Not only that, it has shown the broader reality of authoritarianism behind it's approach toward the tasks of democracy, reform, solidarity, and modernization. Yet here, as elsewhere in Mexico, one is confronted by the paradox that support is highest precisely where the population has suffered most from government economic policies. Whereas in other countries where rates if electorial participation rise with education and income, in Mexico the reverse occurs. Nowhere is voter registration and turnout stronger than among illiterate peasants. The country's ruling elite do not care to admit that Chiapas is more representative of Mexico as a whole, although it may be the extreme case.
Extreme poverty is characteristic of nearly all of southern Mexico.
Also the states of Puebla, Veracruz, Hidalgo, Oaxaca, and Michoacan suffer comparable neglect. Even though they may be greater in numbers in Mexico than the United States, discrimination and mistreatment are as bad, if not worse there. Ninety percent of the population have Amerindian features, but they are only noticed when a revolt occurs, such as the one in Chiapas. One personal note here. I have been to Mexico perhaps 20 times in the last 18 years and the above statement is very true.