Chiapas - History - 20th Century To The Present

20th Century To The Present

In the early 20th century and into the Mexican Revolution, the production of coffee was particularly important but labor intensive. This would lead to a practice called "enganche" (hook) where recruiter would lure workers with advanced pay and other incentives such as alcohol and then trap them with debts for travel and other items to be worked off. This practice would lead to a kind of indentured servitude and uprisings in areas of the state, although they never led to large rebel armies as in other parts of Mexico.

A small war broke out between Tuxtla and San Cristobal in 1911. San Cristóbal, allied with San Juan Chamula, tried to regain the state’s capital but the effort failed. There were three years of peace after that until troops allied with Venustiano Carranza entered in 1914 taking over the government, with the aim of imposing the Ley de Obreros to address wrongs done to the state’s mostly indigenous workers. Conservatives responded violently months later as they were certain the Carrranza forces would take their lands. This was mostly in the way of guerrilla actions headed by farm owners who called themselves the Mapaches, which continued for six years, until Carranza was assassinated and Álvaro Obregón became president of Mexico. This allowed the Mapaches to gain political power in the state and effectively stop many of the social reforms happening in other parts of Mexico. However, these Mapaches would continue to fight against socialists and communists in Mexico from 1920 to 1936 to maintain their control over the state. In general, the elite landowners also allied with the nationally dominant Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) so that they could block land reforms in this way as well. The Mapaches were first defeated in 1925 when an alliance of socialists and former Carranza loyalists had Carlos A. Vidal selected as governor, although he was assassinated two years later. The last of the Mapache resistance was over come in the early 1930s by Governor Victorico Grajales, who pursued President Lázaro Cárdenas' social and economic policies including persecution of the Church. These policies would have some success in redistributing lands and organizing indigenous workers but the state would remain relatively isolated fro the rest of the 20th century. The territory was reorganized into municipalities in 1916. The current state constitution was written in 1921.

There was political stability from the 1940s to the early 1970s; however, regionalism regained with people thinking of themselves as from their local city or municipality over the state. This regionalism impeded the economy as local authorities restrained outside goods. For this reason, construction of highways and communications were pushed to help with economic development. Most of the work was done around Tuxtla Gutiérrez and Tapachula. This included the Sureste railroad connecting northern municipalities such as Pichucalco, Salto de Agua, Palenque, Catazajá and La Libertad. The Cristobal Colon highway linked Tuxtla to the Guatemalan border. Other highways included El Escopetazo to Pichucalco, a highway between San Cristóbal and Palenque with branches to Cuxtepeques and La Frailesca. This helped to integrate the state’s economy, but it also permitted the political rise of communal land owners called ejidatarios.

In the mid-20th century, the state experienced a significant rise in population, which outstripped local resources, especially land in the highland areas. Since the 1930s, many indigenous and mestizos have migrated from the highland areas into the Lacandon Jungle with the populations of Altamirano, Las Margaritas, Ocosingo and Palenque rising from less thatn 11,000 in 1920 to over 376,000 in 2000. These migrants came to the jungle area to clear forest and grow crops and raise livestock, especially cattle. Economic development in general raised the output of the state, especially in agriculture, but it had the effect of deforesting many areas, especially the Lacandon. Added to this was there was still serf like conditions for many workers and insufficient educational infrastructure. Population continued to increase faster than the economy could absorb There were some attempts to resettle peasant farmers onto non cultivated lands, but they were met with resistance. President Gustavo Díaz Ordaz awarded a land grant to the town of Venustiano Carranza in 1967, but that land was already being used by cattle-ranchers who refused to leave. The peasants tried to take over the land anyway, but when violence broke out, they were forcibly removed.

These events began to lead to political crises in the 1970s, with more frequent land invasions and takeovers of municipal halls. This was the beginning of a process that would lead to the emergence of the Zapatista movement in the 1990s. Another important factor to this movement would be the role of the Catholic Church from the 1960s to the 1980s. In 1960, Samuel Ruiz became the bishop of the Diocese of Chiapas, centered in San Cristóbal. He supported and worked with Marist priests and nuns following an ideology called liberation theology. In 1974, he organized a state wide "Indian Congress" with representatives from the Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal and Ch’ol peoples from 327 communities as well as Marists and the Maoist People's Union. This congress was the first of its kind with the goal of uniting the indigenous peoples politically. These efforts were also supported by leftist organizations from outside Mexico, especially to form unions of ejido organizations. These unions would later form the base of the EZLN organization. One reason for the Church's efforts to reach out to the indigenous population was that starting in the 1970s, a shift began from traditional Catholic affiliation to Protestant, Evangelical and other Christian sects.

The 1980s saw a large wave of refugees coming into the state from Central America as a number of these countries, especially Guatemala, were in the midst of violent political turmoil. The Chiapas/Guatemala border had been relatively porous with people traveling back and forth easily in the 19th and 20th centuries, much like the Mexico/U.S. border around the same time. This is in spite of tensions caused by Mexico's annexation of the Soconusco region in the 19th century. The border between Mexico and Guatemala had been traditionally poorly guarded, due to diplomatic considerations, lack of resources and pressure from landowners who need cheap labor sources.

The arrival of thousands of refugees from Central American stressed Mexico's relationship with Guatemala, at one point coming close to war as well as a politically destabilized Chiapas. Although Mexico is not a signatory to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, international pressure forced the government to grant official protection to at least some of the refugees. Camps were established in Chiapas and other southern states, and mostly housed Mayan peoples. However, most Central American refugees from that time never received any official status, estimated by church and charity groups at about half a million from El Salvador alone. The Mexican government resisted direct international intervention in the camps, but eventually relented somewhat because of finances. By 1984, there were 92 camps with 46,000 refugees in Chiapas, concentrated in three areas, mostly near the Guatemalan border. To make matters worse, the Guatemalan army conducted raids into camps on Mexican territories with significant casualties, terrifying the refugees and local populations. From within Mexico, refugees faced threats by local governments who threatened to deport them, legally or not, and local paramilitary groups funded by those worried about the political situation in Central American spilling over into the state. The official government response was to militarize the areas around the camps, which limited international access and migration into Mexico from Central America was restricted. By 1990, it was estimated that there were over 200,000 Guatemalans and half a million from El Salvador, almost all peasant farmers and most under age twenty.

In the 1980s, the politization of the indigenous and rural populations of the state began in the 1960s and 1970s continued. In 1980, several ejido (communal land organizations) joined to form the Union of Ejidal Unions and United Peasants of Chiapas, generally called the Union of Unions or UU. It had a membership of 12,000 families from over 180 communities. By 1988, this organization joined with other to form the ARIC-Union of Unions (ARIC-UU) and took over much of the Lacandon Jungle portion of the state. Most of the members of these organization were from Protestant and Evangelical sects as well as "Word of God" Catholics affliliated with the political movements of the Diocese of Chiapas. What they held in common was indigenous identity vis-à-vis the non-indigenous, using the old 19th century "caste war" word "Ladino" for them.

The adoption of neoliberalism by the Mexican federal government clashed with the leftist political ideals of these groups, especially as the reforms began to have negative economic effects on poor farmers, especially small-scale indigenous coffee growers. This would coalese into the Zapatista movement in the 1990s. Although the Zapatista movement couched its demands and cast is role in response to contemporary issues, especially in its opposition to neoliberalism, it is one of a long line of peasant and indigenous uprisings that have occurred in the state since the colonial era. This is reflected in its indigenous vs. Ladino character. However, the movement was an economic one as well. Although rich in resources, much of the local population of the state, especially in rural areas, did not benefit from this. In the 1990s, two thirds of the states residents did not have sewage service, only a third had electricity and half did not have potable water. Over half of the schools offered education only to the third grade and most dropped out by the end of first grade. These grievances, which were strongest in the San Cristóbal and Lacandon Jungle areas, were taken up by a small leftist guerrilla band led by a man called only "Subcomandante Marcos."

This small band, called the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN), came to the world’s attention when on January 1, 1994, the day the NAFTA treaty went into effect. On this day, EZLN forces occupied and took over the towns of San Cristobal de las Casas, Las Margaritas, Altamirano, Ocosingo and three others. They read their proclamation of revolt to the world and then laid siege to a nearby military base, capturing weapons and releasing many prisoners from the jails. This action followed previous protests in the state in opposition to neoliberal economic policies.

Although it has been estimated at having no more than 300 armed guerrilla members, the EZLN paralyzed the Mexican government as it could not afford the political risks of direct confrontation. The major reason for this was that the rebellion caught the attention of the national and world press, as Marcos made full use of the then new Internet to get the groups' message out, putting the spotlight on indigenous issues in Mexico in general. It was also actively supported by opposition press in Mexico City, especially La Jornada. However, these elements did provoke the rebellion to go national. Many blamed the unrest on infiltration of leftists among the large Central American refugee population in Chiapas, and the rebellion opened up splits in the countryside with those supporting and opposing EZLN. Zapatista sympathizers have included mostly Protestants and Word of God Catholics, versus those "traditionalist" Catholics who practiced a syncretic form of Catholicism and indigenous beliefs. This split had existed in Chiapas since the 1970s, with the latter group supported by the caciques and others in the traditional power structure. Protestants and Word of God Catholics (allied directly with the bisphoric in San Cristóbal) tended to oppose traditional power structures.

The reaction of the Bishop Samuel Ruiz and the Diocese of Chiapas was to offer to mediate between the rebels and authorities. However, because of this diocese’s activism since the 1960s, authorities accused the clergy of being involved with the rebels. There was some ambiguity about the relationship between Ruiz and Marcos and it was a constant feature of news coverage, with many in official circles using such to discredit Ruiz. Eventually, the activities of the Zapatistas began to worry the Roman Catholic Church in general and upstage the diocese’s attempts to re establish itself among Chiapan indigenous communities against Protestant evangelization. This would lead to a breach between the Church and the Zapatistas.

The Zapatista story remained in headlines for a number of years. One reason for this was the December 1997 massacure of forty-five Tzotzil pesants, mostly women and children in the Zapatista controlled village of Acteal in the Chenhaló municipality just north of San Cristóbal. This allowed many media outlets in Mexico to step up their criticisms of the government. However, the massacre was not done by the government but by other civilians, which shows how the Zapatista movement had divided indigenous groups.

Despite this, the armed conflict was brief, mostly because the Zapatistas did not try to gain traditional political power like many other guerilla movements. Its focus was more on trying to manipulate public opinion in order to obtain concessions from the government. This has linked the Zapatistas to other indigenous and identity-politics movements that arose in the late 20th century. The main concession that the group received was the San Andrés Accords, also known as the Law on Indian Rights and Culture. The Accords appear to grant certain indigenous zones autonomy, but this is against the Mexican constitution, so its legitimacy has been questioned. Zapatista declarations since the mid 1990s have called for a new constitution. To the present, the government has not found a solution to this problem. The revolt also pressed the government to institute anti poverty programs such as "Progresa" later called "Oportunidades" and the "Puebla-Panama Plan" aimed to increase trade between southern Mexico and Central America.

As of the late 2000s, the Zapatista movement remains popular in many indigenous communities. The uprising gave indigenous peoples a more active role in the state’s politics. However, it did not solve the economic issues that many peasant farmers face, especially the lack of land to cultivate. This problem has been at crisis proportions since the 1970s and the government's reaction was to encourage peasant farmers, mostly indigenous, to migrate into the sparsely populated Lacandon Jungle, a trend since earlier in the century.

From the 1970s on, some 100,000 people set up homes in this rainforest area, with many being recognized as ejidos, or communal land holding organizations. These migrants included Tzeltals, Tojolabals, Ch’ols and mestizos, mostly farming corn and beans and raising livestock. However, the government changed policies in the late 1980s with establishment of the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve as much of the Lacandon Jungle had been destroyed or severely damaged. While armed resistance had wound down, the Zapatistas have remained a strong political force, especially around San Cristóbal and the Lacandon Jungle, its traditional bases. Since the Accords, they have shifted focus in gaining autonomy for the communities they control.

Since the 1994 uprising, migration into the Lacandon Jungle has significantly increased including illegal settlements and cutting in the protected biosphere reserve. These actions are supported by the Zapatistas as part of indigenous rights, but it has put them in conflict with international environmental groups and the indigenous inhabitants of the rainforest area, the Lacandons. Environmental groups state that the settlements pose grave risks to what remains of the Lacandon, while the Zapatistas accuse them of being fronts for the government, who want to open the rainforest up to multinational corporations. Added to this is the possibililty that there are significant oil and gas deposits under this area as well.

The Zapatista movement has had some successes. The agricultural sector of the economy now favors ejidos and other commonly owned land. There have been some other gains economically as well. In the last decades of the 20th century, Chiapas' traditional agricultural economy has diversified somewhat with the construction of more roads and better infrastructure by the federal and state governments. At this time, tourism has become important in some areas of the state, especially in San Cristóbal de las Casas and Palenque. Its economy is important to Mexico as a whole as well, producing coffee, corn, cacao, tobacco, sugar, fruit, vegetable and honey for export. It is also a key state for the nation's petrochemical and hydroelectric industries. A significant percentage of PEMEX's drilling and refining is based in Chiapas and Tabasco, and fifty five percent of the nations hydroelectric energy is produced in Chiapas.

However, Chiapas remains one of the poorest states in Mexico. Ninety-four of its 111 municipalities have a large percentage of the population living in poverty. In areas such as Ocosingo, Altamirano and Las Margaritas, the towns where the Zapatistas first came into prominence in 1994, 48% of the adults are illiterate. Chiapas is still considered isolated and distant from the rest of Mexico, both culturally and geographically. It has significantly underdeveloped infrastructure compared to the rest of the country and its significant indigenous population with isolationist tendencies keep the state distinct culturally. Cultural stratification, neglect and lack of investment by the Mexican federal government has exacerbated this problem.