Porfirian Diaz and his role in the Mexican Revolution - Research Paper Example

? Porfirian Diaz and his role in the Mexican Revolution Introduction Many countries have the experience of Revolutions. Mexico is not an exception. In order to understand the roots of 1910 Revolution, there is a need to consider the regime, which created so many underpinnings for it. Thesis: Porfirio Diaz is the creator of the imbalanced internal and foreign policy of Mexico, which resulted in revolutionary movement in the country. Instead of putting a stake at foreign investments and neglecting the needs of common citizens, it would be better for Porfirian regime to concentrate inner powers within the country and to earn money from native lands instead of renting and selling it to the foreign investors. A wrong direction was chosen by the dictator from the very beginning and the result was not unexpected at all. Moreover, there is a claim that a personalized and centered power of the government resulted in inefficient governmental apparatus and there was no chance to change conservative principles into liberalistic views. Hardened policies of Diaz, cruel dictatorship weigh much more than a positive intention to modernize the country. Further discussion concerns revolutionary underpinnings of the beginning of the nineteenth century. In accordance with primary and secondary sources, Porfirio Diaz is positioned as an irresponsible leader of the country, which should be developed as a rural country and not as a land for foreign investments and peasantry exploitation. Porfirian regime overview Porfirio Diaz (1830-1915) gained control over Mexico in 1876. That period was full of hardships and people in the country experienced poverty, unlike bureaucracies, who had good salaries and created huge foreign debts of the country. The economy of the country was on hold. Colonial days were changed by the introduction of farming. There was a need to modernize the country. Agrarian revolts, a constant pressure of banditos and revolt in favor of the President Lerado on the US border were conditions for film’s development. Porfirio reigned from 1876-1911 and this era is known as the Porfiriato1. To reach order and progress-these were two main concerns of the ruler. Foreign turmoil could not be seized by Diaz and in 1877 there was a military conflict with U. At the ends of his first –term ruling, Porfirio did not appeal for the second term2.  During Diaz reign there were no civil wars in Mexico. Nevertheless, this benefit cost much to the country. The introduction of agrarian reform, which enabled the privileged class to own all lands, was a negative feature of Diaz regime. Farmers had to pay their debts in order to survive.  A high increase of price led to starving in the country. There were no homes for more than 16% of population3. Foreign investors were attracted to the country by the options of land owning and poor people were forced off from their lands even those, who owned vast landholding. The high inflation rates of US led to depression of 1907 and prices were life were huge for Mexicans. Porfiriato introduced the laissez-faire policies, but these policies could not facilitate the process of inflation. When the economy was on the edge of crisis, middle and upper class did not support Porfiriato policies anymore. Foreign banks introduced stricter regulations for credit and the government raised taxes. The wages for workers remained low and Porfiriato could not manage to bridge the gap of inflation growth and required money for daily living of people. In spite of political and social turmoil in the country, there was a need to reelect the President and Francisco Madero claimed that there was a need for Mexico to return to the Constitution of 18574. Dictatorship of Diaz was undermined and was strictly criticized by the people. Madero underlined the necessity to introduce political and not social reforms. He criticized Diaz dependence on the foreign capital and the growing number of American businessmen. Diaz was reelected and the anger intensified in the society. Villages echoed the motto “Viva la Revolucion!” and the guerillas occurred in Mexico. The rebellion was strictly controlled by Diaz. Nevertheless, antagonistic moods of the rebellion were also heard under the leadership of Pascual Orozco and Pancho Villa. The rebels could fight against the army and on Jan 2, 1911 the rebels got the victory5.   Therefore, in the majority of cases the Revolution in Mexico is perceived as “popular, agrarian, spontaneous, and characterized by powerful peasant participation and a large-scale confrontation of peasants and landowners (often "feudal latifundistas", as well as by strong sentiments of nationalism, even xenophobia (all of which carried implications for interpretations of the Porfiriato: a regime of authoritarian, xenophile oppression”6. Nevertheless, there is a need to consider the Revolution in a more profound and deep manner. This is a complex social phenomenon, triggered by economical changes and external factors. In accordance with…this revolution cannot be named as a national revolution, because the splashes of revolution were local, regional and monolithic. There is even a claim that there were many different Mexicos and many revolutions. Moreover, if to consider the primary sources of evidence of the participants of revolution, this event was positioned in the society as a phenomenon, triggered by numerous different factors: from personal considerations to easily generalized motivations. The sources of revolutionary events often depict this event as a massive and unorganized social phenomenon, triggered by external and personal motifs of the participants. The masses, which participated in revolution, were selfless and the leaders were cynically striving for power and not fighting for truth. Detailed considerations about the Porfirian regime If to consider the roots of revolution in more details, it is possible to find the basis for revolution in the ideology of Enlightenment. From another perspective, which is more focused on Porfiriato regime, the roots of revolution can be found in a manipulative and complicated character of agrarismo7. The land is taken away from peasants and is sold to the foreigners; the problem comes from without more than from within. Therefore, the process of revolution is even more challenged with accounts of conflict, violence, resistance and factionalism8. From another perspective, there was an evident process of agrarian sector deconstructionism in Mexico and there is a need to look for the roots of revolution in this sector. With the help of modern studies and methodologies, it is possible to restore the picture of revolution in Mexico and And the basic vision of revolution should not be explained only in terms of agrarian revolution, but also as a decisive process of social change in the country. Therefore, in order to consider revolution in Mexico only from a perspective of agrarian trigger, there is a need to consider historical background of revolution in detail. First of all, the fact that the revolution in Mexico was triggered by agricultural concerns cannot be denied. The agrarian reform evokes a vivid turmoil in the Mexican society and in some regions rebellions were very active, while in other regions these rebellions remained quite tranquil. Thus, the structure of revolution is not homogenous. For example, in the region Yucatan people experienced the most brutal forms of exploitation and not only agrarian reforms triggered inner turmoil in this region in many other regions. This issue is the small gauge to grasp the full scope of important issues to be considered. Moreover, agrarian basis of the revolution in Mexico seems unsatisfactory, because there was no the prominent leaders in these affairs. For example, the army of Pancho Villa in the North united people who differed greatly from the Indian peasant villagers and who were the members of forces of Emiliano Zapata in the South9. Therefore, revolutionaries were from different layers of the society and they were not only concerned about agricultural issues. On the other hand, the fact that revolution in Mexico had only social background cannot be taken for granted. There is a difference between western thought of revolution and the realities of Mexican revolutions. In accordance with Gilly, revolutions are necessary triggers for the world’s history. The Western world experienced either feudal revolution, bourgeois or proletarian revolution. Mexican revolution cannot be described in these terms. Pre-revolutionary Mexico was ‘feudal’and in the process of revolution it turned into ‘bourgeois’. There is a mixture of different revolutionary triggers in Mexico. Therefore, the Porfiriato regime is the background for revolution development and there is a need to consider this regime in detail in order to penetrate into the depth of the roots of revolution. In spite of the presence of liberal politicians, Mexico was caught in the web of dictatorship. Political institutions at the local level, where the liberals were dominant, were absent. Mexico City was the center and the landed oligarchy was joined by the liberals. Moreover, the agrarian masses did not have an opportunity to participate in the political life of the country. Liberalism was also blamed for agrarian unrest. Further on, it is possible to claim that in the early years of Independence different political factions were afraid of popular rebellion and inter-class conflict and thus they united their forces in order to resist them. Private class was absolutely rampant. There was no social tranquility and Mexico national problems, such as US threat to Mexico national integrity, were intimidating factors for Mexico. From this perspective, regime of Diaz seized civil wars to a certain degree and guaranteed further social stability of the country. Still, he was focused on dominance over the lower classes. Mexican landowners gained huge profits from Mexican export and the oligarchy was concerned about national integrity in terms of economic domination. Diaz was intended to set up liberalism in the country. After the Reform Church in Mexico remained a strong separate power of the country. The ideological control of the masses was realized by the Church10. The Church combined its influence exerted on the service of agrarian capitalism and social power over the masses. The Cristero rebellion was a new form of protest and it did not come from the old landlord class or military. This rebellion was a reflection of the way the Porfirian state had created the conditions for the Church to recover its social power and there was a need to restore the struggle under the post-revolutionary regime11. Moreover, in accordance with…: “it also reflected the substantial degree of alienation which existed between the rural masses and the post-revolutionary state elite, and the extent to which the kind of secular ideologies by which that state sought to incorporate the rural masses were rejected initially”12. When Porfirio Diaz made an attempt to create effective state machine, there was a need to satisfy the requirements of the landlords. Regional caudillos took control over the areas of the country. Diaz wanted to beat the caudillos by means of the rules of their own game. He took control over the local opposition and he tried to insert his own men as governors. There was not much money in the treasury and he had to rely on foreign capital in order to promote the strategy of central patronage. The wealth of the landlord class was increased thanks to the investments of the government into railways building, irrigation systems and so on. The landlords took over peasantry and created a cheap rural proletariat. The export dependence in Mexico was promoted. On the other hand, Porfirian regime should not be considered in terms of “dependency” policy of the country. Diaz successfully strengthened centralized state power to the greatest extent. He created and developed the federal army and tried continuously to improve the state’s ability to collect taxes. Local communities obtained power and they recruited sergeants and federal tax collectors. It was a kind of contribution into bureaucracy development and establishment of a new administrative apparatus in terms of the regime. This was a significant step toward “modernization” and consolidation of the country. The main drawback of the Porfirian state was in the central patronage system. The government remained arbitrary and corrupted. The most negative outcome was Diaz inability to solve the problem of personal power displacement and introduction of integrative function with institutions and he did not allow the Porfirian elite to promote the regime to a more institutionalized and constitutional system13. As far as we can see, these are conditions for political crisis and clear underpinnings of social revolutionary crisis. It is relevant to develop a historical narrative, describing chronology of the Mexican revolution. If to consider the abovementioned background, we can claim that Revolution in Mexico was a result of agrarian discontent and a local reaction to Porfiriato centralization of power. Another crucial aspect, triggering revolution in Mexico, was a political drive of elites, who wanted to gain more radical impulses from peasantry and organized labor. Therefore, we can construct a consequential reasoning of revolutionary underpinnings in Mexico. These are the following: Gonzales states that the revolution is managed by political leaders, primarily from northern Mexico. The first trigger is the agrarian reform and this fact cannot be denied, because it is natural of people to protect their lands and not to let them go from their hands. The essence of the given revolution was the agrarian reform. Political leaders wanted to control masses with the help of it [revolution]. The second factor is the development of Constitution, which emerged in 1917 and a gradual formation of one-party system. Moreover, the revolution concerned economic nationalism. The last years of Porfiriato regime were the main underpinnings for further development of it, though they were developed under the reign Venustiano Carranza14. The strongest revolutionary pulse can be also seen in the anticlerical movement. In accordance with Gonsalez, the center of Cultural Revolution concerned society secularization by means of socialist education. Gonsalez claims that the Revolution in Mexico should be considered as a complex phenomenon. Anthropological perspective on Porfirian Regime If to consider anthropological factors of Revolution, which play the crucial role, then we can see that a diverse social structure of Mexico was one of the most challenging issues of Revolution. The society of Mexico consists from the vast mestizo class, the half-castes and the purer Indians. As far as we can see, it is rather hard to unite or integrate these social classes together. Thus, it is better for Diaz to think about the essence of his nation before starting his dictatorship policies. The Spanish Mexicans were captured in the foreign trap and it was inappropriate for their Spanish brave temperament and the Indian carelessness. There was no need to rule over these people. There was a need to choose appropriate strategies in order to direct the development of the country in another direction15. The way of disintegration failed and people tried through their rebellions to restore the truth in their society. An inconsistent combination of brave Spaniards and enslaved and scared Indians was a challenging social mass. The heterogeneity of the society in Mexico is even more complicated by inner national turmoil and obtruded dictatorship of the ruling powers. Thus, inappropriateness and the wrong direction of Porfiriato regime can be perfectly illustrated by a famous quote by Rousseau: “The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty”16. Thus, power of Porfiriato regime had a wrong and different direction. He was concerned about economic success of the country, but he neglected and perverted the centennial norms of the Mexican nation. People lived on their own lands and now they had to obey to landowners. The annual rate was 2.6 percent and there was a chance to recover real income per capita to pre-1821 levels only by 1911. The levels of unemployment drastically increased by 1911 and unskilled workers worked at new productive enterprises. “The real financial assets were concentrated in the hands of a few local and foreign investors”17. Therefore, the main burden of modernization was imposed on rural peasantry and the fact that government seized private and communal land influenced the number of landless rural population. Land law was enacted in 1833 and by 1888 land companies possessed more than 27.5 million hectares of rural land. One-fifth of Mexico total territory was controlled by 1894. Villages did not have their communal landholdings by 1910 and a few wealthy families were the owners of 54.3 million hectares of most productive land in the country18. In order to perform a program of modernization, Porfiriato regime sacrificed personal and political freedom. The opponents of the regime were neutralized at once and all powers and forces were directed to promotion of the progress. There was no freedom of press, there were no elections and Diaz appointed his friends as political bosses. This regime did not manage to modernize Mexico. The country remained poor and rural and there was evident class stratification. There was an essential growth of middle-class workers and entrepreneurs. The middle class discarded Mexican norms and was more directed to European manners and tastes. Still, in his personal interview to the American journalist James Creelman, Diaz claimed that he was able to introduce an essential change in the Mexican society19. Social and political organization of the country experienced essential improvements. He believed that his regime prepared people for democratic processes of the country20. In reality, these words intensified social and economic influence of Diaz friends and personalist government of Diaz was prospering. On the other hand, there were people, who believed in the democratic basis, which will be further developed. The result of Diaz regime Consequently, in the process of elections in 1910 Madero collected an impressive number of votes and Diaz imprisoned Madero. When Madero was released from prison, he was fighting against Diaz with a great passion and such heroes as Pancho Villa in the north, and the peasant Emiliano Zapata in the south occurred. They were against the dictatorship of the Diaz regime. Diaz gave up and Madero became the President of the country. Zapata then conquered Madero and he was later assassinated by the follower of the General Gonzalez. That was a challenging period for the country. Numerous tribes of guerrillas destroyed and burned down the country. Under presidency of Venustiano Carranza the convention of 1917 was acclaimed and he underlined the importance of land reform. Farm cooperative programs were developed and the largest part of lands from wealthy landowners was distributed among the peasantry. As far as we can see, the rebellions under the guidance of leaders from peasantry were mostly concerned about antagonistic moods and cruel intentions of Diaz. Moreover, there was a need to restore the truth of the nation and to renovate the potential of agricultural sector of the nation. Conclusion As far as we can see, the Revolution in Mexico is of very complicated nature. Numerous essential factors were determinant ones and triggered revolutionary processes within the country. Porfirio Diaz underlined the importance of country’s modernization at the expense of national welfare. He contributed much into foreign investors’ satisfaction and neglected the needs of the common people. The oligarchy of the country and different landlords and landowners were mainly focused on their own enrichment and huge profits gaining. Moreover, an essential split within the society resulted in inner turmoil of the country. It means that Porfiriato regime resulted in development of land's renting and investment in the modernization of the country. Nevertheless, there was no real modernization and advancement of the country and there were no real underpinnings for further democratic processes in Mexico. Oppressed Mexicans were looking for a chance to restore their national identity and Revolution was the only way out to restore their national potential and national identity. Moreover, another important factor was that the privileged authorities owned lands, which belonged to common people and peasants. Diaz took away land and cut money for living. Therefore, Mexicans were in despair. The Revolution in the country was a result of dictatorship and imbalanced power and government of the country. There was a need to shift the governmental policies of Diaz to more local concerns and discard the foreign pressure of investors in the name of local people. There was a need for people to strive for democracy and to fight for their rights against oppression. Therefore, a split of national protest among peasantry, creation of rebellions at the local level and national antagonism against the policy of dictatorship is the result of Diaz regime. Bibliography Primary Sources Baldwin, Neil. Legends of the Plumed Serpent: Biography of a Mexican God. New York: Public Affairs, 1998. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91864075. Cobb, A. B. Mexico: a primary source cultural guide. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004. Commentary on the Mexican Revolution by Peruvian Marxist philosopher Victor Raul Haya de la Torre. http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/ddiaz.htm Johnston, Charles. Porfirio Diaz. The North American Review 176 (554) (1903): 115-124. Secondary Sources Gonzalez, M. The Mexican Revolution, 1910-1940. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002. Grayson, George. "FOXY CATHOLIC: The Church in Mexico." Commonweal, September 28, 2001, 11. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000889570. Hart, John Mason. Empire and Revolution: The Americans in Mexico since the Civil War. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106255176. Joseph, Gilbert M. and Daniel Nugent, eds. Everyday Forms of State Formation: Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24478373. Kuecker, Glen David. "The Mexican Revolution, 1910-1940." The Historian 66, no. 2 (2004): 350. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5010849313. Lear, John. Workers, Neighbors, and Citizens: The Revolution in Mexico City. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2001. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=111996035. Hart, J. M. Revolutionary Mexico. The Coming and Process of the Mexican Revolution. University of California Press, 1987. Interpreting the Mexican Revolution. http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/etext/.../8802.pdf  Osorio, Alejandra. "Postcards in the Porfirian Imaginary." Social Justice 34, no. 1 (2007): 141+. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5023907965. Richards, Michael D. Revolutions in World History. New York: Routledge, 2003. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107983628. Rinehart, James F. Revolution and the Millennium: China, Mexico, and Iran. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27617109. Smith, Phyllis L. "Contentious Voices amid the Order: the Opposition Press in Mexico City, 1876-1911." Journalism History 22, no. 4 (1997): 138+. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5036796627 Read More