Revolution Ends, Change Begins
1. The PRI took control in 1929 – what examples of democratization have taken place in Mexico since that time?
Mexico has become significantly more democratic since 1929. The population has changed from being two-thirds rural to being three-quarters urban. The economy has become much more open, while it was previously protectionist and state-dominated. Mexican exports and trade have increased, inflation has decreased, and its economy has stabilized after a quarter-century of turmoil. The addition of a competition agency and human rights commission help to protect citizens. Additionally, the press is now independent of the government, and the courts, central bank, and electoral authorities have become more independent. The largest factor in Mexico’s democratization was the peaceful transition from the PRI to the PAN as Vicente Fox was made president.
2. What are the pros and cons of the PRI’s lack of a concrete platform? Why is it considered a “perfect dictatorship”?
Because the PRI had no concrete platform, it never had an ideology, and anyone could join. This gave it the ability to adapt as the times changed, and allowed a range of presidents from all backgrounds and political dogmas to gain power. It included trade unions, peasant groups, youth movements—all of which made it stronger. Additionally, it rarely used repression, co-opted trade unions by giving their leaders money and power, won the support of peasants by redistributing land, essentially bribed newspapers, and was a patron of the arts. While all of this helped the PRI stay in power, there were also negatives associated with the PRI’s lack of concrete platform. Because there was no central dogma and anyone could join, its followers were split, as was economic growth among them—this created the “two Mexicos” the article talks about.
It’s a “perfect dictatorship” in that it appeared to be a democracy, as a president that couldn’t be reelected headed it, but in every other way it functioned as a dictatorship. The government outwardly had all the characteristics of a democracy, but because the PRI was so widespread and controlled who was elected, the president had almost absolute power.
Fox’s Mexico: Same as It Ever Was?
1. The author Pamela Starr is critical of Fox’s first year as President of Mexico. Keeping in mind the challenges he faced and what he did and didn’t accomplish – do you agree with the author’s perspective? Explain your reasoning, citing specific pieces of evidence.
Though the author makes legitimate points, overall, I disagree with her opinion that Fox’s administration was disappointing. As the first president from a party other than the PRI for the first time in over 70 years, it’s only natural that Fox would face many challenges and that his presidency would be anything but smooth sailing. However, despite the many challenges he faced, he managed to pass two austere budget laws through Congress and get elements of financial reform approved. Though ultimately unable to convince the Zapatista rebels in Chiapas to initiate peace negotiations, he did manage to pass a new law on indigenous people, which was his top legislative priority. This, if nothing else, shows that they were dedicated to sticking to their word. The author does address this point, saying that Fox changed his mind several times, notably concerning the proposed 15% tax on food, medicines, and books. While Fix did eliminate the tax from his proposal, does not necessarily mean that it was the result of negotiation with Carlos Fuentes. It may be that Fox realized a potential detrimental affect of the tax, and was willing to look indecisive in order to protect the people (though this is speculation). The author also states that the executive branch’s organization into three groups concerning quality growth, order and respect, and social development “deepened confusion and inconsistency within the administration.” However, I would argue that this separation of powers is a step in furthering Mexico’s democracy, and that of course any new, major change in government is not going to function perfectly from the outset. I believe that the author makes valid points all around; however, I also think that she fails to recognize that making changes in one year from over 70 years of essential dictatorship is easier said than done.
2. Political parties have a complex history in Mexico. How did the three parties themselves add to the difficulties of Fox’s first year in office? Specifically address the PAN, PRD, and PRI.
The PRD was very unsupportive of Fox and therefore has opposed his legislative agenda consistently. It believes that the transition from the PRI to the PAN brought few changes in policy, and does not make an effort to collaborate with the government because it remains a minority in the legislature. Specifically, it opposes the market based economy strategy Fox continued, and has a deep-seated mistrust of Fox’s ultimate objectives. As a minority party, it has little incentive to work with the legislature, especially because it does not have enough votes to build a majority even when combined with those of the PAN.
Adjusting to its new role as the opposition, the PRI has also been unsupportive of Fox’s presidency. Because it’s the dominant opposition force, not much can be achieved without its cooperation. Policy differences, attempts to organize itself, and the chaos created by the three competing centers of power make it hard to get anything done, and even harder for Fox. The PRI power centers have made demands of the government, but due to internal party politics, they were unable to give up anything in return. Additionally, these internal struggles have prevented them from supporting any controversial policy positions.
Though Fox was elected as a member of the PAN, his relationship with it has not been smooth. He did not get along with Diego Fernandez de Cevallos, the leader of the dominant traditionalist faction, and established a campaign structure independent of the party. He appealed to voters directly, and later forced the PAN to accept his candidacy. He made little effort to involve the PAN in governing, which did little to ease their fears of becoming a party controlled by the presidency, much like the PRI. As a result of this fear, it has been hesitant to fully support Fox and his legislative proposals. For the first few months, it operated as if it were the opposition, particularly concerning Fox’s proposal to increase the autonomy of indigenous communities, which Fox based his legislative measure on.
3. The author makes the argument that “the Fox administration drew heavily on tactics designed in advanced democracies but ineffective in a fledgling democratic order.” What tactics is she describing and why did they not work in Mexico?
It can only be expected that Mexico’s new truly democratic regime would not be perfect after over 70 years of an essentially authoritarian government. Therefore there have been many failed ventures that would have likely worked in advanced democracies, but did not in Mexico. For example, Fox’s attempt to transform PEMEX into an autonomous firm managed on the basis of market principles faced many obstacles, largely due to his appointment of businessmen to the administrative board. Additionally, the announcement that Mexico would fully support the US after 9/11 produced nationalist backlash and unease. Fox’s cabinet also faced problems—each minister was highly independent, which led to conflict and no policy coordination.
No comments:
Post a Comment