 |
|
|
| Home
| Front Page
| News
| Articles
| Documents | Environmental
| Archive
| Events Calendar Links
| About Us |
|
Continued The Mapuche Movement The Mapuche movement, the expression of organized action by this ethnic group within the Chilean society, emerges during the first decades of this century, after the occupation of the Araucanía. Many different ideological positions are expressed in this movement, ranging from those that favor assimilationistand integrationist positions to those considered fundamentalists and indianists.6 The most typical sort of Mapuche organization has been the "gremial" organization with a peasant focus, based in the rural communities and presenting itself as representative of all Mapuche people, or at least aspiring to do so.7 Alongside these organizations, front organizations have developed (of students or of women for example), as well as professional organizations (teachers, etc.), economic organizations (especially cooperatives), cultural, artistic and social associations, and more specialized groups (the "institutions"). The ethnic gremial sector of the Mapuche social movement typically emerges as a cycle of Mapuche mobilization in response to a specific issue. Incapable of generating the force needed to project themselves beyond such a conjunctural issue, these organizations tend to disappear once the dynamic of the cycle which brought them to life dies out. The current crisis of the Mapuche organizations which came into being during the dictatorship, is no more than the end of the cycle of mobilization and organization which started in 1978. In terms of their strategies, these organizations are characterized by a reformist approach. They try to resolve the current conditions of economic misery and social marginality without overcoming the situation of internal colonialism which causes them. They seek to resist the assimilationist policies of the Chilean nation-state without trying to overcome the condition of an oppressed national ethnic minority by obtaining specific political rights as such. The Mapuche ethnic-gremial organizations have limited themselves to acting as pressure groups, seeking the mediation of nation-state institutions -especially parties and churches- to act for them in obtaining special measures -in particular protective indigenous legislation- from the State on their behalf. Politically, these Mapuche organizations can be characterized by their political dependence and ideological subordination to the dominant society (dependence which falls, ultimately, within the framework of the overall dependence of the Mapuche on the Chilean nation-state), allowing the Chilean political parties to define the Mapuche struggle and its overall goals, with the understanding that it is they (the parties) who ought to find the solution to the problems of the ethnic group. This means that it is the Chilean parties who determine the policies of the Mapuche organizations, in terms of the interests of the groups which the parties represent and their priorities and political options at a national level. Furthermore, for the Mapuche this has limited the possibility of defining a political project of their own which might be able to accumulate strength beyond the moment of a particular conjuncture. The case of Ad Mapu is an illustrative example. For several years it was the only Mapuche organization under the dictatorship. Ad Mapu emerged to organize a Mapuche response tothe Decree Law 2568 (law decreed by the dictator General Pinochet in order to divide the Mapuche reservations into individual holdings), achieving a considerable development and mobilization capacity, especially considering the repressive conditions which it had to confront. Important sectors of the Mapuche people recognized Ad Mapu as their representative organization and from Ad Mapu sprung -one after another- the various organizations which exist today. A typical politicized gremial organization, Ad Mapu's political options were always determined by the correlation of forces and alliances within its directorate. Although, at the start, this directorate expressed the entire ideological arc of national opposition -and included the Catholic Church- Ad Mapu, after a succession of ruptures, became an expression of various left-wing parties, with these parties determining the composition of the directorate and defining the orientation of the organization along the lines of their national policies and alliances. Finally, this organization has arrived at the point, today, of being hegemonized almost without counterpart by the Communist Party. The lack of political and ideological independence from Chilean political groups, and the consequent absence of a political project of its own, brought Ad Mapu to the point where it was virtually impossible for it to become a focal point for the accumulation of Mapuche force. Its attempts at the definition of a "Historical Project of the Mapuche People", maintaining at the same time this political dependency, was full of contradictions that could not be overcome: despite the naming, at the Third Congress of 1983, of a strict deadline of six months for the National Directorate to elaborate a document defining this Historical Project, today the contents of such a project remain unknown. The rest of the organizations, which arise after Ad Mapu, generally reproduce this dependency, although in relation to other parties. Thus, for example, Nehuen Mapu -defined at the start as an "independent" organization, "pluralist" and "unitarian"- quickly became the Mapuche political expression of the Christian Democrats. The political and ideological dependence of the Mapuche is also expressed at the level of personal political commitment. This has meant the constant dispersion -through militancy in Chilean parties- of the best-trained cadres. Not only do they abandon the political action on behalf of their own people, but they are transformed into agents of the nation-state parties for the manipulation of the Mapuche movement. It is not a question of rejecting all ties to national political forces, or of isolating oneself by taking refuge within the ethnic group. The ethnic group is already incorporated into the Chilean society and participates in the same national issues. To ignore this reality would be a naivete whose only result would be powerlessness and political marginalization. But, if links with national parties are necessary, experience shows that the initiative and leadership of the struggle for the rights of the ethnic group cannot be left to them. The struggle must be taken on, essentially, by nationalitarian forces.8 Any nation-state party is, by definition, an instance of nation-state power, and incarnates and is carrier of -to a greater or lesser degree according to each case- the dominant national ideology: in addition to centralism, nationalism has its supporters both in the right and the left in Chile. To ignore this is another form of idealism, which has brought even greater disillusion. A special case is that of the Partido de la Tierra y de la Identidad (PTI, Party for Land and Identity), which was created with the object of constituting an indigenous political force, autonomous from the Chilean political parties and ideologies. While the PTI's political and ideological independence are a step forward, nevertheless, their adhesion to indianism is a step back, not only because indianism is a confused ideology, built upon a mystical and stereotypical discourse, but above all because the PTI defines itself as an "Indian" party, not a Mapuche party. "Indian" is a supra-ethnic social category, referring to the colonized aboriginal population, and not an ethno-cultural category.9 There is no Indian people, nor an Indian culture or language; but there is a Mapuche people, language and culture. In this respect, indianism further inhibits the reinforcement of Mapuche ethnic identity, fundamental to the mobilization capacity of an ethnic group. For now, in the current political framework, the various Mapuche organizations have -as interlocutor- a "negotiator" State, capable of agreeing to demands that are not directly contradictory to the conceptions of the governing or dominant groups in terms of the "indigenous problem". In this respect, the new political situation is -without a doubt- favorable for groups which aim at superstructure policy (for example, participation in the Special Commission for Indigenous Peoples formed by the current administration). At the same time, however, the current government aims to restrict and channel ethnic political participation and organization so that the political organizations themselves cannot accumulate the force needed to negotiate directly. The current lack of grassroots support -as shown in the results of the parliamentary campaigns- makes these organizations extremely fragile, with their participation depending more on the goodwill of the government than on their real representativity. Their possibility of truly influencing the definition of State policies toward indigenous groups is, for this reason, quite limited. Regional Autonomy Although the Mapuche problem is a national issue (given that it exists in the context of the Chilean nation-state), the solution to the problem can only be found at the regional level, in the historical territory of the Mapuche people. No indigenous legislation at the level of a centralized State is capable of creating conditions which assure full equality for indigenous populations. This can only be achieved through statutes of regional autonomy which politically guarantee specific rights as a national minority, not at the level of the national territory as a whole, but rather in the territories where each ethnic group has a historical concentration and presence. Instead of indigenous legislation, then, the State must constitutionally recognize its multi-ethnic character, and recognize and constitutionally guarantee the right of the indigenous peoples -today colonized and dominated- to autonomy.10 Autonomy is not limited to a simple claim to cultural autonomy, with neither a territorial base nor political rights involved. In order for the goal of liberation for the Mapuche people to be achieved, this autonomy must consider their political and territorial autonomy as well. From a historical viewpoint, autonomy is a response to the conquest of Araucanía and the political subjugation of the Mapuche by the Chilean nation-state. As a liberation project, Mapuche autonomy is an all-encompassing response to a situation of all- encompassing domination. Autonomy means overcoming the condition of the Mapuche as an oppressed national minority and colonized people; in this respect, it is in absolute opposition to the ethnic-national assimilation historically sought by the Chilean nation-state as the means of resolving the Mapuche problem. Political and territorial autonomy of the Mapuche people must be based on a Statute of Regional Autonomy whichpolitically guarantees all the political, economic, social, cultural and ideological conditions necessary for the full development of the ethnic group and its culture, within its territorial space.11 Territorial autonomy, that is to say, the right to a territory where a people can exist and develop their culture, is the first condition necessary for Mapuche autonomy. This Autonomous Region ought to be based upon the current Ninth Region and a few adjacent areas, given the continuous presence of Mapuche population in this area where historically they led an independent existence until the Chilean conquest. It is in this region, and not at the national level, that the Mapuche people can recreate their culture and develop as a people. The Mapuche people have a historic right to this territory -the material base of their historic existence- which has only been usurped by the force and violence of military conquest. A Statute of Regional Autonomy ought to recognize such a right, especially with regards the possession of land and natural resources, intimately linked to the existence of the Mapuche ethnic group and its culture.12 Regional political autonomy ought to be expressed through a Regional Assembly. Such an Assembly would be democratically elected by all of the regional population, through a proportional and integral system which guarantees the representation of each and every sector of the regional society. The Assembly must be vested with real powers in all issues and decisions directly concerning the region. A Regional Government would emanate from such an Assembly. A Statute of Regional Autonomy should take into account the multi-ethnic reality of the region. Mapuche autonomy, as a political project, is not directed against the Chilean or non-Mapuche population. To the contrary, a Statute of Regional Autonomy should benefit the whole population, allowing a more harmonious regional development on the basis of the interests of the local population. Until the present, the centralism of the State has done no more than penalize and distort regional development, with adverse effects for numerous sectors apart from the Mapuche. Regional autonomy can address this problem, but onlywhen based on recognition of the multi-ethnic character of the (historically Mapuche) region, with rights guaranteed to all the groups that make up the regional population. But the Mapuche character of the region must be clearly established. When we state that the Statute of Regional Autonomy ought to guarantee all the conditions necessary for the full development of the ethnic group and its culture, this means specific rights for the Mapuche people which must be written into the Statute as integral articles. Without such rights, regional autonomy would lose its purpose as a liberation project for the Mapuche people. These articles should guarantee, firstly, the right to natural resources, especially land -through the development of mechanisms which permit the return of lands stolen from the Mapuche since the Chilean conquest-; the right to preservation of the environment and the benefits deriving from the exploitation of its natural resources; the right to live and work in the region -with priorities and incentives for local contracting (including Mapuche who return to the region), disincentives to emigration and protection of local markets; and the right to the language -through the declaration of Mapudungun as an official regional language on a par with Spanish and its use in the mass media as well as its incorporation in regional education through bilingual-intercultural education. For the Mapuche, then, mere regional autonomy is not a complete answer to their problem. One can easily imagine a region with a Regional Assembly and Government of a non-ethnic character, in the framework of a democratic, decentralized State, without any solution of the situation of domination and colonization of the Mapuche people. It is important that a Statute of Autonomy go beyond this point and guarantee the historical rights of the Mapuche people and the Mapuche character of the region. Only thus can we speak truly of political territorial autonomy for the Mapuche people. The Mapuche problem is, then, political, but not in the sense of its being solvable "by" or "from" the State, with policies "for" the Mapuche or even "with" them. It is a problem which must be solved by the Mapuche themselves. This implies a strategy of accumulation of strength through the development of a nationalitarian autonomist force, politically and ideologically independent from its Chilean counterparts. As a political project aimed at ethnic emancipation, autonomy ought to involve all the different social sectors that make up the Mapuche people, each on the basis of their specific socio-ethnic problems and through the reinforcement of ethnic identity and the development of a nationalitarian conscience in each sector. Such a project must respond to the aspirations of both the peasant communities and the urban sectors (laborers, students, and professionals). This is the only path to an effective accumulation of force, both quantitative and qualitative. Regional autonomy is not limited to democratization and decentralization of the State, or to simple regionalization. Regionalization is functional in terms of the State's need for administrative decentralization; it does not necessarily imply a transfer of powers from the State to the region, and even less so, a consideration of the ethnic particularities of a region. On the other hand, regional autonomy does imply the democratization and decentralization of the State. Furthermore, regional autonomy means a deepening of democracy, given that it brings the level of decision-making closer to the citizens, and thus allows a more effective political participation. The democratization of the Communes (or counties), based on their current structure and characteristics, could make them a true instrument of local power.13 Together with a Regional Assembly -even if this were to have limited powers in the context of regionalization- the Communes could act as the framework for the demand for autonomy and become the basis for the accumulation of forces. The accumulation of forces within the region would permit effective negotiation with the State. Achieving elected positions at the level of the Communes as well as positions in government institutions at the regional level14 is more important than having one or two Mapuche deputies in the National Congress, if the latter are not backed by a real force at the local level. We must not ignore history. The Mapuche people was incorporated by force into the Chilean State, thus losing its independence with the conquest of the Araucanía, and we cannot deny this reality. Just as the construction of a democratic society after 16 years of dictatorship can only be done on the basis of the reality left behind by the military regime (which impedes a simple return to the past); for the Mapuche, the construction of an autonomous region, after more than a century of domination and colonization, poverty, discrimination, marginality and denial of their identity in their own territory, must be based on the reality of the IXth Region today: a region fully incorporated into the twentieth century, with more than half of its population non-Mapuche. For Mapuche autonomists, the question today is not simply the construction of a democratic State, nor a fundamentalist return to the past, but rather the questioning of an entire tradition of centralism and assimilationism, and a quest for the right to determine the region's future course. When the declared objective of the current government and of all the forces that have struggled against the dictatorship is the construction of a democratic society, it is important to remember that, in a multi-ethnic country like Chile, this democratic society can only be truly pluralist to the measure that it accepts this diversity and recognizes the rights of each ethnic group. In the case of the Mapuche, this means the recognition of an equal right to exist as a people, with their own language, culture and social organization, and the constitution of a Statute of Autonomy which strengthens the possibility of participation in regional government and control over their historical territory and their future as a people. By José A. Mariman 6 The term indianism refers to the ideology which contrasts all that is "Indian" (treating the diverse aboriginal cultures of the American continent as one homogeneous culture) with all that is "white" or European. 7 The Spanish term "gremio" refers to organizations (traditionally labor oriented) which make concrete socio-economic demands, without pretending to adhere to a particular party or ideological line. 8 The term "nationalitarian" here has the meaning given by Maxime Rodinson in his book, Sobre la teoría marxista de la nación, (Editorial Anagrama, Barcelona, 1977). Thus we avoid using the term "nationalism" which refers to an ideology associated with the nation-state. The term "nationalaitarian" is an adjective based on the noun "nationality" (referring to an ethnic group), and a "nationalitarian movement" is a movement which is characterized by its demand for "rights which permit the community concerned to lead its own life freely and independently to a limited degree (autonomy) or completely (independence), have its own institutions, a development of its typical cultural elements: customs, religion, language." (p.143, translated from the version in Spanish). 9 Cf. Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo, "El concepto de indio en América: una categoría de la situación colonial", Anales de Antropología, Vol IX, Mexico, 1972. 10
"The autonomy which a State concedes to a national minority consists
in recognizing (the minority) as a collective subject of law, distinct
from the individuals who are its members. (...) Autonomy, as conceived
by national liberation movements, effectively describes the situation of
a nation or fragment of a nation which, without having absolute independence,
enjoys the faculty to administrate its internal affairs according to its
own laws. This autonomy is the counterpart of centralization; it is not,
as in federalism, integrated into a more complex system. Demanding autonomy
with respects to a centralized State, a national minority does not attempt
to remodel the State as a whole, along federalist lines, but rather to
obtain a statute of exception which puts into place certain attributes
of federalism. (...) Juridically, autonomy is related to four essential
elements: 11 "Certainly the rights longed for by ethnic groups ('las etnias') are above all cultural, but these can only be effective to the extent to which they are supported by political and economic rights. The fallacy of liberal thinking and some ideologies called 'socialist' lies in believing that the former can be fully satisfied and exercised without the latter; that is to say, that cultural superstructures can be developed independently from the economic infrastructures. Because it is not a question of parking ethnic groups in reservations, petrifying their behaviors or restoring their ancient customs, but rather of permitting each group to be ruler of itself and its destiny. In other words, to be able to choose the direction and rhythm of the group's evolution, to put to use the riches of their land for their own benefit and according to their own ways, to create their own institutions. The cultural content of this freedom, of these necessary exemptions, is fundamental, the political implications are evident, but the economic consequences cannot be forgotten without representing a moral and material fraud: the spiritual and social life of any people has, as its very base, production and, therefore, their relationship with their environment, with their land." Roland Breton, Las Etnias, Oikos-Tau, Barcelona, 1983, pp. 141-143 (translation from the Spanish version cited). 12 "Territorial exemption is the necessary condition for other rights and the best guarantee of survival. After recognition of a territory, the full liberty to bring out its potential cannot be refuted without opening the road to alienation. Autonomy and self-determination -this is to say, literally, the capacity to govern and make decisions for oneself- would lose their purpose without control over the land." Breton, op cit, pp.143-144. 13 Cf. Espinoza, Vicente, Alfredo Rodriguez and Alex Rosenfeld, "Poder local, pobladores y democracia", in Proposiciones, No.2, Santiago, 1986. 14 Currently, regional institutions such as the Economic Council, the Regional Secretaries of the various Ministries, and the Regional Intendant (highest regional authority) are not constituted through election but rather through central government appointments. It is possible to imagine, however, that this reality may change as a result of a continued process of democratization and regionalization. |
| |
||
|
||