Mexican Politics and Culture - Research Paper Example

? The Political System of Mexico and United s: Their Similarities First Last and number Submitted The Political System of Mexico and United States: Their Similarities Introduction United States is actually located between two independent countries, Canada and Mexico. It is bordered with Canada in the north and Mexico in the south. Given such fact, one would presume a close relation between their governments. This relationship could even lead to similarities in culture and political system. Nevertheless, over the years, Canada has adopted a different type of government in contrast to that of the United States. Since it gained independence from Great Britain, America has chosen the federal presidential form. Canada has long been federal parliamentary. Mexico on the other hand, seems to base its government structure with America. The United Mexican States (commonly known as Mexico) has no royal families unlike Canada. Mexico appears to have a very similar political system with United States due to the following factors: (1) presidential system (2) three autonomous branches (executive, legislative and judiciary) with checks and balances (3) federalism with a good amount of local autonomy. Notably, despite their sameness in political system, America and Mexico do not have the same economic status (Stacy, 2002). Like Canada, United States is one of the developed and industrialized countries of the world whereas Mexico belongs to the developing nations (Stacy, 2002). In lieu of that fact, this research paper will explore the respective political system of Mexico and United States. This will be followed by a brief analysis of their similarities. At the end, an assessment shall be provided on whether or not their similar political structure is the reason for their economic disparity. The Mexican Political System Rogelio Hernandez-Rodriguez (2003) described the Mexican government as authoritative and the most successful to maintain a system which is dominated by one party. The PRI or the Institutional Revolutionary Party has long been controlling Mexican politics. This political party has ruled Mexico for almost seventy-one years (Klesner, 2005). Majority of the elected government officials of Mexico are affiliated with PRI. The authoritative nature of Mexican government is attributed to this fact. Nevertheless, despite the hegemony of PRI, Mexico has been politically stable (Rodriguez, 2003). The other political parties have done nothing bad for the government. It has been stressed that the country’s single party and presidential type of government are the major elements of its effective institutional structure (Huntington, as cited in Rodriguez, 2003, p. 97). This is quite logical since a political party which continues to rule for several years can always focus on implementing its platforms. A one-party system promotes continuity of projects and more social services. Nonetheless, it does not allow other parties to contribute ideas to a great degree. The interest of the dominating party is always at the forefront of every political move. In fairness to Mexican citizens, they have been observed to recognize the reign of a single political party. Social acceptance of this reality has been imminent (Rodriguez, 2003). It could even be asserted that to a certain point, these citizens have been passive about the party’s dominance. Significantly, PRI experienced defeat in the last 2000 presidential election. The outcome of the election has shocked many journalists and politicians (Klesner, 2005). It was almost unbelievable on the part of Institutional Revolutionary Party. One possible reason for the party’s defeat is the Mexican citizens’ discontentment or dismay with the administration largely controlled by PRI. The National Action Party’s (PAN) Vicente Fox won that particular election and served as Mexican president from 2000 to 2006 (Klesner, 2005). In the 2006 presidential race, a PAN candidate was also elected named Felipe Calderon (Klesner, 2005). It has been found out that Mexico’s presidentialism has not been accorded with more powers rooted from its constitution than other administrations (Rodriquez, 2003). This means that the Mexican government’s three branches have limited constitutional powers. In every national election, Mexico elects the following: (1) a president to head its executive branch (2) senators and deputies to comprise its congress and (3) a Supreme Court president representing its judiciary. In this context, it could be presume that these bodies are exercising accidental or implied powers. An implied power actually refers to an indirect power. It is indirect for it is not expressly provided in the constitution but is nonetheless exercised for efficient implementation. The finding can also be attributed to Mexico’s adoption of the checks and balances principle. This doctrine allows a certain branch to check for any encroachment of power by the other branches. It is a principle that ensures balance of power between the three separated branches of the government. The aim is to prevent the existence of anarchy. Stated in another sense, Mexico mirrors a democratic political system. Accordingly, some studies have shown that Mexico’s presidentialism is practically balanced like that of United States (Mainwaring & Shugart, as cited in Rodriquez, 2003, p. 97). Significantly, Mexico has also adopted federalism. The power of its government is not centralized. It is rather distributed nationally and locally. This goes to say that there is local autonomy. The local governments do not depend on the national government’s ultimate decision. They have the authority to decide what’s best for their political subdivisions like in budget allocation. The American Political System There has been a controversy on whether the political parties in America are growing weaker or being revitalized (Abramson, Aldrich, Paolino, & Rohde, 2000). This weakness has been associated to the decreasing number of American political parties. Revitalization on the other hand spurs from the belief that political parties have been choosing to integrate and represent a new more united and active party. An act of unification between one or more political parties can actually be seen as a strategy to utilize the advantages of each party and create a more powerful set of candidates. Such move could also be a superficial political tactic. This means that parties choose to form a new group just to maintain representation in the government and eventually disintegrate. In the matter of American political parties, electoral behavior students have observed a decline but party organization analysts saw transformation and growth (Dalton & Wattenberg; Ladd; Aldrich; Rohde; & Schlesinger, as cited in Abramson et al., 2000, p. 495). Their differing observation is understandable. Electoral behavior students often conclude that a fading support for political parties correspondingly results to a decrease in the number of prevailing political parties. In contrast, analysts of party organization go beyond the numbers. They are known to transcend beyond the result of studies. Despite such facts, their findings are fueled by the dramatic changes that have happened in the United States’ electoral politics (Abramson et al., 2000). Nonetheless, two major political parties in America continue to dominate its elections. These are the Republican Party and Democratic Party (Abramson et al., 2000). Since 1970, their respective presidential candidates have been close rivals. This is the reason why party affiliation is important in US legislative branch (Rohde, as cited in Abramson et al., 2000). In this matter, Duverger and Riker (as cited in Abramson et al., 2000, p. 495) contend that America’s plurality-vote win system has triggered this two-party dominance. A plurality-vote system operates by announcing a candidate as the winner due to his or her more votes than the other candidates. His or her votes actually do not represent the majority vote. In the American government, the most powerful is its president (Rosati, 1997). As cited by Jerel Rosati (1997), an American president has different roles as provided in its constitution and holds various positions which contribute to his or her power. The president’s duties include the following: commander-in-chief, chief administrator, chief diplomat, chief legislator, chief judicial officer and chief-of-state. Nevertheless, the president does not operate with limitless power. He or she faces many constraints which limits his or her power (Rosati, 1997). This is in pursuance to the principle of checks and balances. The American government has adopted the federal presidential form. This means that the government is composed of three branches, the executive, legislative and judiciary. These three have constitutional powers which are not to be encroached by any of them. The relevance of checks and balances therefore is to make sure that despite their separated powers, all of them must function in harmony. Just like any presidentialist state, Americans elect a president to lead the executive branch for a term of six years. They also choose senators and representatives to comprise its upper and lower house of congress. To head the judiciary, the president nominates a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court which is voted upon by the people in congress. All these characteristics of presidentialism have been adopted by other states in the world. There are actually many countries which patterned their constitution after United States. Notably, the American government is the author of the three branches with separate powers. Despite being the pioneer of such governmental structure, it has been opined by Rosati (1997) that America’s constitution created an inducement to struggle between two branches, specifically the legislative and executive branches. He used as an example the two bodies’ dynamic and fluid foreign policy relations (Rosati, 1997). This has been described as the cyclical or pendulum effect (Schlesinger, as cited in Rosati, 1997, p. 297). Similarities Basically, the respective political systems of Mexico and United States are quite similar. First, both countries have adopted the same type of government -- that is, federal presidential. They have the three branches, executive, legislative and judiciary. The basis of the power exercised by the three bodies is their constitution. Their respective constitution limits the power of the president, senators, representatives or deputies and judges. This limitation however is attached in such a way that it does not hamper the efficient exercise of their power. Mexico and United States are actually referred to as “constitutional republics.” In a constitutional republic, officials are elected to represent the people. This goes to say that the power of the government officials comes from the people. Without the masses, governments will not exist. Second, the power of their government is decentralized. This means that greater autonomy has been granted to their local governments. Local autonomy is evident in the two political systems. Local governments in America and Mexico can therefore decide matters within their jurisdiction without the approval of the national government. Nevertheless, it is their duty to assure that they do not go beyond their constitutional powers. Third, both governments have recognized the checks and balances doctrine as providing the right mechanism to implore balance of power. They have acknowledged the fact that balance of power is essential to preserve democracy and prevent anarchy. In this respect, they are presumed to believe the idea that an encroachment of power by a particular branch with the other branch is to be punished impartially. Fourth, Mexico and United States have been promoting a political system which is composed of many political parties. These political parties come from the different sectors of society such as the labor sector. They have designed a political arena wherein an interested political party can easily participate and be represented. Fifth, the electoral system of both governments allows party dominance. In Mexico, either PRI or PAN dominates the political arena. With regard to America, either the Democratic Party or Republican Party reigns during election. This continuing political party hegemony is due to their plurality voting scheme. Economic Disparity It is contended that the two governments’ sameness in political system is not the reason for their economic disparity. Political similarity does not also mean economic similarity. Mexico and United States have different strategies to ensure their country’s growth and development. The two countries even though connected by the same border have different economic policies. To note, statistical data show that Mexico’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is high but forty percent of its citizens are considered to be living below the poverty line (Danopoulos, 2004). According to Constantine Danopoulos (2004), Mexico has a strong industrial base. It is actually ranked as the 6th largest producer of oil in the world. Furthermore, one can notice broad boulevards and modern facilities lined in its major cities. Nevertheless, its citizens are struggling against poverty and pollution (Danopoulos, 2004). All these facts make Danopoulos (2004) say that life in Mexico’s modern society is a paradox. This is not the case in America. The standard of living in America reflects its GDP. The facilities and infrastructures all around United States represent its high economic income. Conclusion Clearly, Mexican political system appears to be very similar to that of America. The similarities are rooted on their same form of government. Mexico has used the United States’ government structure as its model. In doing so, they also patterned their constitution after America. Nonetheless, it does not follow that both of them have the same economic status. References Abramson, P., Aldrich, J., Paolino, P., & Rohde, D. (2000). Challenges to the American two-party system: Evidence from the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly, 53 (3), 495. Danopoulos, C. (2004). Economic measurements and quality of life in Mexico. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 32 (2), 193. Klesner, J. (2005). Electoral competition and the new party system in Mexico. Latin American Politics and Society, 47 (2), 103. Rodriguez, R. H. (2003). The Renovation of old institutions: State governors and the political transition in mexico. Latin American Politics and Society, 45 (4), 97. Rosati, J. (1997). United States leadership into the next millennium: A question of politics. International Journal, 52(2), 297. Stacy, L. (2002). Mexico and the United States. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish. Annotated Bibliography Abramson, P., Aldrich, J., Paolino, P., & Rohde, D. (2000). Challenges to the American two-party system: Evidence from the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly, 53 (3), 495. This article discusses the two-party system in America as challenged by the new emerging political parties. It says that despite the changes in American politics, major political parties still dominate its elections. It is relevant to my thesis because Abramson et al. investigated the two-party dominance in America’s political system. This data shall form part of my research paper. Danopoulos, C. (2004). Economic measurements and quality of life in Mexico. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 32 (2), 193. This journal investigates the economic status of Mexico. The author Danopoulos is actually puzzled of the life in Mexico when available data have shown contrasting results as to its economic plight and level of poverty. The finding is very useful to my final assessment which talks about the relationship between political structure and economic disparity. Thus, this article will be one of the bases of my research. Klesner, J. (2005). Electoral competition and the new party system in Mexico. Latin American Politics and Society, 47 (2), 103. This scholarly journal specifically discusses the presidential election in Mexico and the defeat of its long-ruling political party. Klesner actually acknowledges the possibility of a party which could maintain its dominance for the same period that PRI has reigned. The data provided in this article is very important to my research paper as it explains in detail the essential features of Mexican political system. Therefore, this journal will also form part of my thesis argumentation. Rodriguez, R. H. (2003). The Renovation of old institutions: State governors and the political transition in Mexico. Latin American Politics and Society, 45 (4), 97. This article deals with the reasons behind Mexico’s one-party dominance for a long time. Rodriguez contends that Mexico is an example of an authoritarian government. The journal is very useful to my research topic because it suggests that the effective institutional structure in Mexico is due to PRI’s hegemony in political party representation. In such case, this journal shall be referred to in my research paper. Rosati, J. (1997). United States leadership into the next millennium: A question of politics. International Journal, 52 (2), 297. This journal analyzes the pluralist political party representation in America. It includes a discussion of the two major political parties in America that is why it is useful to my research endeavor. Rosati has pointed out that America’s president is its most powerful actor in politics. The information on this article shall be used to support my thesis. Stacy, L. (2002). Mexico and the United States. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish. This book talks about the relationship of Mexico and United States. Their economic relation and geographical location were also tackled. One of the book’s main arguments is that the cultural, economic and political ties of the two countries have been increasing. The book is useful to my research paper since Stacy has cited that Mexico is the only developing nation that shares a border with America. This information is to be found in the introductory part of my research paper. Read More