Critical Analysis of Article
Critical Analysis of Article
“The Emergence and Development of the Politics of Recognition of Cultural Diversity and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Mexico: Chiapas and Oaxaca in Comparative Perspective”
By author Alejandro Anaya Muñoz
In the article “The Emergence and Development of the Politics of Recognition of Cultural Diversity and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Mexico: Chiapas and Oaxaca in Comparative Perspective”, published in August of 2005, author Alejandro Anaya Muñoz explains the differentiated development of the politics of recognition by indigenous groups in the country of Mexico, but more specifically, as the title informs, in the states of Oaxaca and the state of Chiapas. In the article, Muñoz gives reasons and examples as to why both states in Mexico, although highly populated with many indigenous cultures, and are next to each other geographically, experienced different levels of political indigenous recognition over the past quarter of the 20th century. Muñoz follows a descriptive structure which supports his opinion that “the recognition agenda emerges in the context of armed conflict and / or legitimacy and governability crises, and evolves successfully when indigenous actors get access to the decision making process and form alliances with key political actors” (Muñoz, 585).
As I read Muñoz’s article it became quite evident that he raises a very interesting question regarding the difference between Chiapas and Oaxaca as both are states with highly indigenous populations in both absolute and relative terms and are both extremely poor. The question then, “why has the politics of recognition moved in on Oaxaca while it has lagged behind in Chiapas?” raises curiosity. It seems strange that one state would be able to successively join the political spectrum and achieve a manner of autonomy, while the other state so full of indigenous political and social movements could lag behind and be held out of the political sphere. Muñoz thoroughly does what he explains at the beginning of his article when he says he will lay out an “explanatory framework” of the reasons he believes why this situation can and did occur.
The article is broken into several key sections that describe and explain Muñoz’s question. By breaking up the article into several sub-headings that supported his thesis, I found the reading of this article rather easy to follow. It was very clear and by this means Muñoz was able to keep me interested and help me understand the questions he asked and allowed me to believe the answers he had for these questions. As opposed to other scholarly articles I have recently read, Muñoz stays on topic and follows a very clear pattern taking the reader through the article and presents a very clear argument. Not including the introduction and thesis, which I have just explained, the article is divided up into four key topics in order for Muñoz to prove his point.
The first section titled ‘Comparing the Politics of Recognition in Oaxaca and Chiapas’ goes into detail comparing the two states and explains to the reader the reasoning for the questions Muñoz has raised. Some initial background information towards some of the reforms and constitutional struggles both states have encountered in attempting to reach autonomy over the past few decades are also addressed. By comparing the extreme differences in political and social issues Muñoz was able to provide a better understanding of ‘indigenous laws’ and the differences between the two states in their success of achieving them. For example, both states were able to gain constitutional reforms regarding indigenous. Oaxaca was able to achieve a plethora of beneficial reforms where Chiapas did not. In fact, as Muñoz puts it “ an important element in this comparison is the degree of legitimacy obtained by the politics of recognition in Oaxaca and Chiapas” (590). Furthermore, he explains “the case of reforms in Chiapas is significantly different,” compared to that of Oaxaca, and “ the 1990 constitutional reform did not provide significant tangible or symbolic goods” (591). It is for this reason Muñoz explains why Chiapas began to see the rise of organized indigenous movements such as the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), also know as the Zapatistas.
In the second section titled, ‘Explaining the emergence and development of the politics of recognition,’ the article transitions nicely into how the development of constitutional reforms developed. According to Muñoz, in 1990, many Latin American countries were developing similar constitutional reforms. He explains “the scope and depth of these reforms, however, varies from one country to the next” (592). It is in this section where the author really begins to question the differences between the two states and how two similar states within one country can achieve such different developments. He suggests that, “the erosion of government legitimacy and the occurrence of governability crises are fundamental elements in the explanation of the emergence of recognition policies” (593). Within this section I found it interesting that Muñoz used another author in the text, and not just in the footnotes, as a reference for someone who has gone further in the studies of this topic and is not just stating something he believes. Rather, he has studied the topic and utilized various resources to prove and back up his point.
“Legitimacy and governability under strain” is the title of the third section and another good transition I noticed in the progression of his article. In this section Muñoz explains why the governments within the two states would be under strain and feel threatened. For example, “since the 1960s, Oaxaca has experienced repeated waves of social organization and mobilization. During the 1970s, this popular contestation was led by an alliance of students, workers and peasants, which resulted in the formation of different popular organizations that struggled for university autonomy, better wages and working conditions for industrial and agricultural workers, land redistribution and local democracy in different regions in the state” (594).
This was also the case for Chiapas but one of the differences that Muñoz points out is that Chiapas began to see the emergence of violent indigenous movements in order to combat against control and insufficient government policies enforced by the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), a dominating political party that was in control of Mexico for the better part of the century. Although Muñoz does not go into much detail about the history of the PRI he does mention them repeatedly and he does give the feeling it is this political party that has kept indigenous groups down and had really only benefited the elites of the country.
The violent movements led by the EZLN or Zapatistas had a powerful impact on its neighboring Oaxaca thereby declining the power the PRI held over each of the states. As Muñoz describes in the article this is where the two states begin to divide and show different levels of progression towards autonomy. “The response of the local PRI government and its allies was, in general terms, harsh repression” (595). The Chiapas indigenous could not compete with the ruling elite, and although through statistics in the political arena Muñoz shows some indigenous insurgence into ayuntamientos (municipal councils), Muñoz explains it was easier in Oaxaca because the municipalities were smaller but many more and were controlled by indigenous (603). However, in Chiapas, it was the opposite. Municipalities were bigger and fewer, often containing a few towns and cities that were not necessarily controlled by indigenous, but instead controlled by elites. Therefore, the PRI maintained absolute control in Chiapas whereas indigenous in Oaxaca began to see change and involvement in the political sphere.
Again the transition was nicely arranged for the fourth and final segment titled ‘Indigenous access to the decision-making process and the definition of alliances with relevant actors’. Muñoz shows this by explaining in Oaxaca political leaders had less direct political ties with the President, which allowed the indigenous to gain more political maneuverability. In Chiapas, the internal leaders within its state were more directly tied to the President and were unwilling to adopt severe indigenous reforms and laws. Therefore, in this chapter Muñoz shows that only in Oaxaca did indigenous actors manage to influence the decision making process and make alliances with state governors. In other words, by 1999 Oaxaca was able to achieve more satisfactory laws and rights because the indigenous within that state had fundamental support within the political sphere and were able to influence decision-making forces. In Chiapas, the indigenous did not have the support. What is strange, as Muñoz points out, is that Chiapas had many supporters but unfortunately they did not have fundamental key figures within government. Any supporters they had were considered few and on “the enemies’-side” (602). Therefore, “in general terms, the characteristics of the political-territorial structure made the establishment of indigenous autonomy at the municipal level more feasible and less problematic in Oaxaca than it would have been in Chiapas” (604).
All in all, I found this article to be really interesting. The structure by which it was laid out was clear and concise and the writing was fairly straightforward. I did find it frustrating at times as Muñoz listed quite a few acronyms and named several organized indigenous groups to which I have had no information about previously. Also, as someone who studies Latin America on a regular basis I have some background on Mexican politics but for someone who does not have previous information they might find the article rather confusing with the little history Muñoz provides. Clearly, the audience Muñoz writes for is an audience that has some previous background on the subject.
Although there were approximately thirty pages in this article, I did not find it to be lengthy at all. I found the length appropriate for Muñoz to ask his questions and fully explain his thesis. Also, at the end of the article Muñoz provides the reader with two charts showing the difference between the two states and the time difference by which each state addressed indigenous reforms. By doing this Muñoz provides an excellent visual for the reader to realize just how late Chiapas has addressed these issues despite the amount of indigenous people within the state. In fact, this was one of the reasons I chose the article. The topic is extremely recent and is still going on in these areas today. I am interested in researching further into the development of Chiapas and Oaxaca and Muñoz only increased my interest by giving a better understanding of why these two states within Mexico are in the circumstances they are in today.
Bibliography
Muñoz, Alejandro Anaya. “The Emergence and Development of the Politics of Recognition of Cultural Diversity and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Mexico: Chiapas and Oaxaca in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Latin American Studies Volume 37, Issue 03 (August 2005): 585 – 610. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=LAS&volumeld=37&issueld=03
tag: last301
“The Emergence and Development of the Politics of Recognition of Cultural Diversity and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Mexico: Chiapas and Oaxaca in Comparative Perspective”
By author Alejandro Anaya Muñoz
In the article “The Emergence and Development of the Politics of Recognition of Cultural Diversity and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Mexico: Chiapas and Oaxaca in Comparative Perspective”, published in August of 2005, author Alejandro Anaya Muñoz explains the differentiated development of the politics of recognition by indigenous groups in the country of Mexico, but more specifically, as the title informs, in the states of Oaxaca and the state of Chiapas. In the article, Muñoz gives reasons and examples as to why both states in Mexico, although highly populated with many indigenous cultures, and are next to each other geographically, experienced different levels of political indigenous recognition over the past quarter of the 20th century. Muñoz follows a descriptive structure which supports his opinion that “the recognition agenda emerges in the context of armed conflict and / or legitimacy and governability crises, and evolves successfully when indigenous actors get access to the decision making process and form alliances with key political actors” (Muñoz, 585).
As I read Muñoz’s article it became quite evident that he raises a very interesting question regarding the difference between Chiapas and Oaxaca as both are states with highly indigenous populations in both absolute and relative terms and are both extremely poor. The question then, “why has the politics of recognition moved in on Oaxaca while it has lagged behind in Chiapas?” raises curiosity. It seems strange that one state would be able to successively join the political spectrum and achieve a manner of autonomy, while the other state so full of indigenous political and social movements could lag behind and be held out of the political sphere. Muñoz thoroughly does what he explains at the beginning of his article when he says he will lay out an “explanatory framework” of the reasons he believes why this situation can and did occur.
The article is broken into several key sections that describe and explain Muñoz’s question. By breaking up the article into several sub-headings that supported his thesis, I found the reading of this article rather easy to follow. It was very clear and by this means Muñoz was able to keep me interested and help me understand the questions he asked and allowed me to believe the answers he had for these questions. As opposed to other scholarly articles I have recently read, Muñoz stays on topic and follows a very clear pattern taking the reader through the article and presents a very clear argument. Not including the introduction and thesis, which I have just explained, the article is divided up into four key topics in order for Muñoz to prove his point.
The first section titled ‘Comparing the Politics of Recognition in Oaxaca and Chiapas’ goes into detail comparing the two states and explains to the reader the reasoning for the questions Muñoz has raised. Some initial background information towards some of the reforms and constitutional struggles both states have encountered in attempting to reach autonomy over the past few decades are also addressed. By comparing the extreme differences in political and social issues Muñoz was able to provide a better understanding of ‘indigenous laws’ and the differences between the two states in their success of achieving them. For example, both states were able to gain constitutional reforms regarding indigenous. Oaxaca was able to achieve a plethora of beneficial reforms where Chiapas did not. In fact, as Muñoz puts it “ an important element in this comparison is the degree of legitimacy obtained by the politics of recognition in Oaxaca and Chiapas” (590). Furthermore, he explains “the case of reforms in Chiapas is significantly different,” compared to that of Oaxaca, and “ the 1990 constitutional reform did not provide significant tangible or symbolic goods” (591). It is for this reason Muñoz explains why Chiapas began to see the rise of organized indigenous movements such as the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), also know as the Zapatistas.
In the second section titled, ‘Explaining the emergence and development of the politics of recognition,’ the article transitions nicely into how the development of constitutional reforms developed. According to Muñoz, in 1990, many Latin American countries were developing similar constitutional reforms. He explains “the scope and depth of these reforms, however, varies from one country to the next” (592). It is in this section where the author really begins to question the differences between the two states and how two similar states within one country can achieve such different developments. He suggests that, “the erosion of government legitimacy and the occurrence of governability crises are fundamental elements in the explanation of the emergence of recognition policies” (593). Within this section I found it interesting that Muñoz used another author in the text, and not just in the footnotes, as a reference for someone who has gone further in the studies of this topic and is not just stating something he believes. Rather, he has studied the topic and utilized various resources to prove and back up his point.
“Legitimacy and governability under strain” is the title of the third section and another good transition I noticed in the progression of his article. In this section Muñoz explains why the governments within the two states would be under strain and feel threatened. For example, “since the 1960s, Oaxaca has experienced repeated waves of social organization and mobilization. During the 1970s, this popular contestation was led by an alliance of students, workers and peasants, which resulted in the formation of different popular organizations that struggled for university autonomy, better wages and working conditions for industrial and agricultural workers, land redistribution and local democracy in different regions in the state” (594).
This was also the case for Chiapas but one of the differences that Muñoz points out is that Chiapas began to see the emergence of violent indigenous movements in order to combat against control and insufficient government policies enforced by the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), a dominating political party that was in control of Mexico for the better part of the century. Although Muñoz does not go into much detail about the history of the PRI he does mention them repeatedly and he does give the feeling it is this political party that has kept indigenous groups down and had really only benefited the elites of the country.
The violent movements led by the EZLN or Zapatistas had a powerful impact on its neighboring Oaxaca thereby declining the power the PRI held over each of the states. As Muñoz describes in the article this is where the two states begin to divide and show different levels of progression towards autonomy. “The response of the local PRI government and its allies was, in general terms, harsh repression” (595). The Chiapas indigenous could not compete with the ruling elite, and although through statistics in the political arena Muñoz shows some indigenous insurgence into ayuntamientos (municipal councils), Muñoz explains it was easier in Oaxaca because the municipalities were smaller but many more and were controlled by indigenous (603). However, in Chiapas, it was the opposite. Municipalities were bigger and fewer, often containing a few towns and cities that were not necessarily controlled by indigenous, but instead controlled by elites. Therefore, the PRI maintained absolute control in Chiapas whereas indigenous in Oaxaca began to see change and involvement in the political sphere.
Again the transition was nicely arranged for the fourth and final segment titled ‘Indigenous access to the decision-making process and the definition of alliances with relevant actors’. Muñoz shows this by explaining in Oaxaca political leaders had less direct political ties with the President, which allowed the indigenous to gain more political maneuverability. In Chiapas, the internal leaders within its state were more directly tied to the President and were unwilling to adopt severe indigenous reforms and laws. Therefore, in this chapter Muñoz shows that only in Oaxaca did indigenous actors manage to influence the decision making process and make alliances with state governors. In other words, by 1999 Oaxaca was able to achieve more satisfactory laws and rights because the indigenous within that state had fundamental support within the political sphere and were able to influence decision-making forces. In Chiapas, the indigenous did not have the support. What is strange, as Muñoz points out, is that Chiapas had many supporters but unfortunately they did not have fundamental key figures within government. Any supporters they had were considered few and on “the enemies’-side” (602). Therefore, “in general terms, the characteristics of the political-territorial structure made the establishment of indigenous autonomy at the municipal level more feasible and less problematic in Oaxaca than it would have been in Chiapas” (604).
All in all, I found this article to be really interesting. The structure by which it was laid out was clear and concise and the writing was fairly straightforward. I did find it frustrating at times as Muñoz listed quite a few acronyms and named several organized indigenous groups to which I have had no information about previously. Also, as someone who studies Latin America on a regular basis I have some background on Mexican politics but for someone who does not have previous information they might find the article rather confusing with the little history Muñoz provides. Clearly, the audience Muñoz writes for is an audience that has some previous background on the subject.
Although there were approximately thirty pages in this article, I did not find it to be lengthy at all. I found the length appropriate for Muñoz to ask his questions and fully explain his thesis. Also, at the end of the article Muñoz provides the reader with two charts showing the difference between the two states and the time difference by which each state addressed indigenous reforms. By doing this Muñoz provides an excellent visual for the reader to realize just how late Chiapas has addressed these issues despite the amount of indigenous people within the state. In fact, this was one of the reasons I chose the article. The topic is extremely recent and is still going on in these areas today. I am interested in researching further into the development of Chiapas and Oaxaca and Muñoz only increased my interest by giving a better understanding of why these two states within Mexico are in the circumstances they are in today.
Bibliography
Muñoz, Alejandro Anaya. “The Emergence and Development of the Politics of Recognition of Cultural Diversity and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Mexico: Chiapas and Oaxaca in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Latin American Studies Volume 37, Issue 03 (August 2005): 585 – 610. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=LAS&volumeld=37&issueld=03
tag: last301
posted by Rhett at 3:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home