Unfortunately, for both themselves and those who depend on them for care and guidance, these workers encountered a government which was reluctant to cooperate with them or to address any of their demands. Thus, they remained on the streets of Tuxtla, sleeping on the sidewalk or in makeshift tents in the main plaza, for a total of twenty three days before they were able to return home to the communities. Nevertheless, despite their departure from the streets, many questions remain in the minds of the people of Chiapas, particularly those concerning the underlying motives for the workers’ actions and the actual steps taken to rectify the ever increasing social and political tensions in the state.
A statement recently published by organizations supporting strike participants emphasizes that the origin of the conflict is, in fact, the state government’s efforts to privatize the health and education sectors and to initiate massive structural reforms in many public spheres, including labor, health, energy, education, and agriculture (Pronuncamiento Publico). While the government alleges that lack of funding and overall economic depression are the motivations for these changes, more objective onlookers cannot help but perceive that these moves are but one more bow by the state to foreign investors and other proponents of neoliberal economic policies.
Additionally, the document cites as incentive for this strike numerous examples of repressive measures taken by the Salazar regime, during the last five years of his rule. For instance, this government has purposefully undertaken a massive propaganda campaign, estimated to cost approximately two million pesos daily, against unionized workers in the health and education sectors, in order to attempt to convince the people of Chiapas and Mexico that the claims of these groups are unreasonable, frivolous, or matters to be dealt with at the federal level. It has also refused to comply with any of the agreements already established between labor unions and previous state governments. It has closed over 254 primary schools, including the boarding school Escuela Normal Mactumactza, in an apparent effort to supress free and public education. This government has applied economic and administrative sanctions to unionized workers in an attempt to destroy their moral and psychological integrity. It has also greatly increased the police presence in regional hospitals, particularly at the Hospital Regonal de Tuxtla Gutierrez. The new “public security force” there has been maintained in order to undermine the organizing efforts of health care worker unions and to supress complaints by staff about inadequate equipment and meager wages for an insufficient number of personnel. Understandably, these repressive measures have effectively exacerbated the growing social unrest and given credence to the demands of the workers (Pronuncamiento Publico)
In essence, this struggle between unionists and the state government of Chiapas began three months ago, when the teachers presented a petition statement with over one-hundred demands. The state government immediately dismissed most of these demands, claiming that they were a federal matter, although some of these demands, such as the fusion of state and federal education services and the improvement of infrastructure could have been dealt with by the state. Other demands of the workers include the reopening of the retirement fund for teachers, a budget increase for sufficient equipment and maintenance of hospitals and schools, and the cessation of massive and selective repression of the unions by the state government.
Over the course of the three weeks that the strike continued, different groups found a variety of means to show their solidarity for the workers engaged in this struggle. For example, over six thousand teachers from the states of Chiapas, Michoacan, Oaxaca, Distrito Federal, Tlaxcala, Zacatecas, and Hidalgo marched through the streets of Mexico City, demanding the resignation of Pablo Salazar, the rescindence of the governor’s orders to dismiss more than 400 of the striking teachers from their jobs, and the release of several organizers placed in jail due to their participation in the event. Also, on March 11th, teachers from the indigenous municipalities of San Cristobal de las Casas, Zinacantan, Chamula, and Mitontic, who had remained on the outskirts of the movement, only maintaining part-time strikes, announced their complete suspension of work and initiated a blockade on highways in various remote areas of the state. Nevertheless, despite this tremendous momentum and support, there reached a point when even the union leaders wished to end this foray. This sentiment created tension between the union leaders and the rest of the constituency, and probably helped to push forward the forced reconcilation between the two parties (Mariscal).
Thus, this social movement reached an apparent conclusion the 23rd of May. In the agreement set forth by the two groups, several concrete, if not necessarily inspired settlements were reached. The concessions by the government included the readjustment of the teacher’s salary to the amount established before March 7th, the cessation of administrative and economic sanctions, the cessation of audits and reassesment of school closings, and the general regulation of administrative acts. However, they still refuse to dismiss the cases of the union organizers and workers who were imprisioned earlier this month.
As one critic has stated, “This recent social upheaval. . . should [at the least] inspire the reflection of all the political and social actors of the state and the operators of the interior politics of the country, if only to make sure that this type of thing does not happen again.” (Mariscal). A critical look at the situation, reveals that, for the most part, the last twenty three days have only served to illuminate the weakness of the politicians and the politics oriented toward education, health, and fundamental agricultural issues. But, didn’t we already realize that? In order to gain a more profound understanding of this situation and its historical context, serious reflection and analysis, hopefully with the purpose of inspiring self criticism, is absolutely essential for both parties. In addition, we must also ask ourselves once again, why is social tension, on the verge of a serious crisis, the only means to inspire discussion between the citizens and the government? Why are these modes of communication not opened before hand? And, furthermore, why does there still exist confusion about what was actually gained and lost, for both parties in this situation? These are questions which arise, and which must be answered swiftly in order to ensure that history does not repeat itself, once again.
