Article written by Melissa Mundt
Here at the Peace House, though at times the mayhem of the U.S.
Presidential race can seem distant, we've stayed on top of the
unfolding elections at our weekly news discussions, even managing to
catch a couple of the Presidential debates thanks to friends with
television. Watching the race from this international perspective has
brought to light just how important U.S. elections are to the world,
not only in terms of how the winning candidate will effect
international policy, but also in terms of how our elections are
carried out. Earlier this month Peace House volunteers spent time as
human rights observers during the Chiapas state elections. Observing
first hand the tension, disenfranchisement, and corruption implicit in
the Mexican election made me reflect on the U.S. electoral context. And
as my Overseas Absentee Ballot flies off toward my state of origin, I
am aware that is in uphill battle in every corner of the world for fair
and just elections.
Electoral politics in Mexico have long been a breeding ground
for corruption and violence. It is often sadly the case that running
for or holding an office is just a pretext for pocketing campaign
funds, laundering government monies or giving positions or contracts to
ones friends. Political parties are very strong, very corrupt and
getting and staying in power often means buying off many people, giving
out bread, bicycles, jobs, manipulating, harassing, threatening. Local
elections can be even worse. In rural areas, old cacique power goes
back generations and is based in controlling the most land, capital,
labor (very often Church power figures prominently, as well).
Currently, these local power figures are often backed by guns and drug
money. People get killed over who the next mayor of a town of 200
people will be, polling places are burned to the ground, votes bought,
burned, switched, thrown out car windows and found later littering the
side of the road.
On October 3rd the state of Chiapas went to the polls to elect
118 mayors and
40 state legislators. And I headed out to the very divided community
where I did human rights observation in July. There had been threats
that no matter who won the election there would be retaliation against
the Zapatistas (who don't vote). There was violence reported throughout
the state of Chiapas and Oaxaca in the weeks proceeding the elections.
In Tapilula in northern Chiapas, 400 PRI supporters came to blows with
300 supporters of the Alianza for Chiapas (a coalition of the PAN, PT,
PRD). In Oaxaca, at least 2 polling place were suspended due to
violence or suspected violence. There's even a 48 hour ban on alcohol
before an election to avoid further escalation of violence. And more
then 2,700 state agents patrolled polling stations. In the community
where I was staying, Zapatistas decided to spend the entire day and
night in one house together hoping for safety in numbers. Over a
hundred men women and children descended on the humble house where we
were also staying.
The mood was tense and fatalistic. These same families were
chased into the woods at gunpoint 6 months ago, this time they are
determined to stay no matter what. In the house women and children
slept crowed together on the dirt floor. Men patrolled the dark
rooftop. We could hear shouts, revving of motors from the polling
place. We had been told that the PRD majority was armed. In the part of
the house where we are staying, the barely functioning radio is set up.
Men sat around it, concentrating on the scratchy signal, listening for
news, until 4:30 in the morning. When the trucks full of shouting men
rumbled up the hill, and I saw their taillights instead of their head
lights, I breathed a sigh of relief and tried to sleep. In the morning
we found out that the same old party, the PRD had won, but the
candidates are local, meaning they can take their personal grudges
against the Zapatistas to the county level. Everyone expects more
violence in the coming months.
{mospagebreak}
In other areas of the state the elections passed with few
incidents. In Zapatista territory, where representatives of the State
Electoral Institute were permitted to set up polling places for the
first time, voting went smoothly. The State Electoral Institute stated
that 98 percent of the 4,000 ballot boxes were running and only 30
municipalities out of 118 reported suspicions of fraud. The PRI
regained power in important areas of the state including San Cristobal,
Comitan and Tuxtla Gutierrez.
The relatively peaceful outcome of the election is a relief
after such tense buildup to election day, both in the community where I
was stationed and in the region. Though electoral fraud and
manipulation of the elections by local powers is so naturalized it is
practically inevitable. The Humanitarian Law Center based out of Los
Angeles, CA, monitored elections in Chiapas and Mexico 1996, 1998 and
2000 and reported rampant election violations that no one even
attempted to hide. Often parties convince people that government
services and benefits come from one particular party and are contingent
on their vote. People open ballots and show them to party officials
before submitting them. Voters are illegally eliminated from the
roster. Party propaganda is left in voting booths. Voting booths are
missing curtains and secrecy or are observed. Polling places are set up
in inconvenient places or near military bases and police stations.
These tactics of intimidation, disenfranchisement and manipulation are
rampant. Once ballots are collected they can be miscounted, lost,
burned or vanished in "computer failures," as happened in the famous
"fraudulent" election of 1988 that left Salinas de Gotari the disputed
winner.
Some of these techniques for manipulating votes are eerily
familiar. In the 2000 Presidential Elections in the United States,
voters were unjustly removed from voting rosters, turned away from the
polls, voting procedures unclear, vote counting machines faulty. And in
the upcoming 2004 elections, many fear similar disenfranchisement and
confusing or faulty new computer voting techniques. Thousands of
stateside activists have mobilized to register voters and observe the
elections. Global Exchange has arranged several international
delegations to test and comment on new voting technologies and observe
the elections. However, an official election monitoring coaltion has
never been permited. Many Americans reject the idea of an international
presence, upholding the myth that our elections are the freest and
fairest in the world. It is essential, however, that we are as vigilant
of our electoral process as in we are of in other countries. The U.S.
Presidential election affects everyone in the world (how often have
articles and friends expressed their concerns to me, or articulated the
opinion that everyone in the world should be able to vote for the
President of the United States). Unfoturnately, through this imperfect
electoral system we will also be making choices that concern the globe.
It is disillusioning to vote for candidates that we feel don't
represent us (and probably never will). But the very option of being
able to vote freely, secretly and with security is a privilege that is
denied to many in our own country and throughout the world. I would
never say that this is democracy, but it is something; some inkling of
choice, some glimmer of the right to have an opinion on and participate
in the larger system of political power; a right we must strive to
protect and extend to everyone.
More information: Global Exchange, hlp
