Last week, Mexico's Supreme Court received a preliminary report by a special investigative arm of the tribunal that had been charged with looking into human rights violations in Oaxaca. The special investigation had been requested by the Mexican legislature after the violent conflict between the southern state's governor and civil society in 2006. To recall, in 2006, the state's teachers' union joined forces with a coalition of civil activists under the umbrella of the APPO (Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca) to call for the resignation of the governor. The governor responded with repression, and Oaxaca came to a standstill as the governor and APPO faced off in the streets. After nearly half a year, the federal police arrived to crush the protests and restore order.
Activists have always claimed that the authorities committed grave human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests and murder. The report, over 39 volumes and more than 6500 pages, substantiates at least some of these claims. It now falls to the Court to decide how to proceed, including whether particular individuals should be charged with criminal conduct.
This is the second major investigative report filed by the Court in recent weeks. Less than a month ago, the Court also released its findings from another 2006 debacle, the Atenco case. This case, to recall, involved a conflict over the use of public space in the state of Mexico, specifically a public square where informal vendors sold flowers in San Salvador Atenco. Disputes between the police and local community led to the violent removal of vendors and accusations against the police of rape and assault. The Court's report corroborates many of these accusations as well.
On Sunday, El Universal reported that there is a new proposal in the Mexican Congress to raise human rights to the level of constitutional rights in Mexico. Language in the constitution would be altered to reference international human rights standards, rather than the antiquated view of rights as a grant from the state. The reform would also put more emphasis on educating students about human rights in school.
All of this attention to human rights is surely to be welcomed, but the fundamental problem in Mexico is not a lack of knowledge about human rights, nor the fact that human rights do not have legal protection. The fundamental problem is that these rights are not enforced and that people who violate them do so with impunity. Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) has, for example, done an exemplary job of identifying human rights violations in Mexico since its creation, but has few mechanisms for enforcing redress, and has been criticized for failing to use even those that it does have, such as ongoing monitoring and public shaming of officials. The country's auditor, which just released its report of expenditure in 2007, while also an exemplary investigator of government waste and abuse, is less able to force public officials to respond to its allegations or reform their practices.
One human rights-related reform in Mexico that might make a difference would be to empower the CNDH to sanction violators who do not reform on their own. Mexico has come a long way in terms of its transparency, but it has done less well at creating institutions that can use this information to actually change the way society works. Mexicans know much more about how money is misused, rights violated, and the economy held hostage by monopolists than ever before. But the impunity continues. The right to have rights doesn't mean putting them in the constitution, a notorious burial ground for unenforceable claims. It means instead beefing up enforcement. That is the proper focus of reform.
Printer-friendly version
Comments
August 3, 2009 by advnet (not verified),
I am also agree with the Cultural analysis of this type. which is typically resorted to when people feel that changing institutions to difficult......thanks for sharing.
March 31, 2009 by Chris (not verified),
Your diagnosis that "The fundamental problem is that these rights are not enforced" is presumptuous and uninformed. It rings of the tone that the situation can be set right if, by the snap of the fingers, human rights -- and all the other laws on the books -- would be enforced.
Those that are appointed to see basic rights, such as those of property and being free from fear of bodily harm, are lame ducks. Municipal, state, and federal police are unwilling to perform their duties in Oaxaca because they cannot earn a livable wage on their government salary alone. To supplement their income, they spend their time extorting citizens and acting as paid informants to narco-traffickers or to third parties the narco-traffickers employ. The People, aware that a deaf ear is turned to their complaints, don't bother reporting crimes of every level; the authorities are not called upon to handle crimes ranging from petty theft to murder. The Red Cross is more apprised of homicides, manslaughter, etc. than the police.
The lack of faith in law enforcement and jurisprudence is well known. More insidious however is Mexican apathy. It's a certain kind of apathy that recognizes the problem, and perhaps even how to fix it, but plans and an effort to quell the problem is never actualized for the belief that "this is just how things are." The expression "asi es" is ubiquitously used. It fits many contexts, but the most indicative of Mexican apathy is when it's used in response to legitimate complaints. When in this context one utters "asi es," it is to say, "yes, I agree with you that this is a problem, but frankly no matter how hard we try to fix it, we will always be defeated; the cause of the problem is simply too pervasive and will overcome our every attempt."
Your suggestion of what seems to consist in simply asking the authorities to oversee corruption at every level is naive. The solution needs to start with changing the minds of the people -- a bottom-up approach -- while simultaneously continuing international support and pressure to rid the cancer of corruption from the top-down as well.
March 31, 2009 by Jason Lakin,
I fail to see how "changing the minds of the people" is a more realistic solution than providing the institution charged with monitoring human rights abuses with real teeth. No place do I assume that you can just "snap your fingers" and everything will be set right. Building institutions with real enforcement capacity takes time.
As for your analysis of the term asi es, such phrases are hardly unique to Mexico: it is common to hear young Americans say "it is what it is" when resigning themselves to some social ill. Shallow cultural analysis of this type, which is typically resorted to when people feel that changing institutions is too difficult, is presumptuous and uninformed.