The General Law on the Rights of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples regulates a wide range of issues related to indigenous communities and peoples, including land, territory, cultural heritage, electoral matters, consultation, traditional medicine, employment, income generation, the economy, supply, marketing, food self-sufficiency, housing, community work, artisanal roads, infrastructure, climate change, justice plans, the media, traditional medicine and midwives, community assemblies, and so on. A veritable medley. It consists of 453 articles and 11 transitional provisions.
There are two issues that I consider to be among the most important: the right to consultation and lands and territories, which I will now address.
The autonomy of indigenous peoples and communities is recognized in Article 2 of the Constitution and, among other things, provides that they “shall be consulted on legislative or administrative measures intended to be adopted, when these may cause significant effects or impacts on their lives or environment, with the aim of obtaining their consent or, where appropriate, reaching an agreement on such measures.”
This text is reproduced verbatim in Article 319 of the General Law on Indigenous Rights. The following can be inferred from the above text:
There is no single criterion for determining when an impact is significant and when it is not, nor is it clear who will make that determination—that is, whether it will be the legislative or administrative authority that issues the act, or whether it is the indigenous people or community that can determine whether that measure has a “significant” impact on their lives or their environment. This ambiguity gives rise to discretionary decisions that are detrimental to indigenous communities and peoples.
Furthermore, indigenous peoples or communities have no authority to refuse to consent to the administrative or legislative measure. They can only give their consent or reach an agreement regarding the measures in question. It is one thing to express an opinion and quite another to decide whether or not to accept measures or acts that may cause a significant impact. This legal provision does not allow for refusal. In any case, the intention is to reach an agreement on such measures.
The political rhetoric and the wording of this article, which establishes the right to consultation in general terms, have two radically different implications in legal and practical terms: the difference between being heard and having decision-making power.
In practice, companies and governments have the final say in carrying out their extractive and dispossessive projects, reinforced by this mechanism of legal legitimization and protection.
Furthermore, to tighten the noose even further, Article 320 introduces the term “good faith” as an element of consultation. It establishes that consultation must be conducted in good faith.
The mistrust felt by indigenous communities and peoples toward the Mexican government has been longstanding, contrary to the principle of good faith that is now intended to be incorporated into the consultation process. The text of Article 320 calls for a relationship “based on dignity, trust, and genuine cooperation.” The reality is that trust cannot be legislated, nor can good faith be unilaterally demanded, when indigenous peoples and communities have endured centuries of deception, exclusion, false promises, dispossession, and plunder.
The mistrust felt by indigenous peoples and communities is legitimate and justified. The legal text refers to an absence of malice, deception, and pretense. In reality, all these elements always originate from the authorities and corporations. For good faith to exist—and for there to be an absence of malice, deception, and pretense—there must be a level playing field, and we are very far from that equality because the entire government apparatus and commercial entities are allied in these projects; and by the time consultation reaches an indigenous people or community, the project to be consulted on has already been designed, approved, obtained the necessary permits, and secured the financial resources for its implementation—thus reducing good faith to a mere bureaucratic validation formality.
And, finally, the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (INPI) and other agencies of the Executive Branch are responsible for ensuring that the consultation is conducted in accordance with all the appropriate requirements; in other words, they become both judge and party.
For consultation to truly have legal effectiveness as a means of defending their rights and exercising their autonomy, the right to decide—to reject the project—must be expressly established; not merely the right to express an opinion, but the right to decide.
*Lawyer
Original text by Barbara Zamora published in La Jornada on July 30th, 2026.
Translation by Schools for Chiapas