Democratization and the Indigenous Languages of Mexico and Venezuela Research Paper

Introduction

The democratization process in Latin America has determined in all almost nations some form of recognition of the indigenous people, with their culture, traditions and languages. The differences among the nations are still quite big though. When it comes to official status of the indigenous languages and access to bilingual education, nations like Venezuela seem to have achieved very good results, while for example in Mexico, the preservation of the indigenous languages has been less successful.

This is interesting since the indigenous population in Venezuela constitutes only 2 per cent of the total, while 14 per cent of the Mexican population is indigenous. To understand the reasons behind this difference, we propose to outline the recent history of these two countries and compare how the rise of indigenous movements has promoted indigenous culture and languages.

In all countries of Latin America, intellectuals of indigenous background and leaders of the new formed indigenous organizations started to question the general acceptable interpretation of the historical and cultural roots of their nations, affirming their rights to their ancestral lands and cultures and called for formal recognition of the multiethnic, pluricultural, and multilingual nature of Latin American societies.

Warning of these groups was clear that policy makers needed to be wise and take up the initiatives of putting into consideration their claims of official recognition, human rights, and participation largely as distinct people with their own identities and cultures in national politics and decision-making^[1].

Over the years, one of the results of the rise of the new indigenous movements has been the transformation of the national political cultures and the recognition of the realities of ethnic diversity and cultural pluralism by majority of Latin American countries^[2].

The democratization process in Latin America has determined in all almost nations some form of recognition of the indigenous people, with their culture, traditions, and languages. The differences among nations are still quite big though. When it comes to official status of the indigenous languages and access to bilingual education, countries like Venezuela seem to have achieved very good results, while for example in Mexico, the preservation of the indigenous languages has been successful.

This is interesting since the indigenous population in Venezuela constitutes only 2 per cent of the total, while 14 per cent of the Mexican population is indigenous. To understand the reasons behind this difference, the research paper propose to outline and detail the recent history of the two countries and compare how the rise of indigenous movements has promoted indigenous culture and languages.

Characteristics of indigenous communities of Latin America

Latin America is home to about 8 per cent of indigenous communities and this represent about 400 different language groups. Indigenous people have been confirmed to be present in all Latin American countries except Uruguay although even that fact is still contentious. For instance, indigenous groups account to about 30 to 50 per cent of the total populations of Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Peru^[3].

At the same time, 25 per cent of the indigenous people in Latin America live in Mexico, which further constitutes about 10 per cent of the Mexico population. Indigenous people are seen to possess major cultural, historical and traditional significant for the country. Among different countries, the size of indigenous population has been central argument especially for the treatment of indigenous peoples as ‘minorities’ regardless of whether they are or not in quantitative terms.

The historical practice and assumption of some States in Latin America is that it is not enough for an indigenous population to exceed 51 per cent of the national population in order to be recognized in terms of social, political, and cultural relevance in the society.

In the absence of this recognition, what have been experienced are the overall discrimination and the implementation of assimilation policies under the guise of national unity and homogeneity in which attempts have been made to try to erase those groups or individuals that support and defend their own identity whether or not they constitute a majority of the population. As a result, indigenous people have been victims of exclusion and marginalization regardless of the percentage that they represent in national contexts^[4].

Some countries in this region have been unique especially with regard to recognizing the indigenous communities. For example, a country like Brazil is composed of 0.1 to 1 per cent of indigenous communities as compared to the overall national population figure^[5].

However, in this country, indigenous groups are recognized in the constitution; nevertheless, experience has shown constitutional and legal recognition of indigenous people does not necessary mean a change in their historical situation of marginalization and exclusion.

In opposite to Brazil, Chile is a country that is home to about 10 per cent of indigenous communities and on overall there is no constitutional recognition of their existence and it has come out as one of the few countries with significant indigenous population that is yet to ratify the ILO Convection 169.

In another country like Guatemala, indigenous population account for about 50 per cent of the population of the nation and these indigenous populations suffered greatly during the prolonged civil war in the 1980s and indigenous communities became the major casualties of impacts of this war. Even after the war, indigenous people situation is yet to change and on large-scale these communities continue to be marginalized concerning access to power and national decision-making^[6].

Study carried out by World Bank and other related organization postulate that majority of indigenous people all over the world live in conditions that can only be described to be of extreme poverty.

It can be noted that the existence of multiple forms of exclusion condition the poverty of indigenous peoples have resulted into unequal economic growth, democracy and equity in Latin America which further have not sufficiently integrated in the past and the result is highly heterogeneous and unequal societies in which indigenous people have been the most severely affected.

Statistics by the World Bank have shown that there is high correlation between poverty and ethnic origin and as a fact supported by this notion, majority of indigenous people are perceived to be among the poorest segments of society. As a fact, the same estimates show that 25 per cent of inhabitants of Latin America who are subjected to extreme poverty happen to be indigenous people^[7].

At the same time, reports indicate that indigenous children drop out of classes every year in large number and the major reason cited is poverty and the pressing need to participate in productive labor. Furthermore, it is now clear that about 59 per cent of indigenous children aged below five years do not attend preprimary school, and 28 per cent of those aged between 6 and 14 years do not attend school or have dropped out of school.

Similarly, 43 per cent of the indigenous population over 15 years of age lack any sort of formal instruction, 33 per cent do not complete primary school and about 11 per cent have some level of post primary instruction. In Mexico, the illiteracy index stands at 12.4 per cent but that of indigenous population has exceed and stands at 46 per cent^[8].

In Venezuela, the indigenous population presents high negative health indicators especially those that live in forested areas and those that have been subjected to migrations. The forested areas are seen to be highly populated and there is general low medical coverage that has continued to contribute to the situation, which has in turn led to making access to and periodical assessment of, the population in question to be very difficult.

High-risk infections continue to inflict this population of indigenous people in Venezuela and though much effort has been done to reduce the cases of infections, the problem is yet to be addressed fully. There are less vaccines programs and little infrastructures exist in the regions to support the indigenous communities in health matters.

Indigenous groups and democratization in Mexico

History in the past has painted the increasing visibility and political influence the indigenous people in many countries of Latin America have had especially in the last two to three decades^[9].

Impression created is that the indigenous people of this region have struggled successfully to become important political actors within the civil society, political society and the state. For example, one of the notable achievement and rise of indigenous people in this region is represented by presidential success in Bolivia of Aymara indigenous leader Evo Morales in the year 2005.

Motivated by this development, other indigenous communities in other countries have waged successful battles though sometimes has yielded small results but on overall, these battle won by the indigenous communities have resulted into constitutional reforms that on large part sought to consecrate indigenous peoples rights.

The efforts by indigenous communities have further been recognized by other bodies like Inter-American Human Rights Court, which has largely instituted orders of protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, incremental and differentiated indigenous participation in the state and political parties.

At the same time, many indigenous movements have emerged that have sought to unify its expressions through the three Continental Summits for Indigenous Peoples and Nationalities of Abya Yala that have been carried out since 2004 in Latin America. Statistical estimates shows that there are between 35 and 40 million indigenous peoples currently residing in Latin America and about 90 per cent of these people live in Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru^[10].

The indigenous people in Latin America have risen as new social and political actors in the larger region of Latin America and this can be attributed to transformation of the state and the transition to new and more democratic forms of existence.

One bare truth is that during the colonial period, indigenous people had fixed status in the society but this changed with emergence of independent republics in the region where it can be seen that indigenous people have become actively involved in uneasy and ambiguous relationship with the state and its institutions. Indigenous people in Latin America have defied all difficulties to embrace the new century with a lot of gusto in all spheres of political matters.

Today, Latin American countries are faced with new challenges of re-assessing the relationship indigenous communities are redefining specifically in light of the emerging identities that are articulating old grievances and at the same time express new demands.

Earlier theories of social sciences are being demystified such as the theories of social change, modernization, and nation building and currently, these nations are faced and characterized by new forms of challenges being initiated by the new social movements of indigenous peoples and their developing political ideologies.

Various governments of Latin America have been forced to address the issues pertaining to indigenous communities such as indigenous peoples’ culture and rights^[11]. For example, Nicaragua during the 1980s put more emphasis on addressing the unresolved issue of autonomy for the indigenous people of the Atlantic Coast, on the other hand, Bolivia’s new political constitution regard the country as being multiethnic, plurilingual and multicultural.

In Mexico, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation which waged war on the government in an uprising in 1994 made it clear to recognize the demands of the indigenous people. Indigenous communities have been part of Mexican society as postulated by the following abstract:

“During the three centuries of colonial rule there were many rebellions and armed movements by the indigenous populations in defense of their rights as peoples and against those that sought to oppress them; these continued after Independence in 1825 because of politics and policies that favored the concentration of lands in haciendas at the cost of the indigenous land holding during the colonial period; one result of these policies was the Mexican Revolution of 1910, started by the peasant and indigenous peoples claiming land and liberty after being subjugated and transformed into indentured servants of the large property-owners”^[12].

The above circumstances led to the commencement of the Agrarian Reform Law, which was initiated by the constitution in 1917 and this law resulted into subsequent provision of land, which was perceived to be an important aspect of the peasant and indigenous people.

At the same time political activism and changes started to become the norm, which was specifically carried out to instigate, incorporate, and absorb the indigenous people by largely using community members as the key instruments of revolution and their specific role revolved around incorporating the different types of social affiliations.

This was contrary to the expectations of the many as some of the mediators of change failed to live to their billing and in the process, motivated people to engage in land reforms, although they at the same time expressed a sense of respect to the native cultures. More so, there is a group of these change agents who benefited from this role to amass power and take reign in the affairs of the community.

Starting from 1975 there has been constant renaissance of native movements. The unique aspect of this is that this is a new and unanticipated occurrence in the Mexican social and political arena because, given that “until 1970s, the dominant and existing peasant organizations did not represent indigenous concerns”^[13]. Early 1970s ushered in agitation that had new demands specifically headed by the indigenous movements. Their initial demands centered on issues of land and preservation of the native cultural values.

These new demands in real sense appeared to be diverse and this was mainly due to the changing economic policies that banned agrarian reforms and land distribution, together with removing in place the government that had earlier played the key role of providing assistance to agricultural producers and this precisely took form of market pricing and subsidies.

These policies in their initial stages intended to address the pertinent issues the peasant and indigenous people faced but ended up causing the increase of new organizations that had new demands that needed immediate address. These new demands centered on the issues of: defense of their natural resources, demanding the right to preserve and profit from their forests, pastures, sub soil resources, mines, rivers, and lakes.

Further, they needed guarantees to develop agricultural and livestock production and remove intermediaries and usurers. In addition, there was demand by these indigenous people for the government to initiate bilingual education and intercultural education as well as institutional measures to preserve their cultural patrimony.

Moreover, there were demands for increased participation in the political processes at the level of state congresses as well as federal and participation in the design and execution of development projects. Lastly, demands for respect for human rights in the cases where the tensions between the state or federal level governments were high and resulted in massacres, murders, and takeovers of lands^[14].

The indigenous population of Mexico currently is estimated to be 12.4 million people or about 13 per cent of Mexico’s total population that is spread across the country’s 32 states^[15]. At the same time, sixty-eight indigenous languages were listed in 2008, and spoken in 368 various grouped in 11 linguistic families. In 1990, Mexico ratified the ILO Convection and in 1992, Mexico was officially recognized as a pluricultural nation. Following the amendment of Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution in 1994, the Zapatista National Liberation Army took up arms in response to misery and exclusion suffered by indigenous peoples^[16].

Subsequently, the San Andres Accords were signed in 1996 and in 2001, Congress approved the Law on indigenous rights and culture and although the law did not reflect the territorial rights and political representation enshrined in the San Andrea Accord, starting from 2003 onward, the EZLN and the Indigenous National Congress started to implement the San Andres Accords.

The implementation of the Accord saw creation of autonomous indigenous governments in Chapas, Michoacan, and Oaxaca. Zapatista uprising and its emergence as a social movement for the indigenous communities became the forum in which Mexico’s democratization process became more fruitful than the efforts the opposition parties had done. Zapatista movement has long history in indigenous groups that began about 30 years ago.

Between May and October of 1974, there was an enormous rising, ending into the First Indigenous Congress of Chiapas^[17]. This represented a unique democratic organization and in most of its activities, Zapatista movement got moral support from the Catholic Church, a situation that brought rift in the church.

Because of this 1974 Congress, there arose many peasant organizations and the major aim of these groups was to carry on with the big struggle that took place between 1974 and 1984.

The movement was not tolerated by the state since the state executed massive repression and there were numerous arrests, prosecutions, assassinations of leaders, police, and military attacks on various villages and communities. Although the state ‘suffocated’ activities of this movement, there was an interesting aspect that characterized the movement where indigenous people did not give up and continued to organize themselves.

The indigenous groups have one element that of long democratic tradition and the presence of horizontal organization, which helped the indigenous communities to sustain for long in the social struggle. The issue here is that, majority of these indigenous communities favor agreements and normally do not take actions without participating in broad and consensus consultations with the various communities.

The shortcoming of the opposition parties was largely contributed by the role of the government in undermining the opposition and sometimes forcing the opposition to enter into an alliance with the ruling PRI, which only served to push for changes that left the authoritarian nature of the political system virtually intact.

On the other hand, the social movement that was spearheaded by the EZLN that became the force of encouraging higher levels of participation and activity which in turn inspired deepening of the democratic debate in the country.

The major difference between the political parties and the Zapatista social movement is that, while the political; parties concentrated and put more focus on their efforts on reforming political societies from within, the EZLN movement on the other hand paid more attention to the interpolated civil society to push for democratization from bottom up.

Activities of the Zapatista social movement became the major instrument in which democratization process in Mexico took place. For example, the electoral process of 2000 was transformed whereby it resulted into a liberal-democratic outcome in which the PAN party won the presidential elections.

This became possible specifically as a result of combining the continuation of a market-led economic model with an electoral democratization from below. This was a prediction that was made, and on July 2, 2000, this prediction became true as majority of Mexicans elected Vicente Fox of the PAN thus ousting the PRI after 71 years of continuous rule^[18].

According to Vargas Hemandez writing in an article titled ‘A Short Study of Indigenous Movements and the Political Ecology in Mexico and Latin America’, indigenous movements have similar concerns just like other social movements and their main pre-occupation centers on desire to change either the society itself or the position of the group in society^[19].

Through indigenous movements, there has been as sense of seeking cultural identity based on the historical practices of the community; however, “social movements are shaped by the struggle for identity and the need to open a space for survival within the national political, economic, and social environment”^[20].

Moreover, these movements have contributed significantly in expressing dissatisfaction in certain aspects of the society and in the process influenced specific changes that are more acceptable by the community. Indeed, most of the movements result from actions of some insensitive people to the plight of the community thus having a significant effect on the norms and practices of the community.

The struggle for indigenous rights is one of the most important social movements in Mexico and among the indigenous leadership; indeed, “the cooperative work has sparked the emergence of techno-bureaucracy of human rights and ethno-development from government and international financial institutions programs”^[21].

Notable of indigenous movements is that they have led to some forms of radical forms of democratic and autonomy practices, claims to indigenous identity, traditions and dignity. On overall, indigenous movements are always strong and the state always respects them especially when it comes to bargaining on various issues.

Zapatistas since their uprising have sought to open up spaces for new forms of political participation in Mexico and their view of democratization is one that is rooted and implicated in the indigenous practice of governing by obeying, but it is also applicable to the wider society.

Instead of restricting and limiting the participation to the right to vote in elections, the EZLN express favors for the extension of that right to all areas of social, economic, political, and cultural life. In other words, EZLN has instituted in place the popular assumption that democracy is not solely about who can vote but where one can vote.

The main idea that has been expressed within this perspective is the issue of respect with regard to indigenous rights. Indigenous movements in Mexico have united in their course and their overall understanding is that any form of political system that continues and facilitates unequal and full representation in political processes should be opposed.

The overall, desire of Zapatistas movement was that there was the need for truly pluralistic society and that there was need for enhancement of channels of indigenous peoples’ representation^[22].

At the same time, the movement believed that there was need to construct a truly inclusive political system that reflected the historical exclusion of indigenous people while at the same time, more new and firm efforts needed to be initiated at institution building that must take into account the multi-cultural nature of Mexico society.

Lastly, the movement agitated for the understanding of all concerned parties in democratic liberation of Mexico that there was need to recognize that their actions could not be divorced or separated from questions of power and responsibility.

Indigenous groups and democratization in Venezuela

Venezuela has indigenous groups that comprise of about 2 per cent of the total population of Venezuela, which is estimated to be about 26 million^[23]. In total, Venezuela has about 28 different indigenous groups but among these, only four have population that exceeds 10,000 people. These four groups with relatively higher population include Wayuú, Warao, Pemón, and Añu. According to established reports, the following aspects have been noted and observed with Venezuelan country specifically with regard to indigenous communities.

“There are some significant cultural differences between the indigenous and the rest of Venezuelan society; a wide variety of native languages is spoken in Venezuela and the degree to which tribal members speak Spanish varies widely according to geographic and economic factors”^[24].

Yanomami and Warao constitute the largest languages spoken on wide scale by majority of indigenous people of Venezuela. At the same time, there are some tribal languages including Mapoyo, Ano, Bare, Saliva, Yabarana, Uruak and Sape, which are perceived to be in danger of being extinct since majority of the children, and adolescents in these communities are speaking Spanish on large scale.

Further, although some of the some ethnic groups have maintained their dialect, others have embraced and adopted foreign languages, which they use concurrently with their native way of speaking.

Moreover, there exists visual customs that emphasize their differences, especially in the field of art, attire, musicals, cultural practices and spirituality, most of which are implicated in Catholicism mixed with traditional religion. Many of the indigenous communities are said to reside and inhabit the northwestern state of Zulia despite the fact that their number is still low compared to other inhabitants of the area, majority of who are the whites and mestizos.

At the same time, there exist other native communities spread across various areas, and despite some of them being isolated, the recent years have seen them starting to reclaim their land by demarcating their territory, with Venezuela government providing the necessary assistance.

As evidence to the seriousness of the government in this role, in August 2005, “Chavez approved property titles to six Karina indigenous communities in the states of Anzoategu and Monagas, in eastern Venezuela”^[25]. This gave the native communities the right to officially own the land allocated to them; indeed, the government claimed to even grant more titles to other natives in the following year.

Before the recent success, the native peoples have always toiled to recapture their ancestral lands without making any headway, and have remained to watch as others develop and encroach the said land. However, the importance placed on land has made this group of people to aggressively campaign against mining of coal on their land, claiming that it not only denies them their constitutional right to own the land, but also the mining process is detrimental to the ecosystem.

Nevertheless, the disputed land is rich in resources, which the government as well has interest in, and “though the Chavez Government has been very supportive of indigenous land demarcation, he has also been very clear that there is a limit to their claims”^[26].

The evidence indicate that the indigenous groups in Venezuela constitute a minority group but these groups have relatively and in extensive way gained minority rights under the leadership of Hugo Chavez who ensured that indigenous people have the capacity and power to define their rights by themselves in the constitutional assembly^[27].

Further, the Chavez government has ensured that there is creation and assurance of three seats out of the 167 seats in the assembly and in the constitution, which are preserved for the indigenous groups.

As if these developments are not enough, the government has gone further to put in place promotion of indigenous culture and languages for instance by participating in funding bilingual education. The success of indigenous groups in Venezuela is a hard fight that has not been easy.

For instance, the indigenous groups in the country had to content with the ideas of 16th century in which the European colonizers institutionalized exploitation and oppression of these communities, and this was largely legitimized. These communities in great measure suffered and became victims of repression especially during the 1970s and 1980s but as a way to change their perceived way of life, the communities’ mobilization strategies switched to the new discourses of collective rights and also cultural diversity^[28].

The communities also entered in working relations with International Labor Organization (ILO) and the United Nations where the two bodies outlined and demanded the observance and respect of indigenous rights, and this led to indigenous movements initiating efforts to create political space for groups in order to make claims on the basis of being a distinct ‘people’ rather than as an ethnic group or minority.

The product of these processes and struggles was the concerted efforts by the indigenous groups to challenge the state and forced the later into accepting and facilitating constitutional reforms where the country’s legal status of indigenous communities was realized and recognized in the constitution while at the same time transforming the meanings of citizenship.

On overall, the issue of territorial rights continues to be the center of indigenous struggle but other key areas have been emphasized such as the demands to realize the right to use their languages in public affairs.

This is in addition to reading about their own cultures and histories in schools and the media, and having decision-making powers over how they are to be represented. Further, the indigenous communities in Venezuela have sought new opportunities as distinct peoples, rather than as marginalized minorities, thus confronting institutionalized discrimination and prejudice^[29].

Conclusion

Indigenous communities in the Latin American region have been victims of discrimination and oppression for a long time. The overall conditions for these groups in terms of human development are very insecure in almost all aspects and in general, there is clear gap between the conditions of indigenous and non-indigenous populations of the region. At the same time, the issue of gender gap within the indigenous population is a live issue that continues to affect the indigenous women severely.

The observation that has been made is that the inequalities and social imbalances derived from the exclusion and marginalization of indigenous people in Latin America are directly related to the depletion of their natural resources and to the reduction and loss of their ancestral territories. At the same time, in several countries, large development projects that benefit the majority of the population often have negative consequences for indigenous people.

For instance, the aspects of indiscriminate clearing of native forests, oil extraction, and the construction of dams have had devastating consequences for indigenous groups and their environment. The indigenous groups possess a special relation to their land, which they attach meaning which in turn cannot be reduced to economic productive factors but rather become part of a vision that unites social, cultural, spiritual, religious, and economic factors.

For a long time the rights of indigenous people in relation to their territories have continued to be ignored or denied by the law of many Latin Nations whereby these laws in large part disregard the customary or distinctive legal systems through which indigenous groups regulate the use, occupation and distribution of lands.

The above, scenario narrated prompted the emergence of several movements that were based on ethnic identity and their major aim was to demonstrate the limits of democratic system that on large-scale is constructed on the ideal of a nation-state and that relegates and suspend indigenous peoples to a secondary position.

Argument has been that indigenous social movements emerged in response to government overall negligent of the aspirations, demands, and needs of indigenous people, together with denial of the rights claimed about land, education, health, participation in State powers and exerciser of public roles.

In other words, indigenous social movements in many of Latin American countries can be said to have occurred as reaction to precarious living conditions and to a system, which has proven incapable of offering equal opportunities to indigenous peoples.

Beginning in early 1990s, armed conflict with the major indigenous social movements in Latin America ceased and the period proceeding these years was described as the lost decade due to negative effects confrontations had caused. Still, during this period the emphasis shifted from class struggle to the affirmation of indigenous rights and demand for cultural rights.

What became evident is the fact that indigenous organizations reappeared on the political scene, demanding recognition of their status as peoples and nations and attempting to objectify their own social cultural realities and the nation-states of which they form part.

This general objectification process aims to describe and affirm the existence of a set of cultural features that characterize indigenous societies. These features forms the main components in which a discourse is created through which indigenous organizations demand that States grant them a particular legal status and a set of collective rights.

Indigenous people have become active in the democratization process in Latin American countries while at the same time these groups have taken active role in numerous discussions of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations that have led to drafting a Declaration on Indigenous Rights. At the same time indigenous community representatives have taken active role in participating in the making and subsequent adoption of the Convection 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples by the International Labor Organization (ILO).

Further, to compound their increasing role in democratization of Latin societies, numerous indigenous representatives sit in the governing bodies of the established Fund for Development of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America. At the same time, many indigenous representatives are participating in consultations with Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that has future prospects of establishing Inter-American legal instrument on indigenous people’s rights.

In summary, it can be stated that indigenous communities have continued to influence the democratization process of the Latin American societies and this has largely been achieved through paying attention to and addressing issues such as land, agricultural credit, education, health, technical aid, investment in infrastructure, and also the recent calls for autonomy and self-determination.

Bibliography

Anonymous. Mayan Culture History Arts and Sciences: Political Movements and Indigenous Organizations, 2010. Web.

Anonymous. Why Chiapas? Why now? 1994. Web.

Binetti, Carlo, et al. An unequal democracy? Seeing Latin America through European eyes. Inter-American Development Bank, 2005.

Brett, Roddy and Brett, Roderick. Social movements, indigenous politics and democratization in Guatemala, 1985-1996. MA: BRILL. 2008.

Cook, Curtis and Lindau, Juan. Aboriginal rights and self-government: the Canadian and Mexican experience in North American perspective. Canada: McGill-Queen’s Press. 2000.

Gilbreth, Chris and Otero, Gerardo. Democratization in Mexico: The Zapatista Uprising and Civil Society. Latin American Perspective, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 7-29. 2001.

Harvey, Neil. The Chiapas Rebellion: the struggle for land and democracy. Duke University Press. 1998.

Hatzold, Max-Emmanuel. Do Presidential Systems Imperil Democratization: How and to what Extent Have the Presidents of Russia (Vladimir Putin) and Venezuela (Hugo Chavez) Influenced the Democratic Consolidation of Their Countries? Netherlands, GRIN Verlag. 2009.

Hermandez, Vargas. A Short Study of Indigenous Social Movements and the Political Ecology in Mexico and Latin American. Journal of Management Research, Vol. 2, No. 2. 2010.

Kronik, Jakob and Verner, Dorte. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank Publications. 2010.

Rao, Vijayendra and Walton, Michael. Culture and public action. NY: Stanford University Press. 2004.

Warren, Kay and Jackson, Jean. Indigenous movements, self-representation, and the state in Latin America. CA: University of Texas Press. 2002.

Footnotes

1. Carlo Binetti, Fernando C Florez and Inter-American Development Bank, An unequal democracy? Seeing Latin America through European eyes (Inter-American Development Bank, 2005).
2. Roddy Brett and Roderick L. Brett, Social movements, indigenous politics and democratization in Guatemala, 1985-1996 (MA: BRILL, 2008) p.1.
3. Carlo Binetti, Fernando C Florez and Inter-American Development Bank, An unequal democracy? Seeing Latin America through European eyes (Inter-American Development Bank, 2005).
4. Anonymous, Mayan Culture History Arts and Sciences: Political Movements and Indigenous Organizations (2010) p.1.
5. Carlo Binetti, Fernando C Florez and Inter-American Development Bank, ibid.
6. Roddy Brett and Roderick L. Brett, Social movements, indigenous politics and democratization in Guatemala, 1985-1996 (MA: BRILL, 2008).
7. Kay B Warren and Jean E Jackson, Indigenous movements, self-representation, and the state in Latin America (CA, University of Texas Press, 2002).
8. Carlo Binetti, Fernando C Florez and Inter-American Development Bank, An unequal democracy? Seeing Latin America through European eyes (Inter-American Development Bank, 2005), p.113.
9. Roddy Brett and Roderick L. Brett, Social movements, indigenous politics and democratization in Guatemala, 1985-1996 (MA: BRILL, 2008) p.1.
10. Roddy Brett and Roderick L. Brett, Social movements, indigenous politics and democratization in Guatemala, 1985-1996 (MA: BRILL, 2008), p.3.
11. Chris Gilbreth and Gerardo Otero, Democratization in Mexico: The Zapatista Uprising and Civil Society (Latin American Perspective, 2001), p.73.
12. Anonymous, Mayan Culture History Arts and Sciences: Political Movements and Indigenous Organizations (2010) p.1
13. Anonymous, Mayan Culture History Arts and Sciences: Political Movements and Indigenous Organizations (2010).
14. Anonymous, ibid, p.2.
15. Jakob Kronik and Dorte Verner, Indigenous Peoples and Climate Change in Latin and the Caribbean (World Bank Publications, 2010) p.73.
16. Chris Gilbreth and Gerardo Otero, Democratization in Mexico: The Zapatista Uprising and Civil Society (Latin American Perspective, 2001) p.1.
17. Anonymous, Why Chiapas? Why now? (1994) p.1.
18. Chris Gilbreth and Gerardo Otero, Democratization in Mexico: The Zapatista Uprising and Civil Society (Latin American Perspective, 2001), p.3.
19. Vargas Hermandez, A Short Study of Indigenous Social Movements and the Political Ecology in Mexico and Latin America (Journal of Management Research, 2010) p.2.
20. Chris Gilbreth and Gerardo Otero, Democratization in Mexico: The Zapatista Uprising and Civil Society (Latin American Perspective, 2001.
21. Neil Harvey, The Chiapas Rebellion: the struggle for land and democracy (Duke University Press, 1998).
22. Neil Harvey, The Chiapas Rebellion: the struggle for land and democracy (Duke University Press, 1998) p.238.
23. Max-Emmanuel Hatzold, Do Presidential Systems Imperil Democratization: How and to what Extent Have the Presidents of Russia (Vladimir Putin) and Venezuela (Hugo Chavez). Influenced the Democratic Consolidation of Their Countries? (Netherlands, GRIN Verlag, 2009) p.10.
24. Center for International Development and Conflict Management, Assessment for Indigenous Peoples in Venezuela (University of Maryland, 2006) p.3.
25. Center for International Development and Conflict Management, ibid, p.3.
26. Center for International Development and Conflict Management, ibid.
27. Max-Emmanuel Hatzold, Do Presidential Systems Imperil Democratization: How and to what Extent Have the Presidents of Russia (Vladimir Putin) and Venezuela (Hugo Chavez). Influenced the Democratic Consolidation of Their Countries? (Netherlands, GRIN Verlag, 2009) p.10.
28. Kay B Warren and Jean E Jackson, Indigenous movements, self-representation, and the state in Latin America (CA, University of Texas Press, 2002) p.13.
29. Kay B Warren and Jean E Jackson, ibid, p.15.