Syndicate: Ecuador: Interview with Marlon (Agencia Informativa Púlsar )

[Paola Lucchesi <paola.lucchesi@mail.inet.it>]

From: "Audro" <audro@exis.net>

(The following interview was done, I believe, by email, by the fellow that
is heading up the translation commitee.  --Audro)

Hi, Luciano,

Forgive me for not having answered sooner. Things around here are very tense
and the indigenous people are crying out for solidarity, as their food
supplies are about at an end. They have enough to last only until tomorrow,
Thursday. I was trying to get some fruit, potatoes and other items in some
markets where I have connections, but the blockades of the highways have
precluded supplies from reaching the markets.

Well, the citizens have made themselves heard and some matters have been
resolved but there is much more to do.

<<I wrote up and distributed in English what you told me about yesterday. I
was a bit surprised upon receiving the resolutions of the National
Parliament of the Peoples. Those demands are quite different from what we
hear around here, about the zapatistas for example. It even seemed
contradictory: rejection of the current form of the State and replacing it
with a New Government, more of the people. But they call for a State that is
strong and efficient and competitive (which resounds of neoliberalism). The
question is: how does that new form of Government proposed by the Parliament
of the People plan to do away with the neoliberal model?>>

Certainly one must take into account the correlation of internal forces, of
the country in general and the movement of the indigenous and rural peoples
and the populace at large.

Not all the indigenous people are for a change of goverment; the big
capitalists among them, for example, who are large exporters of handicrafts.
They are happy with the idea of dollarization and neoliberalism.

And so, within the organized indigenous movement there are various factions:

a. The faction that holds the "indigenous position."  This is a group that
excludes anyone who is not indigenous. They are purists and call for the
return of Tahuantinsuyo (they yearn for the return of the Inca Empire. They
accept no other position. This segment is not yet very active politically;
they are are messianic.)

b. The "democratic faction for a New Ecuador" is the most structured
politically and has the great majority. The various uprisings and taking
over of the main churches has been their work. Theirs is the design for the
Parliament. Theirs are the proposed political reforms.

The bad thing about this faction is that when they allied themselves with
the democratic party line, they lost 40% of what they had gained before.
They formed the Pachakutik movement and let themselves become taken in by
the siren song of "democracy", though it seems, luckily, that they are
beginning to resist. Nowadays they are saying that they have shown that with
the current democracy the people have no alternatives, so a takeover of
power is the only solution.

c. The "utilitarian position" includes those who are selling the indigenous
movement as a mendicant movement, those who ask you for money at every turn,
even for the air they breathe. I know that if the First World is in its
present state it is because of the original accumulation of capital, the
product of ravaging our America, it is now time that this money should be
returned, but the aid must be high-minded and given with dignity, not as to
a beggar, not out of pity. This faction is into the world of NGOs
(Non-Governmental Organizations).

They talk of a New Plurinational and Democratic State in order to make room
for all the anti-neoliberal factions that don't want to be classified as
orthodox or leftist. The idea is to attract the small and medium-size
producers, who have been seriously hurt and who have recently played a
significant part in the development of the national economy. There is
nothing to discuss with big business.

We're not thinking about an autarchy, nor in the total destruction of what
is in the country in order to start all over again, an idea that is not
acceptable. It is believed that the middle and lower class sectors of
society can foster a new Ecuador.

Politics by alliance should be this way. Remember that the movement of the
indigenous and rural people is not one of armed conflict but it is political
and this is the world of ideas. For this reason, proposals are accompanied
by protests.

<<If the Parliament of the Peoples is so democratic and has its foundation
in various other regional assemblies, why does it have a president and a
secretary? That creates a lot of skepticism among the libertarian groups
here, who say that this will just replace one president with another...Are
they going to change the balance of power? What do you think?>>

Even if it includes a wide spectrum of the populace and is democratic, not
everyone can have the same responsibilities. Had there not been a director,
who could be the spokesperson for the movement?

Maybe one shouldn't say president or secretary, but the idea is someone at
the head; call the person secretary general or chief, whatever. That's the
idea. Now then, consider that in their communities the indigenous people
operate within their Communal Councils, led by a president. They accept that
title as the most natural thing.

If Jamil Mahuad falls, one presedent will not be exchanged for another. The
plan is to install a Civilian-military Junta for National Salvation. Why the
military? They have the weapons, that is to say, the power for armed combat.
Besides, the Right has its paramilitary groups and if we can't count on
progressive members of the military, this little revolution would not be
possible. Remember that we are an unarmed people .

As I told you, the military in Ecuador are different from that of Peru,
Chile or Colombia. Ours are more nationalistic in nature. There is a faction
that opposes privatization of the oil industry and the State enterprises, as
they are considered to be property of the people in general, not private
property.

Don't take this to mean I am a lover of the military forces; for me, they
are no saints. They think they are a special caste but, at this political
juncture, they know that certain alliances are required.

<<If you compare the indigenous movement to the zapatista movement, in what
do you think they are similar and how are they different?>>

First, the zapatistas are an armed group who, up to now, have not included
in their ranks either the mestizos, the blacks or those who live in the
city. I say, as militants. Of course, as regards support and solidarity,
they are wide open. Did you know that before emerging on the world scene,
the zapatistas observed and studied the Ecuadoran indigenous movement? This
movement has its beginnings in the 60's but they erupted politically in
1990.

I think that the zapatistas do not have as their goal the takeover of
governmental power, rather that their heritage, customs and culture be
recognized and that they be given a certain amount of autonomy in their
geographic locale.

On the other hand, the Ecuadoran indigenous people see the takeover of power
through alliances, along with the active and strong participation of other
sectors of the Ecuadoran populace, as a permanent objective.

I hope I have answered all your questions. If you like, I can prepare for
you in a more methodical and detailed fashion a statement outlining the
organization of this movement and of the people of Ecuador.

We will stay in touch.

As a brother,
Marlon Carrion C.


------Syndicate mailinglist--------------------
 Syndicate network for media culture and media art
 information and archive: http://www.v2.nl/syndicate
 to unsubscribe, write to <syndicate-request@aec.at>
 in the body of the msg: unsubscribe your@email.adress