Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Mexico’s revolution during the 20th century oozed with potential. When Porfirio Diaz
stepped down as President of Mexico, the country had high hopes for their future. Promises of
proper justice, land reform, and equality for all were said by those in charge after 1910. As time
went on, however, the potential faded and the promises made by the Mexican government went
unfulfilled. The legacy of the Mexican Revolution has been brought into question by Presidential
candidate for Mexico Andrés Manuel Obrador López. He states, “Mexico is a nation without
democracy, with corruption, inequality, and extreme wealth.”1 Issues such as corruption, land
reform, and economic instability continue to plague this country. Obrador Lopez’s statement
shows the stubborness of the Mexican government with its insistance of living in the past and its
Corruption has been a major threat to progress in Mexico. President Plutarco Calles was a
gleaming example of the kind of intrigue that was going on in the Mexican government. After he
stepped down as president in 1928, Calles takes the role the jefe maximo and ruled Mexico from
behind the scenes by establishing the PNR and commanding a series of “puppet presidents”. That
way Calles could still call the shots without being the president. Calles was not a man of the
revolution. If he was a true believer in the Revolution, he would have let the presidency go and
hope that his successor would improve the country on their own.
The way Calles maniuplated the system to maintain power altered the path Mexico took
going forward. The government saw that Calles managed to finally keep the peace and made that
1
Andrés Manuel Obrador López, NeoPorifirismo, Hoy Como Ayer, Grijalbo Press, Mexico,
2013.
Lotzman 2
their highest priority. Rather than working on social reforms promised to the people in the
Mexican Constitution like land reform, worker rights, and a right to education, the Mexican
government sought corruption via implementing prolonged rule. Corruption is only one of the
issues Obrador mentions with the legacy of Mexican Revolution. Land reform was another. By
looking at how Mexico handled land reform, it can show the obvious stubborness the
government had with progress and how the country struggled to fix its inequalities.
Land reform has been a huge problem for Mexico. It one of the major articles in the
Mexican Constitution. However, the privatization of lands was something that the government
refused to fullfill to especially after 1940. The best way to portray the government’s attitude
towards land reform is by looking at the film directed by Fernando de Fuentes called Alla en el
Rancho Grande. The film shows how the jefe of the farm helped and protected his workers in
exchange that they remain loyal to him. The director, Fernando de Fuentes, saw land reform
similarly to the Mexican government since he was against the progress that was ocurring under
Cardenas, and believed the ownership of land should be in the hands of the wealthy.
The Constitution of 1917 demanded that Mexico give its people their own land. The
Mexican government at first, looked like it would keep its word. Unfortunately, the government
seemed to have forgot about the promise they made over time. When the Revolution lost its
bloodshed around the late 1930’s, it became institutional. The ruling political party known as the
PRI began a “more evolution, less revolution” policy towards social reform. This meant that the
promise of privatization of land would be broken. The stubborness of the Mexican government
to keep their word with land reform shows how Mexico has not changed much in the past
century as Obrador Lopez says. A big impact on the governments’ attitude towards social
reforms has to do with money. Economic instablity is another problem mentioned by Obrador
Lotzman 3
Lopez regarding the Mexican Revolution and can reveal cracks in the infrastructure of the
government.
Mexico’s economy hindered its social programs and economic nationalistic policy. The
best example of this would be the aftermath of Mexico’s debt crisis in 1982. The United States
bailed out Mexico in exchange that they followed cerayin conditions given by the U.S.. They
made Mexico accept austerity and were forced to privateize its national companies such as
Telefonos de Mexico. In addition to these conditions, Mexico had to give up its protectionist
policy towards its economy which would allow foreign competition into their market. These
three conditions would squash the hopes of an independent economy and further advancement of
Economic nationalism was a key feauture of the Revolution. Mexico wanted to keep
foreigners out of the country since foreign interfernence had been an issue ever since Mexico
became a country. When this was taken from them, and had to go back to allowing foreign
companies in, Mexico could not keep up with the competition. Mexico, like in the times of the
Porfiriato, became heavily reliant on foreign goods and services which erased any economic
progress the Mexican Revolution had brought. The debt crisis in 1982 supports Obrador Lopez’s
statement regarding extreme wealth. A select few benefitted from these conditions brought by
the U.S. but most struggled to make ends meet with unemployment, low wages, and outsourcing
by foreign companies. This portays the extreme wealth issue that Obrador Lopez points out. The
The Mexican government had a choice to make the Revolution a radical movement.
Instead, they took shortcuts and ended up making little to no change at all in over a century.
Corruption made sure that politicans remained in power longer than they should have. The
Lotzman 4
Mexican government showed its stubborness by ignoring social programs such as education and
land reform. Economic instablity resulted in the death of the nation’s revolutionary desires such
as economic nationalism. As Obrador Lopez had mentioned, “...there exists a false republic and a
state that functions to guarantee the accumulation of wealth in few hands and with little regard
for the many.”2 Obrador Lopez is right. Mexico is that republic. The Mexican Revolution was a
revolution in name only and was more of a method of seizing power by a select few than a
Bibliography
Obrador Lopez, Andres M. NeoPorifirismo, Hoy Como Ayer, Grijalbo Press, Mexico, 2013.
2
Andrés Manuel Obrador López, NeoPorifirismo.