Minor conflict - major response : a case study of the Atenco movement

Abstract

In Mexico there has been a change in the attitude towards social movements. The Atenco conflict was an evidence of such an attitude. The State responded harshly against a social movement in opposition 12 prisoners are still behind bars. How did this happen, and why did The State use excessive force in order to stop a movement in protest? The reasons could be multiple: The cancelation of a main airport construction, the relationship with the Zaptistas or was the movement from Atenco just another problem that had to be solved and removed for the politicians? I chose this particular conflict because of my own experience and observation in the same conflict in 2006. A conflict between The State and the Atenco movement was not new. I wanted to see if the State response to the 2006 conflict had something to do with previous conflicts or due to the movement’s mobilization methods. I integrated myself into the movement and became a participatory observer, which had both in-depth and semi-structured interviews, as well as I base a lot of my findings on informal conversations followed by field-notes. The access was not easy. A social movement is a closed setting. I gained access easily due to my own experience in the conflict. My theoretical framework was divided in two, as I looked into the mobilization of the movement, in which I used general social movement theories. An important part of my thesis was to investigate the movement in opposition to The State and The State response towards this movement by applying a “rule of law”, which expanded into a “State of Exception”. The extensive use of violence from both the social movement and The State led to a difficult and everlasting conflict. Still, The State was responsible for most excessive violations of fundamental human rights, and should been investigated further. The social movement was disarticulated and is currently only fighting for one cause: The freedom of the prisoners.