interview with Marlon C. about the inidigenas movement Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 From: "el desaparecido" the following is an interview by email with Marlon Carrion C who is active at an alternative news agency in Ecuador see: www.amarc.org/pulsar (translated from Spanish) marlon@pulsar.org.ec (Marlon Carrion) 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. Question: 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? Marlon: 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 handcrafts. They are happy with the idea of dollarization and neoliberalism. And so, within the organized indigenous movement there are various factions: a. The one that holds the indigenous position is a contingent 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 a people unarmed. 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. Question: If you compare the indigenous movement to the zapatista movement, in what do you think they are similar and how are they different? Marlon: 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.