Tlalnepantila: The Price of Democracy 2004
Distributed by LAVA - Latin American Video Archives, 124 Washington Place, New York, NY 10014; 212-243-4804
Produced by Friends of Tlalnepantla, Morelos, and Mexico
Directed by Greg Berger
VHS, color, 32 min.
College - Adult
Central American Studies, Political Science, Current Affairs, Mexico
Date Entered: 03/10/2005
Reviewed by Elise Vidal, Thomas Branigan Library, Las Cruces, NMThe village of Tlalnepantla, in the state of Morelos, Mexico has historically elected its mayor through a town meeting; the associated voting process only served as a way to legitimize the results. In July of 2003, Elias Osorio was elected mayor by only 10% of the registered voters. The town's majority rejected the election, calling it a fraud. Another mayor was elected according to the traditional custom of the townspeople. Both the election results and the traditional process were rejected by the Governor of the State of Morelos, Sergio Estrada Cajigal, and the community of Tlalnepantla refused to let the elected mayor, Elias Osoric, take office.
On January 11th 2004, after months of conflict between the town and the state of Morelos, Tlalnepantla seceded. State police were sent in by the governor to force the people of Tlalnepantla to except the mayor. As a way of justifying this police action, Tlalnepantla was declared to be the location of a terrorist training camp and approximately 1500 refugees fled.
Tlalnepantila is a current issue and the surrounding problems have not been settled; the people of the town still wish to be autonomous. The Governor of the State continues to wield authority and dictate who will be mayor of the town.
Tlalnepantila brings the matter to wider public exposure and is shot with limited technical expertise and limited technology, using handheld cameras by those in the street Shots of an interview with women still shaking with terror, police beating on peaceful protestors are stark and potent, but often confusing with respect to first cause.
In parts of the film it is difficult to determine exactly what is happening, we the viewers are being limited by the camera's location and shifting subject composition. This documentary is recommended with reservations in part because it is such a current event and in part because the film presents only one side of the conflict. This film is meant to raise the ire of the viewer, perhaps, as a social instrument or a video fundraiser.