A Case Study of Mexican Zapatistas and Peruvian Shining Path

Violence is a tool used by many to achieve change. It has been proven throughout history to bring about the most rapid results and has thus evolved into the most common method by which to seek political revolution. There is no doubt that as of now it has the ability to bring about rapid change if successful. However, there is also the plethora of issues that have come to be associated with the aftermath of violent means. Perhaps the greatest problem is putting an end to the violence once a goal is achieved, as violence perpetuates more violence. Yet, even with the emergence of other methods to bring about change, particularly in the age of such rapidly increased information flow, violence continues to exist at all levels, from military coups to terrorist invasions. It is difficult to combat any sort of physical insurgency without resorting to extremities. Boundaries become increasingly difficult to establish and previously guaranteed liberties become questionable in the face of adversity. While, violence brings about change, its worth must be measured against everything that it entails.

Often times, conflicts turn to war, which include interstate and separatist wars, civil wars, guerilla warfare, and proxy wars. There is a great diversity in the types of people who justify their destructive means, ranging from a "legitimate" government to militaries. The military often has the power to wield tremendous influence on the government, and in some instances virtually control the government. Children are often the group most victimized by warfare, particularly in their active participation as soldiers. However, governments are by no means the only promoters of violent change. There are both nationalistic terror groups and international terrorists. Methods of destruction have become increasingly within their reach through bioterrorism and chemical weapons, and they are often implicated in drug cartels. Revolutionaries are people who seek to promote revolution, defined as a change in regime, with the desire to achieve extensive, relatively quick and often concurrent changes in economic, political, and social structure. There is debate as to whether the world has entered into more violence or remained relatively the same. While many engage in violence, it is difficult to make the transition beyond that and violence is often self perpetuating.

Mexico experienced a wholly new sort of uprising when the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) burst onto the scene in Chiapas. They claimed to be fighting to restore the legitimacy of the government, and maintained that they supported basic human needs, freedom, democracy, and peace. In Chiapas, the Zapatistas wanted to change the feudal relationship between the wealthy local bosses who are pro-PRI and a majority poor. In response to this new "internal enemy," the Mexican government sent in 60,000 initial troops to destroy approximately 3,000 EZLN fighters. However, the Zapatistas have begun fighting on another field, and became the first insurgent group to understand and effectively use the power of the internet. They have rapidly changed from a guerilla army into a nonviolent political movement. Some expected the Zapatistas to lose their momentum, since the loss of their symbolic enemy as Mexico is transitioning into democracy. Yet, corruption continues to exist on nearly every level of government, including an ongoing denial of the "Tlatelolco massacre," during which hundreds of student demonstrators were shot. As the Mexican army has historically been the most secretive and least democratic of government institutions, it is highly unlikely that Fox will risk provoking them by attempting to punish them for the previous scandal.

The Peruvian military has more of a tradition of civilian control, yet recent politics in Peru has had a significant impact on the civil-military relationship. A leftist insurgency movement, Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), began its attacks the same year that the civilians had resumed power from the military. It was a largely cult following based on the charismatic Abimael Guzman Reynoso. The guerilla movement was fanatical and in many ways more like a religion than a political entity. His ideology drew from Marxism, but he claimed to have studied orthodox Maoist philosophy. Guzman emphasized a new social order, requiring the death of 10 percent of the population. The military took its toll on this massive bloodshed as well, and gross human rights violations were committed by both sides. When President Fujimori came into power he favored essentially an authoritarian regime. His government proved successful in putting down the Shining Path for the most part and he was reelected. It became evident soon after that he was going to continue using repression to stay in power. Through civic elections, he was ousted from power by Alejandro Toledo, who has begun to reassert civilian control over the military.

Violence is historically proven to be a means by which to achieve change, yet especially with the increasing rate of information flow, it is debatable as to whether it continues to be the most effective. The Zapatistas may have begun as a guerilla movement but their move towards the internet revolution is proof of the immense power behind ideas. While force can bring about reluctant change, it is the influence of ideas and peaceful political movement that maintains a semblance of legitimacy. Simultaneously, it is difficult to fight ongoing corruption with increased information flow, in that the results would not be quite as immediate. Yet, there is no real evidence of violent acts versus media propaganda because the latter is such a recent innovation. It might be possible to combat the military corruption with the spread of mass information, something the author references briefly when he mentions the recent surfacing of pictures from the Tlatelolco massacre. International attention could force the change that Fox is too timid to make within the military. Yet, there are so few revolutions won in peaceful manners, and while many make use of propaganda as a secondary tool, Lenin's use of the Communist Manifesto and even the American colonies reliance on Thomas Payne's Common Sense, no war has been won due solely to this. With the rapid move towards internet accessibility and reliance though, it is a possibility for the future.

Many excuse extreme measures for extenuating circumstances, which became the primary reason for the reelection of Fujimori. It is difficult though to draw the line between what is permissible and what exactly is going too far. Peru was in a state of mass terror and bloodshed, during which its citizens welcomed any sort of solution. Ideally, there is no excuse for the suspension of due process and basic liberties, but it becomes increasingly complex when the lives of citizens are at stake. The author seems to take an almost condemning view of Fujimori, automatically grouping him with the evil terrorist category. Yet, while Fujimori overstepped innumerable boundaries and committed gross human rights violations, there are uncanny parallels between his actions in office during the time of the Shining Path and the current United States administration. While it would be an obvious hyperbole to match up President Bush's actions post 9/11 to that of Fujimori, the suspension of basic rights is a commonality that can be found in the Patriot Act. So, the question of how far is too far comes into play again, only this time for a much more powerful and developed nation. It will be interesting to see a future reaction to this overstepping of democratic boundaries.