One of the most commonly used arguments when discussing the project baptized as the Mayan Train by the Federal Government focuses on the fact that it shows the opinion of the inhabitants of the area where the train will pass.
Since a large part of these opinions are enthusiastic about the benefits of the project, it is concluded that there is broad approval.
When dealing specifically with the indigenous peoples whose territories will be impacted by the train and everything associated with its operation, the results of the consultations with indigenous peoples who approve the project are usually also shown.
The fact that there are opinions in favor of the Mayan Train is then used to discredit those who are against inside or outside the peninsula.
How could we question the construction of a project if the inhabitants themselves agree?
Who of us have serious doubts about the supposed benefits that the Mayan Train will bring, are we violating the will and the opinions of those who in the territory think in favor of it?
These questions once again raise a fundamental issue about the ways in which the popular will is expressed, about the right of people who hold different opinions, and about the right to information.
In the first place, even though the official narrative has made visible the voice of those who agree with the official wishes, it is undeniable that a large number of Mayans who live in the territory have widely questioned the project and the problems that their consultation entails.
One of the many local questions can be seen in this video in which the Mayan historian Ezer May May raises the problems associated with the execution of the Mayan Train.
In the terms of democracy, a fundamental principle is to take into account all possible opinions and that is precisely what is not happening in this process.
Let us look in particular at the case of consultation with the indigenous peoples of the region.
Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization is an international legal instrument that the Mexican State has signed, it is a binding agreement, it means that the government has the obligation to enforce it and it does not depend only on its will.
One of the fundamental points of this Agreement is that indigenous populations must be consulted when projects that affect their territories are to be carried out.
In addition, the consultation that is made to them must be prior to the execution of the project, it must be free without any type of coercion and it must also be an informed consultation.
The official voices have said time and again that this consultation was carried out, however,
Local activists denounced the multiple irregularities of the consultation, including the Office in Mexico of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN-DH) warned that the consultation with indigenous peoples had not met the appropriate international standards.
If consultation with indigenous peoples must be prior, free and informed, serious doubts can be expressed about what happened in this case in this regard.
A fundamental point of the consultations is the type of information to which the population to consult is exposed.
In my own experience in community decision-making processes, the assemblies can make decisions after having been exposed to all the available information, in these processes the use of the floor by people who put forward a diversity of positions and they analyze the various scenarios in case they decide on one thing or another;
this is the reason why many of the assemblies take a considerable time before voting or reaching a consensus.
In many indigenous communities with an assembly tradition, assemblies can last for days, weeks or even longer when a community declares itself in permanent assembly in order to discuss and listen to all possible opinions.
When this balance is broken and certain powers want to impose their will, the first thing that is prevented is listening to the diversity of voices and only one is privileged, the microphone is then denied to dissenting voices.
A healthy assembly process, on the other hand, makes it possible to give voice to all positions, all opinions and it is common that, although the initial perception is in favor of a decision, when hearing the arguments against it, the assembly ultimately decides to reject what in principle would seem to be practically accepted.
Taking this into consideration and honestly answering the question, could we say that the consultation with the indigenous peoples about the Mayan Train was an informed consultation?
Those who made the consultation always invited and gave the floor to the people who are against the project during the information sessions?
Is there a balance in the official media between positions for and against the Mayan Train?
How can we make decisions on issues that affect both our present and future if we cannot listen to all kinds of evidence and opinions at the same level of volume and time?
If from the official microphones those who think differently are narrated as an enemy and are not given a voice so that they can pour out their information under equal conditions,
The UN-DH observers reported that the "convocation, the protocol and the information presented only referred to the possible benefits of the project and not to the negative impacts that it could cause."
This complaint has been made not only by the UN-DH but by many people who live in the territories that the Mayan Train will affect and who have been ignored by those who run the project.
It is a basic matter that, before even taking a medicine, people need to be informed of the side effects that said medicine can have.
It seems common sense that before making decisions, complete information for and against is necessary.
If the information prior to a consultation about the Mayan Train focuses massively only on the benefits, a type of decision is being coerced and therefore, in addition to being uninformed, the consultation ends up not being free either.
Regarding the necessary material in the language of the Mayan population, the situation was alarming, it was and is so scarce that it is outrageous.
On the other hand, the deliberations and decision-making processes of many indigenous peoples are very far from the way in which the government has carried out these consultations and not only in the case of the Mayan Train, one day is not enough to make a consultation. adequate to the principles to which the Mexican State is bound.
This happens in general in the formation of public opinion in many different aspects, that is why the right to free expression and the right to information are so fundamental for democracy;
These rights, among other things, prevent the manipulation of power from molding the formation of public opinion to its liking.
That is why before speaking of the "popular will" it is essential to ensure that the voices that have been historically silenced and oppressed are listened to.
If from the hegemonic narratives the cult of progress and infrastructure has been the most important thing, it is time to listen to voices that suggest that there are other ways of managing good living.
It would be expected that a Government that intends to transform public life in this country would guarantee that the State's relationship with indigenous peoples would also be transformed but, at least in the case of consultations, simulation and coercion for violation of the right to information , continue.
Before pontificating about the opinion of the people, we should ask ourselves about who controls the narratives to which the people have been exposed, where these narratives come from and who benefits from them.
50% off
Subscribe to continue reading
read without limits
Keep reading
I'm already a subscriber