Aim for revolution, you may establish direct democracy: a comparison of autonomous administrations in Chiapas and Kurdistan

The Zapatista and Kurdish national liberation movements initially pursued the goals of an overall revolution and statehood, although the former adhered, to some extent, to the Mexican constitution and nationalism. National revolution, overthrowing the government and seizing political power ceased to be goals in later years for these movements. They now prioritize building autonomy through bottom-up political institutions, direct democracy, and self-defence. Ecology, anarchism, decolonization, feminist theories, and anti-nationalism have become central creeds for them, in addition to socialism/anti-capitalism, decentralism and internationalism, i.e. the ideological positions that were salient at the onset. How did two revolutionary, national liberation movements in Mexico and Kurdistan end up with establishing autonomous administrations that experiment with direct forms of democracy? Why would national liberation and indigenous movements opt for such an unconventional form of autonomy, instead of pursuing liberal multiculturalist forms of territorial and/or cultural autonomy? In what ways do these models of autonomy differ from and resemble one another? The proposed paper tries to answer the questions above through a comparison of the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (Municipios Autónomos Rebeldes Zapatistas) in Chiapas, Mexico; and The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (Rêveberiya Xweser ya Bakûr û Rojhilatê Sûriyê), in Syrian Kurdistan, aka Rojava. These autonomous administrations have set up political institutions that encourage citizens to participate in political decision-making processes directly via convening in local councils and assemblies. These organs appear to have the ultimate authority over public affairs within territories that constitute residential communities such as villages, neighbourhoods, towns and cities. Therefore, autonomy based on councils and assemblies appears to be at odds with the principles of parliamentary sovereignty. And yet, these administrations seek to reconcile their institutions with Mexican and Syrian constitutions. Hence, despite important differences, what appear to be common to these administrations are that (I) the assemblies and councils they established enable them to experiment with a form of direct democracy in countries with representative political systems; (II) they have forces of self-defence apart from those of the nation-states that host them; and yet, (III) they make no claim to independence and do not pursue statehood. The proposed paper will examine (i) the political contexts and (ii) trace back the origins – both intellectual/ideological and organizational/institutional origins – of these administrations; (iii) engage with the transformation of their politics and organization since their emergence – because the movements started as national liberation movements in pursuit of nationwide revolution or statehood; (iv) highlight significant discursive and institutional novelties they have introduced with regard to (a) political decision-making, (b) approaches to sovereignty, autonomy, and representation in politics, (c) political leadership and organization, (d) gender relations and (e) socio-economic policies; and finally, (v) compare them with one another.