By Enrique Pineda
The following essay, written at the beginning of 2006 by the sociologist Enrique Pineda, on the Other Campaign initiated by the EZLN, is enlightening in order to understand some of the most important aspects of the debate that began among the Mexican left as a result of the "Alert Roja ”declared in June 2005 by the EZLN itself.
Today the other campaign is starting. An unprecedented process for which we will need an exhaustive debate from the left to face its challenges, its limits and its potentialities. The other campaign is the vehicle to link the resistance and the dangers that lie in wait are many. Some of them are the myths that movements, intellectual voices and organizations have generated. We must shake off the myths and exorcise the demons that we saw at work in the past months. Today the discussion has lowered its tone. It is perhaps the moment to overcome the shouts and openly face the debate in order to move forward. I present here six discussions that from my point of view are mere pamphlets, but nevertheless cloud the deep discussion about the steps of the left and of the anti-systemic movements.
Myth 1. The Zapatista position divides the left.
It is the most recurrent myth and therefore the one we will focus on the most. Scandalized by the Zapatista criticisms, many voices are tearing their clothes, especially in the face of criticism of the candidate of the Party of the Democratic Revolution. It is a myth, because it is argued that the left is divided with the Zapatista position, as if the party and movements had been united all these years! The division of the left and, especially the division between party and movements is a trend - some of us think irreversible - that is part of the systemic crisis of the representation apparatuses and of the gradual and progressive decomposition of the political classes all in practically all of the world. planet.
The division between party and movements is a trend that has accelerated at least in the last eight years in Mexico under the following fractures:
a) an organic fracture, in which the partisan left was absorbed by institutions, corruption, tribalism, pragmatism, chambism and patronage. The majority of the population does not feel close to these practices, but neither do many movements and organizations that we will talk about later.
b) an ideological-tactical fracture. The PRD left the streets and with it, the struggles and movements continued on our way ... without them. With his chaotic performance in the university student movement at UNAM he distanced himself from thousands of left-wing youth; it practically dissolved ties with movements that fight for sexual diversity; he distanced himself from the indigenous movement by passing a law that does not comply with the San Andrés Accords. Its action on issues such as the new alter-world mobilizations and all issues of solidarity and global action is practically non-existent: from Palestine to Venezuela, from indigenous rights to the repression of social organizations, the left-wing party makes a lot of noise but there are few nuts in the street, in information, in solidarity, in politicization or in the accompaniment of the struggles below that try to build a different country.
The PRD and its currents, sure that today the struggle is from the power, the congress and the governments, abandoned the streets and with it to the struggles below. But even there there is a third fracture, a programmatic one.
c) In its legislative action and in its acting as a government there are beginning to be more prietitos than rice: as we have already said, they approved that spurious law that made Zapatismo definitively break with the political class; At that time - supposedly just a tactical error - we realized how it was necessary to have a parliamentary left that would make it possible for the voice from below to enter Congress, but we also realized its uselessness if you speak as the left but vote as the right. In addition, they continue to have "tactical" errors, as they themselves explain when approving, for example, the biosafety law better known as the Monsanto Law, which further opens up the possibility of the transgenic invasion in our country and delivers what remains of the Mexican countryside. to multinationals. Without this being enough, the leftist candidate himself sabotaged the approval of the Law of Coexistence Societies in the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District, which would have opened the possibility of better living and legal conditions for a part of the population, including those with a sexuality other than heterosexual. Three laws, three moves, three tactical errors, three fractures. But there is more. Being a government, the PRD did not promote citizen or popular organization. In Mexico City, it proposed policies frankly identified with the right as “zero tolerance” and favored private initiative over citizens in cultural matters. The City Government leaned toward conservative positions on issues such as the regulation of marches and protests, and its current candidate even wanted to prohibit massive electronic festivals. These positions are not only not leftist, not even liberal. Signs of division are the growing programmatic fracture that the action of the institutional left has meant in Congress and in the City Government. Wanting to favor an alliance with the factual powers in Mexico City, numerous actions were carried out to approach various sectors of power, disguised as government programs. That is one of the main divisive issues on the left and it is a strategic-ethical fracture with the movements.
d) While the other campaign proposes building below and to the left, the partisan left seems to be trying to convince us that its proposal is above and to the right. All the signals from the candidate and the main leaders of his party try not to organize, mobilize, politicize below and to the left, but to negotiate, ally, agree with the powers that be, those who precisely prevent the construction of a more just Mexico , free and democratic. The program of the Government of Mexico City allowed to generate the approval of several economic sectors: the business sector of entertainment, which with the concession of the zócalo and the endorsement of the operating permit of the Sports City increased its profits and its influence on the Federal District, to the detriment of independent cultural and artistic organization and weakening cultural spaces outside the market. The construction business sector, which with the enormous impulse of the State for the generation of road works benefited from multiple contracts that extend beyond the six-year Government of the City. That of the tourism business sector, which with the Historic Center project also signed a long-term alliance, which allows greater profits for the private sector by expelling the poor from the first group. The business sector of commerce, but not just any commerce, but that of large transnational companies such as Wal Mart, which, according to the City Government's own data, is the one that receives the greatest amount of purchases with electronic cards with which the City government favored the elderly and single mothers. The imposition (because that was) of the business candidate in the State of Mexico by the presidential candidate only confirms the strategy of trying to win support and alliances with that sector. The Robles-Ahumada affair is a good symbol of the "intimate" closeness of the political class and the "progressive" businessmen that confirm the growing tendency in that party to achieve its alliance above and to the right.
The numerous invitations, collaborations and articulations with television companies (especially Televisa) in innumerable events, inaugurations, coordination and joint actions were part of that same strategy. The fact that the candidate spoke of submitting the rights of the gay lesbian community to a referendum, or keeping silent on issues such as abortion or euthanasia, were nice concessions to the Church to win, if not its support, at least its approval on the way to the presidency .
Many party leaders and intellectuals are not surprised or condemned by this open and uncompromising alliance. In fact they approve it and rate it "modern." All of them forget that for someone to win excessively it is necessary for someone to lose excessively. Who wins and who loses with the Government of Mexico City? The hoteliers, entertainment entrepreneurs, construction companies, transnational commercial companies and even the church win. They lose, those who always lose with those projects: artists and cultural workers, street vendors, the poor downtown, small merchants who cannot compete with Wal Mart, the gay movement. Meanwhile, the candidate is being applauded for handing out electronic cards. The main allies of the candidate of the poor are the mega urban investment projects that ensure maximum returns to the elite while distributing some state resources to those below. Stability and confidence above, stability and support below. A whole strategy.
With the institutional left there are four fractures, four estrangements, the organic, the tactical, the programmatic, and the strategic. The Party of the Democratic Revolution was left without a revolution and without democracy and what was left was the party. The division has long been in order. We have nothing to do with a huge segment of the movements with “ESA left”. What Zapatismo does, as it has done many times, is to unveil, reveal, say what they see and confirm what many of us have been saying. The left is no longer there, not because of an abstract ideological classification, (in which many intellectuals lose themselves) but because of the clarity of its actions, its deformations, its strategy, its vices and its limits. Its history and its practices, then. The division of the left is not in a communiqué signed by Subcomandante Marcos but in a historical process of decomposition of that party. The problem, ergo, is not the Zapatista position, but the four tendencies of rupture that we have indicated.
Myth 2. Marcos or Andrés Manuel? To vote or not to vote?
Someone said "To vote or not to vote that is not the question." The debate is absurd and it is also a myth. The EZLN has made its position clear: it is not calling for abstentionism, but neither for voting. It is also absurd, because nobody can prevent someone from voting. The movements and the left that seek an answer for their vote should not look for it in the EZLN or in the other campaign, they should seek it by analyzing and weighing the actions of the institutional left, they should assess what they lose if the PRI returns to their municipality or to their mayor's office. . In many cases the PRI will return anyway because he will be a candidate for the PRD, in some not. The movements should think about whether their vote really contains the right or not, because in many cases their candidate for governor will be of questionable extraction, for example, a former Foxista official, as the PRD has already offered in Guanajuato, but also in unintelligible alliances that They can only be understood with a good injection of pragmatism and a few principles (Hidalgo, Oaxaca and even the State of Mexico). To vote or not to vote is the decision of each situation.
Some of us have decided not to vote for a party that passes spurious indigenous laws, monsanto laws, distributes milk with feces, frauds "progressive" businessmen, or promotes zero tolerance. We have also decided not to vote for any other. That is our decision, because we do not see how to build in THAT way of doing politics, or build resistance and alternatives with that party, or the trends that we have described. We do not deny the political, we refuse to participate in THAT politics. That is our decision. Ah. And we do not ask the rest to follow us but to respect the decision we have made.
Many more will have to take it. In some cases you will have to cast your vote holding your nose, in others there may be some nuance, in others it may not even be worth it. What is relevant in the discussion between “Marcos and Andrés Manuel” is not the direction of the vote, but the strategy of our organizations, of our resistance, of our individualities. Where and with whom do we want to build? Why? Where? For what? The important thing is not the affective relations with Zapatismo and the pragmatic-electoral relations.
The problem is not whether we vote or not. The problem is to believe that in the election the structural future of Mexico is decided and to believe that the election is the quintessence of change. Believing that the partisan is the only possible strategy, the useful one, the one that is worth, the one that serves. There are other strategies, other ways, other ways, something else that is being built all over the planet and also in Mexico. The Sixth Declaration invites us to look at that other thing so that we can then ask ourselves far-reaching questions.
In what strategy do we want to be, support, consolidate, adhere, add, build? Where do we want to put our strength, no matter how small? Where our imagination and our creativity? Where do we influence more? Where do we put our hands and our struggles? That is a strategic decision. The vote in this election can be a tactic to contain certain policies or certain characters, in some places and in some situations, but nothing to go out on the street to celebrate the victory, because we will not have won anything.
They can, as Subcomandante Marcos himself says, vote or not vote, for one or the other, ally or negotiate. That is not what is important, but where we put our strategic strength for the following years and what policy we do. Some of us have no doubt, it is below and to the left, it is with Zapatismo. In short, the discussion in recent months is not a piece of paper in the ballot box, it is the strategic discussion of construction of resistance and alternatives.
Myth 3. The Zapatista position plays the game to the right.
This is a self-referential position. The movements believe that their criticism or the debate will make the candidate lose and therefore "this is not the moment." This is a good myth. Elections today do not depend on the critical position of an intellectual in a progressive newspaper or on whether some organization or grassroots movement takes away or gives his vote to the institutional left. Generally, the left movements have come out to vote in the last elections and that has not made a significant difference to tilt the election in their favor. The PRD knows it, the candidate knows it, the powers that be know it. But the movements seem not. The presidential election depends more on the media, on the money that the campaign has (which by the way, even if the candidate says no, today with the alliance with the small parties, the candidate has almost the same resources as the PRI). It depends on the approval of the business sectors, it depends on the church, it depends on the clientelistic apparatus and above all it depends on a trend of public opinion that has been building for years. If Andrés Manuel López Obrador is at the top in the polls, it is because he has been campaigning for years (although before they “left him for dead”). If Andrés Manuel goes ahead, it is because he had a media exposure of more than 1000 consecutive days. Not because a popular movement that the candidate leads has been built below, because when one began to be generated, it was demobilized and disorganized. Do not confuse a movement with popularity. The current president is the best example of this.
There is a paradox here: while the movements and the organizations debate and shudder to give the candidate their vote, he does not flinch. He and his party seek the detachments of the PAN and the PRI, they seek the most comfortable positions for the private sector, they seek the approval of Washington, they seek to see themselves moderate enough, sorry, modern, to win over the middle classes and economic power. . That is, they look for those who will determine the choice.
The strength of the movements is not electoral, their strategic strength is in the street, in the organization, in the alternatives that are already being built throughout the country, still weak, but that are an indication that there is something else, other ways , other forms. Don't worry because we criticize the fish. When the yellow squares are empty, when all the votes are counted, the movements will continue, and there will be the other campaign. That's when you have to start worrying.
Myth 4. Andrés Manuel is our Evo.
In this, the apologist followers of the candidate have blown the wall. It's another myth. Anyone who knows the Latin American reality a little knows that the comparison is completely exaggerated, (and not only because of Evo but also because of the enormous Bolivian indigenous movement) but it inserts us in a relevant discussion. Does the economic power oppose the rule of Andrés Manuel as with Evo? In other words, is there an opposition from power to the governing of the institutional left? The majority would answer that this is the case and that the issue of lawlessness makes it more than evident. We would say that this means that the economic power, the State and the political power are a homogeneous block and such a thing from our point of view does not exist.
In Mexico, what has happened is what someone called the piñatización of power: once the political apparatus lost the cohesion that the hierarchical and patronage pyramidal system gave it anchored in the president, like a broken piñata, power is distributed among the political class, through a fierce struggle to reach parcels or segments of that previously more homogeneous and centralized power. Like children after fruits and sweets, the political class throws themselves to the ground to achieve something, whatever it may be, whatever the cost. It is the spectacle that we can see since Vicente Fox's six-year term began and that has not ended yet. Therefore, the dispute between parties and within parties is overwhelming. The rest of the political class - it is obvious - opposes the PRD Tabasco. It is a dispute of power, not of projects. There is no hegemonic ruling group, but this election is the opportunity for a new dominant group to form. That is why the fight is between the political class, but behind the noise over the piñata there is no intense dispute over economic interests. These are practically insured. The economic powers smile at each other, because whoever wins, the structure of the system that ensures the interests of those powers will be respected. Whoever wins, even the candidate on the left. The real economic powers do not give a damn if someone wants to distribute electronic cards throughout the republic or open high schools in each neighborhood as long as it is not with their money, which is exactly what happened in Mexico City. The dominant economic interests were not only not affected in the Federal District Government but were openly promoted and favored. A part of the economic power has already given its approval to the candidate. Another part is uncomfortable and another part will organize to prevent it.
Why if bankers, consulting firms, business chambers, and even Washington have declared that they are open to a possible leftist government and do not see it with bad eyes, the followers of the candidate speak of the conspiracies of the right and that almost Washington trembles to the to think that amlo is president?
Why do the Standard & Poor's consulting firms and the Mexican Bank Association declare that Amlo is not Chávez and there is no economic risk? Could it be because there isn't? Why is Washington eager and ready to work with a leftist Mexican government? Could it be because there is no risk for Washington either? But best of all, why, when the candidate is asked if he is the equivalent of Hugo Chávez, not only does he not evade the answer, but he claims to be more like Felipe González or Ricardo Lagos? Is it because it is?
V. Andrés Manuel is the only one who assures a turn of neoliberalism
With the tendencies of rupture with the institutional left that we have described, with the electoral limits that we have raised, with the little incidence of the movements in the candidate's strategy, it should be enough to have a critical position or at least, to doubt a little. However, the sixth myth talks a bit about voting for the least worst. It is a position that recognizes the limits of PRD and even the candidate. But he is still confident that the Tabasco is less worse than his competitors. He is the only one who is not neoliberal, they tell us.
Here you have to try to make an analysis a little more strict and less local. The context in which the Tabasco's candidacy unfolds is a global conjuncture where neoliberal technocrats have lost popularity. The Menem, the Salinas, the Toledo, and even the Fox have lost room for maneuver, repudiated by different layers of the peoples. Even within the IMF and the World Bank there is no longer a consensus on “speed” and intensity on how to push through neoliberal structural reforms. And is not for less. After the golden decade of the neoliberals - during the 80s and 90s - a wave of antisystemic movements grew in all latitudes. Thus arose in Seattle and Genoa an unprecedented movement that paralyzed the meetings of the powerful and later became a broad movement against the war. In Latin America, the neoliberal ravages caused its effects and caused people to start voting for the left. Uruguay and Brazil are the best examples of this. Venezuela, tired of a political class collapsed in itself, voted for a strange but popular candidate who turned out to be more radical than many expected. But even more, in Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina movements, rebellions, almost insurrections arose that devastated presidents and political classes. To the chant of "let everyone go" the power below like a cyclone wiped out almost everything. And we say almost everything because the insurrections, especially those in Ecuador and Argentina, did not manage to articulate an alternative that would allow not all of them to return.
We can affirm that, despite ebbs, limits and obstacles, in the last 6 years we have lived an ascending stage of antisystemic movements. A stage that at times seems to reach insurrectional levels, to later return to calm. For global powers, including the United States, this has not gone unnoticed. From CIA documents to far-right television broadcasts, they clearly recognize the enemy and call them by name: Zapatistas, piqueteros, landless. The destabilizing potential is in the Indian peoples, the peasant movements, the alter-world protests.
This crest of rebellions is indeed dangerous for the system as a whole. That is why they have begun to speak much more about the attack on poverty, about funds for poor countries, about canceling debts, about slowing down structural reforms. Let's be clear: to give concessions that make it possible to return to stability. Among those concessions, sometimes uncomfortable, others reluctantly, most preferable for global power, is that of living with moderate left governments that do not affect the structure or the general dynamics of the system. And with that we return to Andrés Manuel.
In an interview on Televisa, the candidate, when making his speech, turned to the camera and made a call to understand that what we need in Mexico is to strengthen institutions, the State, and, of course, governance. Hence his motto is explained, for the good of all, the poor first. It was a burning call to understand that his candidacy represents stability for those above, but even more important: stability below. The message is clear and it was not for the poor, it was for the powers that be, it was for the economic power. The mixed message was: you need me. I am the only one who guarantees stability below. For your own good, to ensure your interests, I am the candidate who represents the legitimacy and stabilization of the political system without meaning the transformation of the economic system. You need me to calm your spirits. For the good of all, the poor first. That explains their entire strategy. And that is why, from our point of view, as Subcomandante Marcos says, Andresito, it is the serpent's egg.
Hence their positions on the structural order in Mexico: “it should be made clear that it would not be sensible to alter the macroeconomic order: there must be discipline in the management of inflation, the public deficit, and internal and external debts, as well as maintaining stability in other variables ".
Hence his oscillating position on energy, from a business meeting where he generally says no to privatization to his alternative nation project where he specifically says that “but we should not rule out that national investors, through transparent mechanisms of association between the public and private sector, participate in the expansion and modernization of the energy sector or related activities ”.
That is why when he goes to Hidalgo, he says "I make the commitment to REVIEW the MEXE", be careful, he agrees to review it, not solve it. That is why when he goes to Guerrero, he supports the La Parota megaproject, causing the confusion of his followers and the anger of a few. That is why it supports the Isthmus of Tehuantepec communication project, strategic for US interests. That is why he supports the Army to continue carrying out police tasks, including the fight against drug trafficking.
Of course we are afraid that PRIism will return, -although at this point they are not scary, but laughter, but hey- but when we are told that Andrés Manuel is less worse or that he assures a turn from neoliberalism, the least we can do is doubt.
And we doubt more when he says "the party has no owners: open the door to the militants of the PRI and the PAN" not because we doubt that there are among the bases of those voting parties and even some honest militants but because when he speaks of "opening" the The party to the PRI and the PAN is not talking about the rank and file, but about detachments from the leaderships and intermediate sectors of those parties. That is why its operators are Camacho and his candidate in the city in Ebrard: they ensure PRI detachments and a greater flow of votes. But what is wrong? - the voices of defense shout hastily - if the PRD is born from a detachment from the PRI. Well, we explain. When these detachments are not programmatic but pragmatic, the alliance occurs in terms of exchange. Usabiaga in Guanajuato, or Polevnsky can bring more votes but they also bring with them certain concessions: spaces, positions, positions for their teams and their currents. For Lula to win in Brazil, the PT had to ally with the Brazilian right center. The alliance was not gratuitous - like none, electoral type. The center-right wanted posts, offices, and councils that represent an obstacle to advancing in a more radical program of social reforms. The candidate can seek votes wherever he wants, but those votes mean ever greater commitments and concessions to his allies, be they detachments from the PAN or the PRI, be they business sectors, be they ecclesial sectors. It seems that Andrés is not only looking for votes anywhere, but he is also forming a new dominant group, one where the most critical currents of his party are not present, one where its operators are of PRI extraction, one where the movements have no impact , one that receives the approval of the powers that be. One that, in addition to having legitimacy with the votes, achieves the pact with the economic power and achieves through co-option through the State and policies made up as left-wing, stabilize the claims from below, subsume the movements and thus achieve stabilization to the system as a whole without requiring radical transformations: Drum roll!
Therefore, the myth about Andrés Manuel, about his leadership and his positions, are the main obstacle to achieving a strategic balance of the movements. Is Andrés Manuel the least bad? At the very least, the movements should hesitate a little and not bet everything on that great myth that the candidate has become and think and imagine what is going to happen after July 6. The probability that the candidate will win is enormous and we do not believe that the royal powers will get in the way. It is likely that the die is cast and that there is a growing possibility that we will witness six years of everything changing so that everything remains the same, but with a difference: those below and perhaps the movements applaud this cosmetic change. The disbandment of the movements will be almost imminent. We would only see the preamble to a dark period of demobilization, disorganization and depoliticization. Strengthening the State, and not the struggles, the institutions and not the alternatives that are built below. That prospect is terrifying too. But there is a voice that said NO. Es la hora sexta.
Mito 6. La otra campaña es un babel sin futuro
Llegamos así al último mito. La otra campaña fracasará por su diversidad, o bien por su utopismo. A mucha gente le parece incomprensible porqué hacer ahora la Sexta Declaración de la Selva Lacandona (impertinentes) y a otros les parece que los zapatistas tardaron en hacer la propuesta (nos ningunearon). La Sexta desde nuestro punto de vista se empezó a fraguar desde el regreso de la Marcha del color de la Tierra al sureste mexicano. El zapatismo primero impulsó un repliegue importante que lo obligó a centrarse en el trabajo interno que dio como resultado una de las propuestas más avanzadas en el planeta de autonomía y autogestión indígenas.
La Sexta viene cuando pudo y tenía que venir: después de rearticular el proceso autonómico y autogestivo. Primero lo primero pero faltaba lo que faltaba: el desenlace del desafuero. La culminación del proceso contra Andrés Manuel catalizó y aceleró lo que era ya una decisión desde hace años en el zapatismo. El tabasqueño envió a todos a su casa simplemente porque ya no los necesitaba. Se confirmaba su tendencia demagógica de movilizar a la gente cuando sus intereses están en peligro (como su candidatura en el 88, como su candidatura en el 94, como su candidatura en el 2000, como su candidatura en el 2006, todas con enormes movilizaciones…alrededor de él) y desmovilizarla cuando tiene de nuevo la dirección política asegurada. Esperar a que el desafuero se conjurara o se llevara adelante –me parece- tuvo que ser una decisión sensata para tomar el siguiente paso. Y lo tomaron.
Pero lo más importante de todos es que la Sexta viene en otro momento político. Algunos intelectuales, -que no se cansan en decirnos que vamos mal, pero pocos hacen algo para bajar de las alturas de sus cubículos para intentar hacerlo bien- auguran los peligros que siempre tenemos presentes: que si de algún modo las otras declaraciones de la Selva fracasaron, esta volverá a hacerlo. Tal vez si, pero tal vez no. (ojalá y esas voces fueran tan críticas con el poder y con el candidato, como lo son ahora con el zapatismo)
Y el tal vez no, se basa no en un utopismo abstracto. Se basa en que a diferencia de los 90, y a diferencia de cuando los zapatistas regresaron a construir sus caracoles, en estos cuatro años han empezado a surgir nuevos movimientos y sujetos sociales o bien, se han reactivado segmentos de los movimientos tradicionales. La Sexta Declaración reconoce a todos. Así como hay un cambio, débil e incipiente, pero un cambio en la correlación de fuerzas en Latinoamérica y en los movimientos globales, hay una lenta y progresiva oleada de movimientos antisistémicos en México. Yo los agrupo en cuatro tendencias: a) movimientos de base en el sector de los trabajadores (como en el IMSS) y dirigencias progresistas radicalizadas (como en el SME); b) un pequeño movimiento estudiantil y juvenil que de formas de protesta universitaria han transitado a proyectos de organizativos permanentes, con nuevas formas de organización, más horizontales, festivas y permanentes que van desde ocupaciones y cafés autónomos, hasta centros libertarios y radios libres. (desde radio Bemba en Sonora hasta Radio Plantón en Oaxaca, desde Toma las calles en Chiapas hasta el Chanti Ollín en la Ciudad de México) c) un movimiento campesino reactivado y recargado, que con muchas contradicciones y limitaciones también hoy lo vemos luchando y resistiendo (el campo no aguanta más) y d) una constelación de luchas locales –campesinas e indígenas- que defienden sus recursos y territorios. Una multiplicidad de microresistencias que poco a poco va tratando de tejer una red de resistencias locales (como la Parota o Xochistlahuaca y mucha más).
La diferencia de la Sexta Declaración y la otra campaña no son los zapatistas, sino los movimientos y los sujetos sociales, que junto con el zapatismo y el movimiento indígena podemos empezar a construir un enorme movimiento hacia el mañana.
La otra campaña no es, ni de lejos, una ocurrencia, un berrinche, un manotazo sectario. La otra campaña y la sexta son una propuesta estratégica, de largo aliento, que también actúa en la coyuntura. Una propuesta con debilidades y limitaciones, cierto. Incierta, también es cierto. Pero una estrategia que se basa en algunos parámetros que algunos consideramos, insoslayables:
1–La otra campaña permitirá visibilizar las resistencias, los otros modos, las otras formas. Es en realidad de nuevo, hacer política alrevés: mientras las plazas se llenan de colores partidarios la otra campaña, demostrará que hay múltiples y diversas resistencias. Mientras las banderas y las matracas se agitan la otra campaña hará visible una radio comunitaria aquí, los presos políticos allá. Se harán visibles los que no lo son: los pueblos indios, los jóvenes, los campesinos, las mujeres. Una forma de autonomía aquí, una resistencia obrera allá. Veremos la diversidad pero también la vastedad del movimiento, o mejor dicho de los movimientos.
2–La otra campaña permitirá también comenzar a identificar lo que por años parecía haber sido una sociedad civil amorfa y fluctuante. Miles hemos participado en ese movimiento no tradicional alrededor del zapatismo que en un lento proceso empezará a tomar la forma de un movimiento de movimientos incluyendo a un nuevo zapatismo civil.
3–La otra campaña permitirá la articulación de un segmento importante de los movimientos, asegurando que las luchas y los movimientos trabajemos en el largo plazo, después de la elección, pase lo que pase en ella.
4–La otra campaña permitirá articular a un segmento importante de los movimientos no con una acción o evento coyuntural o bien con una sola forma organizativa sino con un programa que sirva de crisol para las resistencias. El zapatismo intentó todo lo anterior, esta vez intentaremos la construcción del programa nacional de lucha.
5–La otra campaña invierte la relación política tradicional para construir lo que se supone que queremos. En la política tradicional, el votante es objeto, es número adherente de una propuesta construida de antemano. En la otra campaña el participante es sujeto activo en la construcción. Por eso es importante escuchar y no sólo hablar, porque de alguna manera traslada la construcción del programa a las voces de abajo.
6–La otra campaña será un esfuerzo organizativo múltiple y de diversas dimensiones: nos podremos articular en lo local, lo nacional y hasta lo internacional. Se podrá construir un nuevo zapatismo civil, se podrán generar alianzas con el zapatismo, movilizará desde abajo nuestra imaginación y nuestro trabajo. Será un momento de movilización, de comunicación y de organización como nunca desde hace mucho.
7–La Sexta declaración abre una discusión compleja y estratégica pero esencial si los movimientos queremos dar el siguiente paso sobre nuevas formas de hacer política, programa nacional de lucha, anticapitalismo y nueva constituyente.
La Sexta Declaración, desde nuestra opinión, es una iniciativa estratégica que trata de comenzar a construir una correlación de fuerzas distinta que en los próximos años nos permita avanzar hacia el nuevo constituyente. No es una propuesta legaloide o estatalista, es un horizonte de lucha en donde muchos movimientos se enmarcan. Es una propuesta que ya ha empezado a caminar. ¿puede fracasar?
Of course. Los nuevos movimientos antisistémicos sabemos que la historia no está escrita y que lo infalible no existe como en su momento quisieron que lo creyéramos la izquierda tradicional.
¿La otra campaña, la sexta declaración, el zapatismo tienen errores, límites o vacíos? Of course. Pero es ahí donde muchos hemos decidido construir, es ahí donde hemos decidido ver hacia el mañana. La otra campaña es un babel, pero estamos intentando buscar a los traductores. ¿La otra campaña no tiene futuro? Eso, hermanos y hermanas, esta por verse.
El sociólogo Enrique Pineda es obviamente adherente de la otra campaña.
* Enrique Pineda
Jóvenes en Resistencia Alternativa