Qualities Of Emiliano Zapata

Illustrated by his unwavering dedication to the people, his refusal to give up on the agrarian objective that sprung his peers to revolt, and a naturally gifted ability to keep local commerce from irreversible destruction, Emiliano Zapata was an insightful leader for the Zapatistas. The rural revolutionaries he led needed a leader with his qualities and also a leader that would also never forget where he came from or give-up the hope of success. Fortunately, they found those traits in Zapata. The rural population of Zapatistas needed a leader to genuinely understand the necessity of a government that was empathetic towards its rural laborers. The Zapatistas were extremely south on Mexico’s economic ladder and provided a foundation off farming for Mexico.
In fact, Emiliano Zapata’s gifted knowledge of commerce shines evidently through the advice he gives to the famers, for example those from Villa de Ayala, about rising from their poverty.
He also had an aversion to cornfield cultivation that began to take over and knew it would lead to desertion of the sugar mills and further economic hardships (240). Zapata saw these economic mistakes and the suffering of his people and fervently led their revolution, which is what influential leaders do. Zapata saw his followers as a group of people and not simply as a military force (225) and the Zapatistas responded by viewing their involvement in the revolution as a their responsibility to their community and as a way to preserve their entire people and nation. The rural character of the Zapatistas bonded Zapata to his revolutionaries and was a demonstration of the unity that was needed to keep the revolution
alive.
With this in mind, it was not solely Zapata’s leadership that failed the Zapatismo's cause. More likely, the agreements Zapata made with beguiling leaders, who would prove themselves to be unreliable, coupled with Zapata’s lack of ambition towards grasping Mexican power for himself, created the winning recipe for failure. Emiliano Zapata reliably challenged military chiefs and government officials that overstepped the boundaries of their job, from Porfirio Diaz’s dictatorship and the subsequent start of the revolution to berating military chiefs who would interfere in village affairs (247) and even leaving law enforcement policies up to the individual villages of Anenecuilo during his prior presidency (227). By overcoming his aversion to leaders that were both too involved and deeply inept, it is possible Zapata could have been more aggressive in his revolutionary efforts and participated in the power grapple himself. Though it is impossible to hypothesize whether Zapata could have expanded his ambition, taken responsibility for his country, and still kept the dire goal of land reform at the heart of it all, it is certain that Zapata would have been a more influential leader by not relying on other rebels to make the Zapatista wishes comes true. The effort and time he dedicated to Madero’s cause in exchange for the enactment of policy changes ended up in sheer disappointment. No other rebel leaders shared his fervor and ideology about the farmers right to land, so he should have taken matters into his own hands because Madero failed him (70-1).
Emiliano Zapata’s dedication and intelligence made him a relatable, and insightful leader in the Morelos revolution. Had Zapata desired the power to enact changes that would’ve saved his starving community by himself, the revolution could have culminated in a drastically different outcome.