democratic tradition of communal egalitarianism.

The second prong of the attack, led by the largely bought-and-paid-for national daily newspapers and television monopolies, is meant to disillusion the public about the "usos y costumbres" system. The latest of the articles, widely circulated in both Mexico and the U.S., focuses on a small village, hours away from the nearest improved road, in the western mountains of Oaxaca. The local council does not allow women to vote. Only heads of household may vote, and that--in this village--means men. Curiously, the system was recently challenged by a woman who had left the village as a young adult, gotten a college education, and worked in various professional jobs for years until this year, when she returned and demanded the right to run for the town presidency. Rebuffed by the town council, she took her fight to the press and the courts, claiming that the exclusion of women (the council says she would have been excluded anyway, because she has never done any public service there) is a violation of the Constitution so heinous that the only remedy is to dismantle the whole system.

Women should be allowed to vote in towns ruled by public meetings of "heads of household," when--as is true in all too many cases--they are de facto sole providers. Not to include them is one of many ways in which the macho/sexist culture of Mexico perpetuates itself. Throwing out "usos y costumbres" is not the solution.

Next time, I will focus on one community, San Felipe del Agua, a suburb of Oaxaca, an interesting microcosm that illustrates this conflict of political systems in the midst of overwhelming "gentrification."