For us autonomy is the soul and heart of our resistance in our pueblos, it is a new way of doing politics in construction and in development in democracy, justice and liberty.

Macario, a member of the Nueva Revolución community in the municipality of Diecisiete de Noviembre (Chiapas) (quoted in Mora 2017, p. 72)
General session at ‘Las Zapatistas y las Conciencas por la Humanidad,’ in San Cristóbal de Las Casas, December 26, 2016. (EZLN 2017).

Note: this was originally written (with one of my friends^^it was fun!) in French as a seminar paper (polsci MA), and I used for the English translation (with a quick double check).


Since the end of the postwar boom, Western democracies have been transformed by a range of economic and political factors. With regard to the political system and democracy in particular, there has been a decline in citizens’ trust in their leaders, as well as a sense of mistrust expressed outside political institutions and parties (Chapdelaine 2010: 2). Some of the inherent limitations of representative democracy, including the growing gap between representatives and represented, the over-centralisation of power and the disempowerment of citizens, are leading to a growing dissatisfaction with this type of political organisation and a desire to turn to new practices (Hatzfeld 2011).

It is in this context that academic research on participatory democracy has developed over the last few decades, partly in connection with a political demand to study and experiment with new consultative, deliberative and participatory arrangements… According to Sintomer & Bacqué (2011),

Participation cannot be decreed, especially when it is initiated “from above”. From a quantitative point of view, it remains limited in most cases, and there has been no significant evolution in this respect in the European experiences of the last fifteen years. From a statistical point of view, the under-representation or silence of people belonging to dominated groups (precarious, young, immigrant populations) was not initially necessarily a problem for the actors; it was even dismissed as irrelevant by some observers [Donzelot, Estèbe, 1994]. In the 2000s, however, it was highlighted by the vast majority of researchers and became a problem for the actors themselves. Various techniques were then used (with varying degrees of success) to try to remedy the problem, and it is notably on this basis that schemes using the drawing of lots have multiplied [Boy, Bourg, 2005; Sintomer, 2007; Waren, Pearse, 2008; Collectif, 2010, Hamel, 2008].

(p. 15-16)

According to authors such as Pierre Bourdieu and Daniel Gaxie, the issue of participation by subaltern or working-class categories is associated with ‘structural social inequalities in the face of politicisation’ (Blondiaux 2007: 762). In particular, from this perspective, it is a question of taking into account the legitimacy of participating in politics, both as a feeling among individuals and as social recognition of their political competence, i.e. their legitimate capacity to participate in political decisions and processes.

In this view, one factor in the low participation of dominated groups is ‘the social inability to enter into the categories of judgement and expression of opinions imposed by [the political order]’ (Lagroye et al. 2012: 350-351). Individuals ‘experience’ and ‘manifest’ this incompetence, ‘in particular through non-participation in ‘civic’ activities’ (p.348), but this is “not an ‘absence of opinions’, but a sense of incompetence maintained by the socially authorised agents defining the language and schemas of the political.” (p.351).

For this reason, it would seem important to ask to what extent attempts at participatory democracy might be limited by the very fact that they originate in the modern state framework, which is based in part on the differentiation between political specialists and laymen defined by their inability to intervene according to the codes and patterns of the established political system. What happens in contexts where this separation is deconstructed or even abolished, when the principle is applied that, to use the title of an article by C.L.R. James (1956), ‘Every Cook Can Govern‘?

Unfortunately, according to Starr et al (2011), ‘[participatory] democracy as a viable political practice independent of the state has seldom been a serious object of scholarly attention’. Works dealing with more inclusive forms of participatory democracy generally conceive of it as ‘a kind of advisory process to state decision making (…) The forms of “direct”, “deliberative”, and “decentralized” democracy discussed in these works are all ways of participating in the state’ (p. 103).

However, the Zapatista experience in the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico is an example of popular self-organisation that has lasted for more than 25 years. Since the 1990s, and especially since 2003, this experience of democracy from below has persisted despite an unfavourable context, linked in particular to the repression of the Mexican state and the violence of paramilitary organisations. Nevertheless, its radical character can be identified by its popular, peasant and Indian base, its project of self-government outside the state, and its internationalist and anti-capitalist demands. The participation of so-called lay citizens is thus a foundation of the Zapatista organisation, directly raising the question of their competence and capacity to organise and manage themselves.


Several authors have described and examined various aspects of the Zapatista project, including the political system, adopting approaches such as democracy (Chapdelaine 2010), governance (Melenotte 2010), autonomy (Baschet 2019, 2021) or everyday cultural and political practices (Mora 2017).
In her analysis of the democratic function from the armed uprising of January 1, 1994 to the “Other Campaign”, an initiative for citizen participation at the national level initiated in 2005, Monique Chapdelaine (2010) emphasizes the singularity of the movement. She proposes to examine, among other things, the Zapatista conception of democracy. Adopting a radical perspective, the Zapatistas position themselves against the state and advocate new methods of consultation and decision-making, including a diversity of social actors and a total decentralisation of power. According to them, power in a democratic society should be located at the base, that is, in civil society. In total opposition to the current functioning of the Mexican government, participatory democracy is one aspect of the political organisation sought by the Zapatistas.

According to Sabrina Melenotte (2010), the application of the notion of political governance to the practice of Zapatista autonomy precisely allows for the inclusion of new actors in the analysis, and therefore, civil society. Governance is a system of rules and institutions that implies a reorganisation of power and government (p.180). It allows us to think about citizen participation and the possibility of the emergence of organised power on the margins of the state thanks to the diversity of actors it implies in the practice of power. Consequently, the governance approach makes it possible to link contestation and political reconfigurations through the self-government of civil society.

Self-government, that is, the idea that the people are capable of governing themselves, can be thought of as the outcome of the practice of autonomy. The latter represents the most important characteristic of the Zapatista experience according to Jérôme Baschet (2019, 2021). It is also through this concept that the Zapatistas themselves describe their practices and their modes of political and social organisation. Their emancipation project secedes from the institutions of the state and has established a self-government involving a relocation of political organisation to another scale that does not include the state (Baschet 2021: 2).

This approach identifies how Zapatista autonomy operates in the areas of education, health, justice and government. The political organisation is characterised by what the Zapatistas call the ‘mandar obedeciendo‘, which means ‘the people rule and the government obeys’ (Baschet 2019: 356). But this does not mean that the relationship between government and people is strictly horizontal. On the contrary, it works both ways: ‘[…] the government obeys, because it has to consult and do what the people ask; the government commands because it has to implement and enforce what has been decided collectively […]’ (p. 360). Zapatista autonomy thus goes beyond the oppositions traditionally put forward between representative and direct democracy, and the analysis of the exchanges that exist within and between the three levels of Zapatista organisation (community, municipality and zone) are essential to understanding it.

Mariana Mora (2017) has carried out an ethnography of cultural and political practices in the Zapatista municipality Diecisiete de Novembre, based on materials collected between 2005 and 2008 through interviews, observations and informal conversations (p.5). She focuses on what she calls “everyday politics” which she places at the centre of what Zapatista autonomy represents as a mode of socio-political organisation:

The everyday politics of Zapatista indigenous autonomy simultaneously interacts with the state through what Pablo González (2011) terms a politics of refusal and enacts multilayered forms of engagement internal to the rebel autonomous project, including dialogue with vast webs of national and international political actors (…. From this double-pronged politics emerge particular Tseltal and Tojolabal cultural practices – concentrated in three central realms, knowledge production, ways of being, and the exercise of power – that partially unravel the colonial legacies of a racialized and gendered neoliberal Mexican state.

(p. 3-4)

This close analysis of the Zapatista ‘way of life’ touches on the theme of legitimacy in certain respects, but only indirectly. In other words, it is a valuable source of evidence for the social construction of the competence to (self-)govern, even if not from the perspective of legitimacy or political competence.

While the functioning of the Zapatista political system, and in particular of autonomy, has been analysed in some detail in the literature, it is interesting to use a new angle of approach that seems to be missing from the current literature, namely that of citizen competence. It is therefore necessary to ask what constitutes the legitimacy of ordinary citizens in such a system. How is the political competence of the communities of Chiapas – mostly peasants and Indians – constructed? What is the relationship between ‘governed’ and ‘governing’, between ‘specialist’ and ‘layman’ in this case?

Some background: the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas

While the armed uprising of 1 January 1994 is generally identified as the beginning of Zapatismo, it must be seen in the longer history of Indian and popular mobilisation in this country, which goes back to the struggle of Emiliano Zapata during the Mexican Revolution of 1910. This was aimed at restoring agricultural land to the local populations who had been managing it collectively since the Spanish colonisation. Therefore, the specific context of the formation of Zapatismo is the emergence of peasant movements in the 1970s in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas. The predominantly agricultural state of Chiapas was plagued by poverty and inequality. Indigenous people were highly marginalised and had no recognised rights.

The organisation that emerged as the main figure in the 1994 insurgency, the EZLN (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional), was founded in 1983. It emerged from a Marxist-Leninist group in the north of the country, the FLN (Fuerzas de Liberación Nacional), and initially resorted to an isolated and clandestine guerrilla war. As Jérôme Baschet (2019: 19) points out, ‘it is important to understand that Zapatismo was not born on 1 January 1994, and that there was a broad social movement behind and around it, with at least twenty years of struggle and experience accumulated by the indigenous peasants of Chiapas’. The violence of the government and paramilitary organisations brings together the EZLN and indigenous communities. The initial uprising, in which “for the first time in history, an indigenous army seized San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Ocosingo, Las Margaritas, and Altamirano […] with cries of ‘Ya basta! (p.33), carried the priority and central demand of the Zapatista movement: autonomy and the recognition of the rights of the Indian populations.

The initial phase, from 1994 to 2003, was marked by a process of government repression, the transition from armed struggle to political struggle, and the attempt to negotiate with the Mexican authorities. The disillusionment of the Zapatistas with these negotiations led in August 2003 to the declaration of their autonomy in the occupied territories, where they announced the unilateral application of the San Andres3 Accords (providing for the constitutional recognition of Indian rights), which had not been respected by the Mexican government. They created “[…] five councils of good government, federating 27 “autonomous Zapatista rebel municipalities” […]” (Baschet 2021)4.

In Oventic the EZLN announced that the five Zapatista aguascalientes, regions created by the EZLN in January 1996, would be changed to caracoles and that five corresponding juntas de buen gobierno would be instituted as coordinating bodies for the multiple autonomous councils in the five Zapatista areas.

(Mora 2017: 38)

According to Mora: “The San Andrés dialogues forged dynamic conditions for creative political endeavors at the margins of the state. Shortly thereafter, the Zapatista support bases, or community members who actively support the political- military structure of the EZLN but are not part of the rebel army’s military ranks, organized self governing bodies and administrative units to implement collective decisions and initiated their own education, justice, agrarian, and health- care projects as part of their autonomous municipalities. Sympathizers of the movement also mobilized in support of these initiatives, myself included.”(Mora 2017: 4)

A further expansion of autonomy was announced in August 2019 with the creation of four new autonomous municipalities and seven new good government councils (Baschet 2021).

Autonomy as a form of participatory democracy from below

Today, participation refers to a wide variety of approaches in terms of formats, audiences, framing and scale. It has its origins in criticism of representative democracy. In particular, these criticisms point to the dissociation between representatives and the represented, the excessive centralisation of power and the disempowerment of citizens, thus making ‘participatory democracy’ necessary (Hatzfeld 2011: 53). From then on, the development of participation was articulated around two distinct issues. If the aim was to make it a political tool available to leaders, it had to be able to correct and complement representation. With this in mind, governments sought to partially encourage the participation of actors traditionally excluded from the construction of public policies. But if it was to be a tool for challenging the political and social system, then participation had to be a political struggle. This last point makes it possible to understand participatory democracy as a means of producing a popular counter-power.

Today, participation is characterised by a supply-side logic from governments. This has developed partly in response to popular protests against representation and, consequently, with a view to correcting its defects. Thus, participatory experiences, often imagined in contexts of social struggles, ‘[…] have gradually been ‘translated’ by public authorities, in the form of administered and top-down devices.’ (Gourgues 2018: 22). Because of this top-down implementation, participatory democracy has thus increasingly lost the political meaning it was meant to have. Finally, governments see it mainly as a ‘good practice’ rather than a right that citizens should have (ibid.).

But, “[…] to think of participation only in terms of its mechanisms granted and designed according to the needs of public decision-makers is a dead end. (p.27). Indeed, it is also possible to identify independent attempts that are taking place outside the state framework and that advocate new political practices based on participation, as the Zapatista experience of self-government shows. A self-governing political system is based on the idea of “[…] the capacity of all to govern themselves.” (Baschet 2021: 11). All citizens therefore participate in policy-making and decision-making.

Participatory democracy and self-management both represent prefigurations of a new mode of political organisation that breaks with the model of representation (Hatzfeld 2011). However, while participatory democracy aims to organise government differently through the inclusion of a larger number of actors in decision-making processes, self-management goes further and aims to do politics differently (ibid.). In this perspective, citizens are not only consulted on public policies but also organise society and politics themselves and thus have real decision-making power.

Self-management is a concept that is part of the tradition of the labour movement in which workers are encouraged to work autonomously for the establishment of socialism (p.54). It is therefore a practice that aims at a radical transformation of society’s behaviours and ways of thinking: the relationship to work, consumption and knowledge are then completely different, advocating an alternative organisational model to that of capitalism (p. 55).

The Zapatista movement is also characterised by this desire to effect a complete transformation of lifestyles. However, rather than talking about self-management, the Zapatistas use the term autonomy to characterise their modes of organisation.

Under this name of autonomy – by which the Zapatistas themselves synthesise their practice – one must understand both the implementation of modalities of self-government entirely dissociated from the institutions of the Mexican state and the reinvention of forms of life rooted in the Indian tradition and yet unprecedented, which escape as far as possible from capitalist determinations.

(Baschet 2019: 323)

On the one hand, Zapatista autonomy thus represents a radical critique of the state insofar as it rejects any form of political organisation that includes a centralisation of powers. Indeed, it implies a relocalisation of politics not only at the level of scale, with a shift from national to local, but also at the level of power hierarchies, with the state now absent (Baschet 2019). After the failure of the San Andrés Accords to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples, autonomy appears to be a mode of organisation that can better respond to the needs of these populations (Melenotte 2010). The state is unable to do this unless it is completely transformed and reorganised. The Zapatistas thus declared de facto autonomy for their territories in 2003 and have been self-governing ever since. More than a reflection of an inability to dialogue with the Mexican government, the declaration of autonomy is above all a form of resistance to state oppression.

[They are afraid that we will discover that we can govern ourselves”, said Maestra Eloisa at the Escuelita. She thus confirms the essential principle: we, the ordinary people, are capable of governing ourselves – a ‘discovery’ that has the unfortunate consequence, for those above and for all the self-proclaimed experts in politics, of demonstrating their harmful uselessness!

(Baschet 2019: 372)

On the other hand, autonomy is also part of a long popular tradition of community organisation in which the collective exercise of power and consensus-building are essential: the authority of the community prevails over that of individuals (Baschet 2021). The ‘tradition’ is nevertheless undergoing transformations in power relations, through the integration of youth and women usually excluded from community assemblies, as well as in the social structure and symbolic roles associated with women (Mora 2017). Women are now fully included in autonomy arrangements.

As identified by Jérôme Baschet (2021), Zapatista autonomy is being implemented in the fields of education, health, justice and politics. It cuts across several facets of daily life, in a process of struggle for lekil kuxlejal, a dignified collective life associated with a specific territory (Mora 2017; see p. 12). It represents a daily aspiration to live with dignity and is therefore expressed through everyday practices (ibid.). The relationship to the land is essential in that it allows for the creation of a collective identity territorialised around autonomy, without the need for legal structures for its implementation (Guimont Marceau 2010).

The political organisation of the autonomy functions on three interacting levels: communities, municipalities (which bring together several communities) and autonomous areas (which allow municipalities to coordinate at regional level). Each level has assemblies and authorities elected for two or three years. The articulation of these two elements is essential for the functioning of autonomy. For example, decisions can only be taken in consultation with each level: in fact, several rounds of consultations between the council, the zone assembly and the communities sometimes take place (Baschet 2021).

The political organisation of Zapatista autonomy

Scheme based on Baschet (2019) and Mora (2017).

Other bodies also intervene in the functioning of the autonomy, such as the Supervisory Commission of each Zone or the Indigenous Revolutionary Clandestine Committee (Baschet 2019). The decentralisation of the political organisation and the involvement of several bodies avoids certain problems inherent to the state and representation, such as the separation between the governors and the governed. The latter leads to the implementation of policies that do not necessarily meet the expectations of the citizens, but only the interests of those in power. In an autonomous system, on the other hand, everyone is able to govern themselves without the state. Therefore, each member of the Zapatista community can potentially be mandated by the others to carry out political tasks. There is no self-proclamation, no self-representation in elections, no political specialists. Zapatista women and men are themselves involved in policy-making, which allows them to respond directly to the interests of their community.

Zapatista autonomy is thus a project of community participation that includes internal participation of citizens in the life of their community, but also external participation of the community in a broader political order (Dumoulin 2010). The Zapatistas interact with the Mexican state through a politics of refusal, and implement forms of engagement at several levels, including a dialogue with national and international political actors (Mora 2017). Here, therefore, participation is not reduced to a political tool that the government uses in the hope of renewing the legitimacy of the existing system. It aims to challenge the mode of political organisation and above all the social order that structures roles and hierarchical positions in all spheres of life, including political activity. Indeed, since the declaration of autonomy, the place of women in politics, but also in Zapatista society, has been transformed.

Moreover, autonomy is a constantly evolving process, i.e. it is a practice that has the capacity to adapt to social reality (Baschet 2019). It is not a system fixed by theoretical principles that must absolutely be applied to the letter. On the contrary, it is a policy situated in a concrete place, composed of concrete experiences, which must be able to adapt to the context it encounters. This conception opens up the possibility of applying autonomy worldwide (ibid.).

In this sense, the political logic of autonomy is the same as the desire to build a world where there is room for many worlds: not only does it start from the singularity of experiences, but it invites us to recognise that there cannot be a single way of thinking about the exit from capitalism. It therefore calls for the recognition of the multiplicity of worlds, but also for the art of listening, translation and proportionality, so that these worlds are able to coordinate, learn from each other and master their possible divergences.

(Baschet 2019: 378)

According to the Zapatistas, in a society that claims to be democratic, power must be located at the bottom, that is, civil society must be able to control and sanction those in leadership positions, as well as make them respond to popular interests (Chapdelaine 2010). This is what the movement strives to achieve through the politics of autonomy, which allows for the effective participation of all through the idea that the people are capable of organising and governing themselves.

The issue of political competence

As mentioned in the introduction, we take up here the conception formulated (among others) by Bourdieu (1979), who defines political competence as

the greater or lesser capacity to recognise the political question as political and to treat it as such by responding to it politically, i.e. on the basis of properly political (and not ethical, for example) principles, a capacity which is inseparable from a greater or lesser feeling of being competent in the full sense of the word, i.e. socially recognised as being entitled to deal with political affairs, to give one’s opinion on them or even to change their course.

(pp. 465-466)

From this perspective, the place occupied in the division of political labour is based on an unequal distribution of social (or ‘statutory’) competences that will favour the politicisation of individuals positioned in the social structure. Their social properties – in particular social class and level of education or cultural capital – are thus decisive in relation to the acquisition of these statutory (i.e. socially recognised) competences, which will make them more ‘legitimate’ in formulating political opinions and intervening in the decisions or construction of public policies.

Mastery of the ‘language and schemas of politics’ (Lagroye et al. 2012: 351) thus privileges, in the context not only of electoral or parliamentary practices, but also of experiments in participatory democracy, the participation of members of the middle and upper classes, who in particular have greater cultural capital. Conversely, socially dominated agents manifest their ‘incompetence’ – in the statutory, rather than normative or technical sense – by ‘non-participation in “civic” activities’ (p. 348). This highlighting of inequalities in politicisation is thus a possible way of explaining the low participation of working-class people in experiments in participatory democracy.

The particularly interesting dimension of the Zapatista experience is, in this respect, the absence of a specialisation (or professionalisation) of political activities and expertise (in the sense of technical competence). As Lascoumes (2002) explains,

We can consider that the future of expert practices is linked to their capacity to become more democratic, i.e. to truly open up their approach to contrasting points of view and, in particular, to organise a plural expertise that does not stop at the networks of specialists alone and knows how to make a real place for lay people.

(p. 377)

However, the Zapatistas seem to emphasise the despecialisation of political tasks and public functions. According to Baschet (2019),

The Zapatista experience allows us to insist on the following points: short, non-renewable mandates that can be revoked at any time; the absence of personalization and the collegial exercise of responsibilities; control by other bodies; limited concentration of a capacity to elaborate decisions that remains largely shared with the assemblies; the ethics of the collective and the capacity to listen. Above all, however, it is necessary to insist on the effective despecialisation of political tasks which, instead of being monopolised by a specific group (political class, caste based on money, personalities with particular prestige, etc.), are the object of a circulation that is as generalised as possible: ‘We must all, in our turn, be government’ (maestro Jacobo). As has been said, this implies, among other things, abandoning the idea of linking the choice of delegates to the evaluation of a particular individual competence: assuming that elected authorities do not know more about public affairs than others is the condition – oh so difficult to accept! – of a full despecialisation of politics.

(p. 362-363)

It is important then, as already mentioned above, not to conceive of the Zapatista mode of organisation as a form of complete or pure horizontalism. This is what Baschet (2019) explains with a useful concept – the ‘non-dissociative’ form or modality of delegation, which applies to the Zapatista case, as opposed to configurations of delegation based on a dissociation between rulers and ruled. This dissociation characterises, according to him, “political representation in the modern state”, corresponding to “the methodical organisation of the effective absence of the represented” (p. 362). He concludes that it is necessary to emphasise the sensitive balance represented by the Zapatista system, between “verticality of command” and “horizontality of consensus” (p. 74):

It is not a question, therefore, of a real power-over that one part of the collective manages to monopolise and exercise over others, nor is it a question of perfect horizontality, which runs the risk of dissolving for lack of initiatives or the capacity to put them into practice. Rather, the observation of the Zapatista experience invites us to recognise the articulation of two principles: on the one hand, the capacity to decide resides essentially in the assemblies, at their different levels; on the other hand, those who assume, in a rotational and revocable manner, a special role of initiative and impetus, as a mediation between the collectivity and its capacity for self-government, which does not go without opening up the twofold risk of a deficiency or excess in the exercise of this role.

(p. 361)

This persistent risk, due to the existence of positions of authority, is, however, limited by a remarkable collective commitment corresponding to a community ethic of reciprocity, documented in particular by Mora (2017) in his ethnography of the municipality Diecisiete de Noviembre. In particular, it is a set of principles included in the general etiquette of mandar obedeciendo (‘governing by obeying’), whose singularity and importance are emphasised by all authors (Baschet 2019, Baschet 2021, Mora 2017, Chapdelaine 2010, Starr et al. 2011).

This general political principle, formulated at the outset of the Zapatista rebellion (Chapdelaine 2010: 41), seems to derive from older Indian cultural practices in the Tseltal and Tojolabal communities (Mora 2017: 191). In its most concrete sense, mandar obedeciendo implies that those in authority are accountable to the people and organise what the people have decided in a general[6] assembly, not unlike the principle of imperative mandate that has characterised a range of revolutionary movements or episodes.[7] According to Chapdelaine (2010), the mandar obedeciendo allows ‘to overcome the professionalisation of politics, which has led to a systematic separation between the governors and the governed and to the loss of meaning of the forms of government.’ (p. 41).

  • [6] As Mora states: ‘the authorities are responsible for implementing those decisions reached by consensus in the assemblies, rather than taking decisions in the name of the people’. (Mora 2017, p. 191)
  • [7] See in particular the enthusiastic remarks of Karl Marx (1871) in his comments on the Paris Commune, where not only representatives, but also those assigned to various public functions (e.g. magistrates and judges), derived their roles from such revocable mandates.

As Mora (2017) remarkably demonstrates by studying the production collectives of the women of the Diecisiete de Noviembre (Chap. 5), political competence is thus constructed, in the social interactions and cultural practices of the Zapatistas, as explicitly resting on a non-specialisation, which Baschet (2019) emphasises repeatedly:

Of the members of the councils of good government, the Zapatistas have been able to say: “They are specialists in nothing, least of all in politics” (SDR). This non-specialisation leads to the admission that the exercise of authority is carried out from a position of non-knowledge. The members of the autonomous councils insist a lot on the initial feeling of being helpless in front of the task that falls to them (‘nobody is an expert in politics and we all have to learn’). But it is immediately emphasised that it is precisely by accepting not knowing that one can be a ‘good authority’, who tries to listen and learn from everyone, who knows how to recognise mistakes and accepts to be guided by the community in making decisions (GA1). In the Zapatista experience, entrusting the tasks of government to those who have no particular capacity to carry them out is the concrete ground from which the mandar obedeciendo can grow; and this is a solid defence against the risk of separation between governors and governed.

(p. 359)

It is in this sense that we can understand Mora’s (2017) assertion that the principle of mandar obedeciendo inverts in several ways ‘the logic of command-obedience that we find in classical Westernized political theory’ (p. 192). She goes further than other authors, arguing that it is also necessary to look beyond the framework of assemblies to observe ‘how mandar obedeciendo forms part of the politicization of social life in diverse daily spheres’ (p. 228). In her ethnography, she describes, for example, the politicised conversations she observed within the women’s production collectives of Diecisiete de Noviembre. The mandar obedeciendo, in this sense, is (also) related/equivalent to a political and cultural practice that the author calls ‘Kuxlejal politics‘:

When I asked Mauricio what the Tseltal word for “life” is, he explained that its rough equivalent is kuxlejal, “life-existence.” Kuxlejal as a term is but a mere point of anchor granted meaning when used as part of the term for the concept of expressing living as a collective, stalel jkuxlejaltik, a way of being in the world as a people, and as part of the term for a daily aspiration to live in a dignified manner, lekil kuxlejal. The horizon of struggle for lekil kuxlejal, with its Tojolabal equivalent, sak’aniltik, as a good way of living refers not only to an individual being but to that being in relation to a communal connection to the earth, to the natural and supernatural world that envelops as well as nurtures social beings and is thus constantly honoured. Without land, without the ability to plant and harvest sufficient food, without the constant remembering of ancestors in connection to the future and as part of revering the earth, the elements that provide sustenant meaning to life dissipate.

When Zapatista community members associate the political practices of autonomy with creating a new life, they refer to lekil kuxlejal, to a life politics understood as involving these interconnected realms. Autonomy as the foundation of life politics thus is expressed in gathering fallen branches for firewood, in harvesting corn in the fields, in praying for abundant water-not too much, nor too little, just what is necessary for the corn and beans to flourish in the fields, in collecting edible leaves in the forest or picking vegetables in the backyard gardens, in taking care of the children and the elderly, in sharing memories of past events so as to produce knowledge effecting changes in the present. It is the sum of activities in such arenas that allows for the dignified reproduction of life, not only as a physical presence but as a series of cultural processes that allow for the perpetuation of kuxlejal in its collective form and as a collective force.

(p. 19)


The Zapatista experience is interesting because it is a fairly unique experiment in the participation of dominated social groups in policy-making and decision-making. As Chapdelaine has summarised, for the Zapatistas ‘democracy is something that is built from below and with everyone’ (Chapdelaine 2010: 46). Autonomy has allowed for a total reorganisation of Chiapas politics and society, directly involving Mexico’s indigenous populations in the construction and implementation of public policies that affect them.

The contrast between the context of the predominantly Indian communities of Chiapas and that of the experiences of participatory democracy in (especially more urban) spaces in Europe should not prevent us from reflecting on the issues that run through all these forms of participation. While it is clear that the Zapatista experience is not as such transferable or strictly comparable to other contexts, it is above all its character of democracy and participation ‘from below’ that could make it possible to identify potential limits or obstacles in other initiatives. The non-separation between politics and the rest of society, and especially between the governors and the governed, seems to be one of the main aspects that distinguishes it from most other cases.[8]

  • [8] Starr et al. (2011) examine – alongside the Zapatista movement – the case of the Landless Workers (MST) in Brazil, which is another example of participatory democracy located outside the state framework.

In this work, we were interested in the existence of forms of participatory democracy outside the dominant politico-state framework, starting from the question of the legitimacy of ordinary citizens in these processes. We wanted to understand the way in which the political competence of the Zapatista communities is constructed, as well as the relationships between the different categories present in the representative systems, notably between “governed” and “governing”, “specialist” and “layman”.

Among the Zapatistas, the construction of competence and legitimacy to participate lies, in our opinion, in a collective will – inscribed in the struggle for self-determination of the Indian populations – to achieve a form of communal democracy based on the non-specialisation of activities and responsibilities, as well as on the defence of one’s own way of life. Baschet (2021) suggests that the neuralgic core of these forms of life corresponds to the three terms: community, land, and territory.

Nevertheless, the limitations of this work cannot be ignored. Firstly, our analysis has focused on the Zapatista movement in general, which is perhaps too broad and inclusive a scale. A more detailed study of a specific process or a specific community would have allowed us to be more precise. Secondly, it can also be argued that, as we were unable to produce data ourselves, we focused mainly on secondary literature. Thus, we only learned about the Zapatista organisation through the eyes of other authors and not directly from the subjects themselves. Finally, we were not able to study a large part of the existing literature on the Zapatista in Spanish because of the language barrier.


Bacqué, Marie-Hélène, Sintomer, Yves (dir.) (2011) La démocratie participative. Histoire et généalogie. Paris, La Découverte, 288 p.

Baschet, Jérôme (2019) La rébellion zapatiste. Barcelone, Flammarion, 393 p.

Baschet, Jérôme (2021) “Auto-gouvernement populaire et auto-détermination des manières de vivre. A propos de l’autonomie zapatiste.” Terrains/Théories. n°13.

Blondiaux, Loïc (2007). Faut-il se débarrasser de la notion de compétence politique : Retour critique sur un concept classique de la science politique. Revue française de science politique, 57, 759-774.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1979) La distinction, critique sociale du jugement. Éditions de Minuit, Paris.

Chapdelaine, Monique (2010) La fonction démocratique du mouvement zapatiste, du soulèvement armé à l’autre campagne. Université du Québec à Montréal.

Dumoulin Kervran, David & Michel, Aurélia. (2007). “La communauté indienne participative : de quelques usages dans la politique mexicaine.” Dans Catherine Neveu (dir.). Cultures et pratiques participatives, une perspective comparative, Paris, Harmattan, pp. 233-253.

Gourgues, Guillaume (2018) “Participation : trajectoire d’une dépolitisation.” Revue Projet. N° 363, pp. 21-28.

Guimont Marceau, Stéphane (2010) “Autonomie et Développement en Territoire Zapatiste : la Participation Citoyenne au Coeur d’une Expérience de Résistance.” Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes. Vol.35, n°70, pp. 85-112.

Hatzfeld, Hélène (2011) “De l’autogestion à la démocratie participative : des contributions pour renouveler la démocratie” in Bacqué, Marie-Hélène, Sintomer, Yves (dir.) (2011) La démocratie participative. Histoire et généalogie. Paris, La Découverte, pp. 51 à 64.

James, C. L. R. (1956) “Every Cook Can Govern. A Study of Democracy in Ancient Greece: Its Meaning for Today”. Correspondence, Vol. 2, No. 12. June 1956.

Lagroye,  Jacques, François, Bastien & Sawicki, Frédéric (2012) Sociologie politique. Dalloz, Presses de Sciences Po, Paris.

Lascoumes, Pierre (2002) “L’expertise,  de  la  recherche  d’une  action  rationnelle  à  la démocratisation  des  connaissances  et  des  choix.” Revue  française  d’administration  publique. n°103,  pp.  369-377.

Marx, Karl (1871) The Civil War in France. Consulté à l’URL:

Melenotte, Sabrina (2010) “L’autonomie zapatiste : quelle gouvernance ?” in Dorval Brunelle (dir.) Gouvernance : théories et pratiques. Institut d’Études Internationales de Montréal, pp.176-201.

Moria, Mariana (2017) Kuxlejal Politics: Indigenous Autonomy, Race, and Decolonizing Research in Zapatista Communities. University of Texas Press.

Ruano de la Fuente, José M (2006) “La participation citoyenne comme source de légitimité de la gouvernance.” La Revue administrative. N° 353, pp. 487-495.

Starr Amory, Martínez-Torres María Elena, and Rosset Peter (2011) “Participatory Democracy in Action. Practices of the Zapatistas and the Movimento Sem Terra.” Latin American Perspectives. Issue 176, vol. 38, n°1, pp.102-119.

Source image :

EZLN (2017) Zapatistas urge scientists to join in building a better world. Climate & Capitalism [Blog]. URL: