Abstract
The discursive consequence of the rise of neoliberalism, the reorganization of society, and the weakening of corporatism in Mexico as discussed in the previous chapter was the emergence of human rights as a political discourse. Human rights—as opposed to constitutional rights—did not emerge as a legal discourse but as a political discourse for the organization of people outside the corporatist structure, especially those not represented by the political left and those interested in advancing transition to democracy in the country as a left-wing political project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Latin American dependency theory advances the idea that development and underdevelopment form a single process whereby the center (rich countries) and the periphery (poor countries) form part of a world economy that reproduces the disparities between the two through international trade. Third World countries remained underdeveloped because the First World has prevented them from acquiring economic surplus (defined as the difference between production and consumption), through the imperialist practices of monopoly capitalism, which is characterized by the control of markets by large transnational corporations informed by both industrial and finance capital. The “periphery” was actively underdeveloped because it only exported raw materials to the “core,” which used them to manufacture goods that were reexported to the periphery with value added. The core, they claimed, was entirely dependent upon the periphery’s resources. Concerned with the implications of this phenomenon for the social structure (domination was reproduced in the internal structure), the dependentistas argued that this led to structural economic distortions and growing social inequality. See: Kay, C. (1989). Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. London: Routledge; Rist, G. (1997). The History of Development. From Western Origins to Global Faith. London: Zed Books.
The national security doctrine supported repression by military juntas in the Southern Cone. It “views ‘geopolitics’ as occupying a central place within human knowledge…Geopolitics holds that individuals and groups must be subordinate to the state, which it views as a kind of organism and as the ultimate source of values. There is a basic Hobbesian assumption that all states are permanently at war with one another, although they may form alliances against common enemies. The whole art of governance is understood as synonymous with strategy; the greatest good is national security. Even economic growth is first justified in terms of security. The welfare of citizens is subordinate to security, although it is admitted that beyond a certain point unmet needs themselves threaten security if they generate unrest…The agents of development are elites, both military and technocratic …The remaining groups in the nation, including peasants, labor unions, and university students and faculty, are seen as minors still needing tutelage…Another assumption of national security is that the nation is allied with the United States in the East-West Conflict. Religion is seen from this perspective. Western Christian civilization is threatened by Marxist atheism in the East.” Berryman, P. (1987). Liberation Theology. Essential facts about the Revolutionary Movement in Latin America and Beyond. London: I.B. Tauris.
See, for instance, Gonzalez Casanova, P. (1989). Pensar la democracia. In Gonzalez Casanova, P. and Cadena Roa, J. Eds. Primer informe sobre la democracia: Mexico 1988. Mexico: Siglo XXI-CIICH.
See, for instance, Gonzalez Casanova, P. (1989). Pensar la democracia. In González Casanova, P. and Cadena Roa, J. Eds. Primer informe sobre la democracia: México 1988. Mexico: Siglo XXI-CIICH; Woldenberg, J. (1989). La negociación político-social en México. In González Casanova, P. Ed. Primer informe sobre la democracia: México 1988. Mexico: Siglo XXI-CIIH; Crespo, J.A. (1991). Derechos políticos y transición democrática. Justicia y Paz. No. 22, Edición especial sobre derechos politicos: 2–9. April–June; Aguayo Quezada, S. (1993). The Inevitability of Democracy in Mexico. In Roett, R. Ed. Political and Economic Liberalization in Mexico: At a Critical Juncture? Boulder: LynneRienner; Acosta, M. (1992). The Democratization Process in Mexico: A Human Rights Issue. In Cavanagh, J., Gershman, J., Baker, K., and Helmke, G. Eds. Trading Freedom. How Free Trade Affects Our Lives, Work and Environment. San Francisco: Institute for Food and Development Policy-Food First; Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustin Pro Juárez.” (1992b). Los derechos humanos: nuevo campo de la lucha social en México. In Aziz Nassif, A., Tamayo, J., and Alonso, J. Eds. El nuevo Estado mexicana. II. Estado y Política. Mexico: CIESAS; Concha Malo, M. Ed. (1994b). Los derechos políticos como derechos humanos. Mexico: La Jornada Ediciones, CIICH-Unam; Maldonado, J. (1995) Historia de los primeros años de trabajo del Comité de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez AC. Internal Document. Mexico. See a comprehensive list of transition to democracy intellectuals in: Zermeño, S. (2005). La desmodernidad mexicana y las alternativas a la violencia y a la exclusion en nuestros dias. Mexico: Océano.
These ideas were also reproduced by the Academia in its early writings concerning democracy—the articles included in El Boletín (The Bulletin) from 1988 to 1990 (issues 1 to 18). An editorial article published in 1990 served to wrap up the human rights situation around the world, Latin America, and Mexico during the 1980s, celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall and military dictatorships in the Southern Cone, and at the same time drew attention to increasing poverty and unemployment in Mexico and Latin America. It stated that the fact that there were clean elections in many countries did not mean there was “political democracy,” which must include respect for civil and political rights, acknowledgment of difference and tolerance. “Political democracy does not ensure enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, which are also human rights. On the contrary, while economic structures and processes continue to generate huge social inequalities and injustice, while the majority does not find their basic needs satisfied, while vast sectors of the population are victims of discrimination and marginalization, political democracy will remain a fiction.” Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. (1990b). Editorial. El Boletín No. 17: 1–3. March–April.
For an interesting discussion of how and why liberation theologians rejected ideas of democracy and human rights throughout the 1970s, see “The Development of Liberation Theology: the Marxist Phase,” in: Sigmund, P.E. (1990). Liberation Theology at the Cross Roads. Democracy or Revolution? New York: Oxford University Press. In this chapter, Sigmund provides a characterization of the most important representatives of Marxist liberation theology, such as Gustavo Gutiérrez, Juan Luis Segundo, José Miguez Bonino, Hugo Assmann, and Enrique Dussel. See also Berryman, P. (1987). Liberation Theology. Essential Facts about the Revolutionary Movement in Latin America and Beyond. London: I.B. Tauris; Aguayo Quezada, S. and Parra Rosales, L.P. (1997). Las organizaciones no gubernamentales de derechos humanos en Mexico: entre la democracia participativa y la electoral. Mexico: Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos; Grugel, J. (2002). Democratization: A Critical Introduction. New York: Palgrave.
According to Dominican priest Miguel Concha, the reason for this is the mostly conservative nature of the Mexican Catholic Church, which persecuted and repressed those priests who became sympathetic with social causes after the 1968 student massacre. For his part, Roderic Ai Camp argues that liberation theology was not very successful in Mexico because state-led violence was not as prevalent; there was little experience in accompanying social processes; there was a minimal presence of foreign clergy; and there were few religious orders. In spite of these limitations, comunidades eclesiales de base (grassroots organizations organized by priests) multiplied from 1967 to the late 1970s, especially in Morelos, Veracruz, and Coahuila states, and Mexico City. See: Camp, R.A. (1997). Crossing Swords. Politics and Religion in Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Concha Malo, M., González Gari, O., Salas, L.F., and Bastian, J.-P. (1986 ). La participación de los cristianos en el proceso popular de liberación en México. Mexico: Siglo XXI
Up until 1988 these organizations did not address increasing governmental violence in Mexico. For instance, the Vitoria Centre focused on denouncing political violence in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. They addressed issues related to individual physical and psychological integrity. In November 1984 they set up the bulletin Justicia y Paz (Justice and Peace), which included information and analysis about human rights in Central America and the Caribbean. The bulletin became a magazine in January 1985 but failed to include systematic information about Mexico. An important attempt to address issues properly concerning Mexico was: Stavenhagen, R. (1987). México y los derechos humanos. Justicia y Paz No. 1: 15–21. November 1987. For its part, it was not until 1988 that the Academia started to publish a bulletin providing information about advances in human rights policy in Latin America, such as the fall of dictatorships in the Southern Cone, increasing violence in Central America, and human rights violations in Mexico.
See for instance: Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria.” (1993). La situación de los derechos humanos en México (diciembre 1992-octubre 1993). Justicia y Paz No. 32: 4–64. October–December. There were some attempts to analyze ESCRs, but they failed. For instance, in Justicia y Paz the Vitoria Centre addressed the right to decent housing, but rather than using human rights criteria, it deals with the demands of urban movements and the problems of governmental subsidies. See: Abarca Chávez, C. (1987). La vivienda como Derecho del Hombre. Justicia y Paz No. 2: 3–24. February 1987. Also, in Justicia y Paz there was a special report on “the environment and human rights,” but it deals with general issues of pollution and technological expansion. See: Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria.” (1990a). Editorial. Justicia y Paz No. 19, Medio ambiente y derechos humanos: 2. July–September 1990. Again, in the same magazine there is analysis of the right to health that deals with the effects of structural adjustment programs on housing, water, food, work, and the environment that ended up impacting negatively on the right to health. Produssep and Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria.” (1990). El derecho a la salud en México: una mirada desde la sociedad civil. Justicia y Paz No. 18, Los derechos humanos a la salud: 13–19. April–June 1990. At the same time, when there is human rights analysis in social fields, there is analysis of violations of civil rights in the economic or social arenas. For instance, in El Boletín No. 6, of March 1989, the Academia deals with the problems of farmer land ownership in terms of the repression of leaders. In El Boletín No. 16, the Academia deals with trade union issues from the perspective of “union democracy.” Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. (1990d). Various articles. El Boletin No. 17: 1–3. March–April; Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. (1990c). Various articles. El Boletín No. 16: 15. January–February.
Earlier that year, a group of workers contacted father Jesús Maldonado seeking help to avoid violence and intimidation in their union elections. Previously, in 1990, the corporatist trade union had killed a worker and wounded several others during a referendum in which employees were to vote for the trade union that was to negotiate the collective labor agreement—the choices were the corporatist union and an independent union set up by workers after the corporatist union agreed with the employer to a reduction of workers’ benefits. The independent union lodged a complaint with the labor authorities, which ruled against workers. They appealed, but the company delayed the procedures for a year, providing the Ford Motor Company with the opportunity to fire 800 workers supporting the independent union. In the end, and because the case became publicized, labor authorities ruled in favor of workers’ demands for a new vote. It was then that they sought help from human rights defenders, who demanded that elections be carried out again. See pp. 43–54 in Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez.” (1992a). Informe anual 1991. Los derechos humanos en Mexico. Mexico: Centro Prodh. See also Fuentes, M. (1991a). El caso ‘Ford’: ¿Modelo de relación laboral en el futuro? Justicia y Paz. No. 23, Número especial sobre derechos laborales y libre comercio: 3–8. July–September; Comité de Observadores Independientes. (1991). Ford Motor Company. Recuento 3. Informe Resolutivo COI. Report of the Committee. Mexico.
Up to this point, electoral issues in human rights NGOs had been addressed from the point of view of mainstream political analysis. See, for instance, a rational choice analysis of individual political participation in: Crespo, J.A. (1991). Derechos politicos y transición democrática. Justicia y Paz. No. 22, Edición especial sobre derechos políticos: 2–9. April–June.
Aguayo centered the Academia’s agenda on the promotion of free elections until the new chairperson changed this in 1997. In the Academia’s activities report from 1990 to 1997, there is an emphasis on research and education in the field of elections: there was even a department dealing with political rights and the right to information. Under Aguayo, the Academia was probably the human rights NGO participating most closely in observation activities; he was one of the cofounders of Civic Alliance, an NGO network set up in 1994 for the invigilation of presidential elections. Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. (1991). Memoria de actividades 1990. Mexico: Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. (1993). Memoria de actividades 1992. Mexico: Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. (1994). Memoria de actividades 1993. Mexico: Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. (1996). Memoria de actividades 1994–1995. Mexico: Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos. (1997). Memoria de actividades 1996. Mexico: Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos.
In its 1992 annual report, the Prodh dedicated a section to repression within the context of elections—other contexts were labor, urban popular movements, and land issues. See: Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez.” (1993a). Informe anual de derechos humanos 1992. Volumen I. Represión y movimiento deDerechos Humanos en México. Mexico: Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez.”
For instance, Concha Malo, M. (1991). El papel de la sociedad civil en la defensa de los derechos políticos. Justicia y Paz No. 22, Political Rights: 10–12. April–June.
Copyright information
© 2008 Ariadna Estévez
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Estévez, A. (2008). The Emergence of Human Rights Discourse in Mexico. In: Human Rights and Free Trade in Mexico. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230612617_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230612617_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-37385-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-61261-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)