November 29, 2010 Leave a comment
More photos (Fabián Rivadeneyra, Government of the State of Chiapas)
- Inaugural ceremony http://picasaweb.google.com/frivadeneyra/20101031UIPInauguracion
International parliamentary conference, Chiapas (Mexico), 31 October – 3 November 2010
November 29, 2010 Leave a comment
More photos (Fabián Rivadeneyra, Government of the State of Chiapas)
November 29, 2010 Leave a comment
A question and answer session was organized on the morning of 3 November between the participants in the conference and representatives of the 15 recognized indigenous peoples in Chiapas, many of them being mayors of indigenous municipalities. The meeting took place in the presence of the Governor of Chiapas, Juan Sabines Guerrero, the Secretary General of the IPU, Anders B. Johnsson, and Senator Andrés Galván Rivas (Mexico). Dialogue was facilitated by Dr. Blanca Ruth Esponda Espinoza for the indigenous peoples and by Mrs. Otilia Lux de Coti for the Conference participants.
The questions concerned mainly the following subjects:
The following answers were provided:
All speakers stressed that the present Government of Chiapas was an ally and was doing much to ensure in particular basic services. The Government received information from the most remote corners of Chiapas and was therefore aware of the problems. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) had been enshrined in the Constitution of the State of Chiapas and many programmes put in place to achieve them. One of the speakers gave a detailed overview of those programmes. A third of the budget was directed to the 28 poorest municipalities. Indigenous peoples made up the majority of the population in 27 of these municipalities. Speakers also mentioned the valuable contribution of the United Nations, in particular the UNDP. The general feeling was that indigenous peoples were listened to, not protected.
– as regards the implementation of ILO Convention 169: all indigenous speakers stressed that decisions concerning IP were taken on the basis of dialogue with the governing authorities. Indigenous peoples were always consulted before decision-taking. Municipalities were spending much time in meetings and working sessions – recently a three day working session of municipalities had taken place.
One of the speakers mentioned a university research project concerning ways and means to protect and maintain multiculturalism in Chiapas. The project provided for the consultation of young people of the various regions, of adults and children. Solutions were elaborated by the indigenous peoples themselves, the government provided the methodology.
–as regards the utilisation of transgenic seeds: there were no transgenic plants in Chiapas. The main food was maize criolla and the government had initiated programs to study it and to strengthen scientific knowledge in this regard.
– as regards land issues: 95% of the land was in indigenous hands. As in all other domains, dialogue was the preferred way of decision making with the result that all parties were satisfied and great advances in development were made, although there was still much to do.
– as regards education: school was compulsory from 6 to 12 years and the first and second grades were free of charge. Teachers had to undergo multicultural education and there was an effort to ensure that teachers were speaking the language of the indigenous peoples they were teaching (which at present was not always the case). There was also a school to train indigenous teachers but it was insufficient given the demand. As regards scholarships, they were granted throughout the educational cycle, including for studies abroad.
–as regards political parties and participation of indigenous peoples and women in government: there was no identity-based political party in Chiapas. Indigenous people who wanted to stand in election had to do so on the list of mainstream political parties. Electoral lists had to provide for 50% of women candidates. As regards the selection of indigenous candidates, men and women of a municipality nominated their candidates who then presented their programme (proposals) and, on this basis, were elected by the entire population of the municipality (Asamblea general). Decisions were taken collectively and not individually. It was stressed that the IP attending the meeting belonged to all existing political parties.
-as regards the health system: the increased budgetary means for indigenous peoples had led to improvements in the health system, in terms of more hospitals (17 new hospitals, 138 new health centers and 420 more hospital beds), clean water provision and maternal health. Speakers stressed that the Government promoted traditional midwives (20 additional midwives were now active) which had already led to a decrease of maternal mortality. One intercultural hospital existed. Also, in many houses, the mud floors had been replaced.
– as regards the fight against poverty: speakers stressed that the government was putting in place programmes to create jobs, including through the use of Chiapas’ natural resources. The federal deputy for Oaxaca who participated in the meeting mentioned in this respect the example of the exploitation of wood in Oaxaca which had led to the establishment of 10 stores at the national level.
In his speech at the end of the meeting, Governor Juan Sabines Guerrero affirmed that he was at the service not of a political party, but of the people. He mentioned that the situation of the indigenous peoples had come to the fore through the Zapatist revolution of 1994, which had led to the San Andres Agreement. The objective of his Government was to implement the provisions of that Agreement. The strategy to accomplish this was through the MDGs. He then mentioned the various initiatives that his Government had already taken to this end and the programmes that were under way.
November 4, 2010 Leave a comment
Today we travel. Buses take us up the mountain side to the site of an original zoque settlement which eventually gave birth to Tuxtla Gutierrez, the State capital. By 10 o’clock the museum is packed with indigenous leaders and representatives from Chiapas, along with the MPs who have joined us at the conference. Within minutes the Governor of the State arrives and we sit down for a discussion.
The atmosphere in the room is electric. The questions addressed to our indigenous hosts show an enormous interest in finding out about their ways of doing things, the challenges they face and the solutions they have found.
The answers they give surprise many in the audience. Consultation is the rule, at many different levels and in many formal and informal settings. The indigenous representatives explain that things are changing in the State; little by little their voices are being heard and solutions adapted to their needs and aspirations.
At the end of the exchange, the State Governor explains how he has acted to address the needs of the indigenous communities; how the publication of a UNDP Human Development Report on Mexico motivated him to change course in the State and to implement the Millennium Development Goals, focussing in particular on the indigenous peoples. Chiapas must be just about the only State in the world where the MDGs have been written in to the State Constitution.
In the afternoon we move to the Congress of the State of Chiapas. We talk about what we have learnt so far before debating and adopting an outcome document. The text is brief and to the point. It invites parliaments to take precise steps to institute change and to meet two years from now to measure progress and set new targets. What we are doing is laying the foundations for a global campaign to push parliaments to ensure more effective representation of minorities and indigenous peoples in politics.
By the time the closing ceremony comes around it is already past nine o’clock at night. Not unusual, I am told, in a town and State where many important meetings continue to the early hours of the morning.
After signing the Chiapas Declaration we congregate in the lobby of the Congress to unveil a plaque commemorating the event. It is placed on the wall next to the Statue of Benito Juarez, the first indigenous President of Mexico; a highly symbolic way of concluding a conference that has sought to advance the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples everywhere.
Anders B. Johnsson
November 4, 2010 4 Comments
We are calling for genuine change. We cannot accept that minorities and indigenous peoples are the most vulnerable members of our societies and that they remain excluded from decision-making that affects their lives and the future of our countries.
We affirm that minorities and indigenous peoples have the inalienable right to full and equal membership of our nations. This right has to be translated into public policies that are sensitive to their situation, needs, and aspirations and accompanied by sufficient resources. This requires the effective participation of minorities and indigenous peoples at all levels of government, and in particular in national and regional parliaments. All public policies should be submitted to minorities and indigenous peoples for prior consultation.
We further affirm the responsibility of political parties to promote the effective participation of minorities and indigenous peoples and address their concerns in their party programmes.
We urge every parliament, within the next two years, to:
1. Hold a special debate on the situation of minorities and indigenous peoples in their country; recognize the diversity in society; and adopt a Plan of Action to make the right to equal participation and non-discrimination a reality for minorities and indigenous peoples;
2. Adopt and implement laws to end discrimination and provide for the effective participation of minorities and indigenous peoples in decision-making, including in parliament, while taking care to secure the effective participation of minority and indigenous women. Where such laws already exist, evaluate their effectiveness and make adjustments where necessary;
3. Ensure that the legislative process is transparent and that parliamentary records are made available immediately so that minority/indigenous peoples can monitor the activity of their representatives and in so doing hold them to account for their actions and omissions.
We call on the IPU to take the lead in collecting data on the representation of minorities and indigenous peoples in parliament, with due regard for privacy concerns and peoples’ right to choose their own identity. We also call on the IPU to monitor the implementation of this Declaration, to facilitate networking among parliaments and to convene a follow-up meeting two years from now to discuss progress and set targets for future action.
As parliaments elaborate their Plans of Action, we recommend that, at a minimum, they:
1. Ensure that the right to free, prior and informed consent is observed in every step leading to the adoption of legislative and administrative measures affecting minorities and indigenous peoples; hold government to account for the implementation of such measures;
2. Require of government that all submissions to parliament of draft legislation and the national budget include an assessment of their impact on minorities and indigenous peoples;
3. Make regular use of plenary sessions in parliament and other parliamentary forums to discuss minority/indigenous matters in order to raise awareness and combat prejudice in society; organize awareness-raising sessions for all parliamentarians so as to increase their knowledge of minorities and indigenous peoples and the particular problems they face; ensure that minority and indigenous issues are mainstreamed into parliamentary work, in particular at the committee level;
4. Allocate sufficient resources to establishing dialogue between minority/indigenous peoples and public institutions and to parliamentary committees on minority and indigenous issues so as to allow them to carry out effective outreach activities such as public hearings with minority and indigenous peoples;
5. Increase parliaments’ familiarity with work being done within the United Nations system so as to equip them to better hold governments to account for their international commitments, including the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; more particularly, urge ratification of ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and the implementation of the UN Declarations on the rights of minorities (1992) and indigenous peoples (2007); hold debates in parliament on the conclusions and recommendations made by the UN human rights treaty bodies and special mechanisms with regard to minority and indigenous peoples’ rights.
Adopted by consensus by the participants in the International parliamentary conference on ‘Parliaments, minorities and indigenous peoples: Effective participation in politics’, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas (Mexico), 3 November 2010
Download a printable version of the Chiapas Declaration
November 3, 2010 Leave a comment
The day has been quite a marathon; eight hours of non-stop political discussion. We have been helped by very able moderators, heard some quite exceptional presentations and been part of a very lively debate. In short, it has been hugely interesting and helpful.
The objective has been to identify what measures we can take to enhance effective participation. Are reserved seats an effective way of ensuring representation? Can such representation be effective? The answer to the first question is a strong affirmative, while the answer to the second is less clear. Reserved seats can be a good start, but often fall far short of expectations.
Are identity-based political parties a better alternative to “mainstream” political parties? In many instances the answer to that question is a clear yes. Most of the statements from the floor recognize that “mainstream” parties by and large are doing a very poor job at addressing issues relevant to minorities and indigenous peoples.
Do dedicated parliamentary committees provide a useful avenue to promote the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples? There are numerous examples where that is the case; there are also potential drawbacks. Carrying on business as usual is not the way forward. Each parliament can make much better use of its rules and procedures to address these issues in its daily work.
We conclude with a very interesting debate around the theme of representation at the local or sub-national level. Are minorities and indigenous peoples’ issues dealt with more effectively at this level? Apparently they are. The closer understanding and more direct contact make for more effective participation.
With nightfall comes an opportunity to relax in good company, enjoy the Mexican cuisine and Chiapas culture. We are taken to a restaurant overlooking the city and spend the final hours of the day enjoying the good company and fascinating conversation of our hosts and participants from near and far.
Anders B. Johnsson
The moderator started the session by pointing to the fact that the IPU-UNDP survey of parliaments suggested that 28% of States prohibited identity-based political parties and asked whether this was good. Most participants agreed that in a democracy, identity-based political parties should not be prohibited.
As to the question of whether or not identity-based parties were more effective than mainstream political parties for ensuring the representation of minorities and indigenous peoples, the following points of view were given:
A first point made was that reserved seats alone are not sufficient. Minorities and indigenous peoples must participate in other State institutions, government, the judiciary, and more generally all spheres of life, especially in economic life. National policies and programmes enhancing minority and indigenous rights were essential, minority and indigenous interests had to be mainstreamed into State policies. Moreover, their voice should not only be heard at the national level, but also the regional and international levels.
The main argument in favour of reserved seats was that they guarantee that the voice of minorities and indigenous peoples is heard in parliament. Minority and indigenous MPs belonging to mainstream parties are not always able to defend minority and indigenous interests effectively, as they have to vote along party lines.
For reserved seats to be effective, the following must be ensured:
The main arguments against were the following:
Panellists identified the following points as essential for overcoming the obstacles and building a democracy which would not be elitist and lack legitimacy because of the absence of women in general, and minority and indigenous women in particular:
Emilian Frâncu, MP, Vice-Chair of the Committee for Human Rights, Cults and National Minorities Issues (Romania)
Joe Frans, former MP, former Chair of the UN Working Group on People of African Descent (Sweden)
Gay McDougall, United Nations Independent Expert on minority issues
Carlos Morales Morales, Chairperson of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP):
Wilton Littlechild, member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and former member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
Rahui Ketene, member of parliament, New Zealand
Beatriz Paredes, member of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies