Essay Prompt
The Mexican Revolution is often called the most important event in Mexican history. In a ten-year period, 10% of Mexico’s population died in a series of revolutions, counter-revolutions, and coups. What was the Porfiriato and how did it lead to the Mexican Revolution? What role did Francisco Madero, Pancho Villa, and Emiliano Zapata play in the Mexican Revolution, and what were they each fighting for? Once the fighting was over, how did Alvaro Obregon and Plutarco Calles consolidate power? Finally, why is Lazaro Cardenas’ presidency seen as the culmination of the Mexican Revolution?
INTRODUCTION
Mexico’s history is full of revolutions and counter-revolutions, which strongly influenced its political-economic-social system. These periods, of extraordinary political-military activity, were also a consequence of wars and foreign interventions. For instance, Mexico’s war with the United States, which the United States won quite easily, shaped the socio-political and socioeconomic perceptions/realities quite strongly. Similarly, Napoleonic schemes (regarding Mexico) and Napoleon’s military/political interventions affected the political landscape drastically, giving birth and rise to several new political and military players.
Thesis Statement
1) How Porfiriato Era became cause of the Mexican Revolution, which brought together different socio-political groups/militias, led by different individuals, together to dismantle Diaz’s Regime?
2) How different Pro-revolution Factions came to power, in post-Revolution Mexico, to implement various agendas of Mexican Revolution?
PORFIRIATO ERA
The consequence of the above-mentioned developments was the Porfiriato era that lasted 35 years (from 1876 to 1911). During this period, Porfirio Diaz became the President of Mexico, who introduced various economic and political reforms in the country. The regime had a very clear agenda and strategy, which allowed it to bring major changes. For instance, the prime focus of the regime was progress for which it devised numerous strategies and implemented them in a particular fashion (Edmonds-Poli and Shirk, Contemporary Mexican Politics).
The head of the regime, Porfirio Diaz, was native and of humble origin; therefore, his views regarding the economy were strong and radical. Also, as he had rich military experience (fought against French troops), Diaz also aimed to improve the military capacity of Mexico. Therefore, Porfirio regime had two prime objectives; 1) improve the economy by introducing economic reforms and 2) improve/expand the military capacity of Mexico (Krauze, A Tale of Two Revolutions).
The crust of Diaz’s political-economic strategy and policy was Pano o Palo (Bread or Stick). This policy or strategy demanded utter obedience and no defiance. For instance, the regime promised well-being and wealth on adherence, whereas punishment of disobedience. A methodical study of this period reveals that to establish order (the regime had its definition of the term order), it was not hesitant to take controversial measures. It is also quite evident that gradually the elected government turned into an autocratic central government, which emphasized the modernization of the economy, foreign investment political stability. Other aspects of governance, such as equity and delegation of power/authority, were ignored. As the focus of the regime remained large cities, issues such income inequality emerged. Also, the number of landowners also increased, who were exploited and insensitive to the needs of the labor class. When economic issues accumulated with political issues of rural regions (reaction against political and administrative policies), armed resistance against the regime started. However, it was the 1910 election, which triggered the Mexican Revolution (Wilkie).
ROLE OF FRANCISCO MADERO, PANCHO VILLA, AND EMILIANO ZAPATA IN THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION
Francisco
Francisco I. Madero, who was a political reformist, contested in the presidential election of 1910, in which he lost because of tempering electoral results. This outcome of elections forced Francisco to leave Mexico and flee to the United States, from where he called for the overthrow of the current regime through a spectacular revolution. His call for revolution was answered by ant Diaz forces, who were disgruntled with political-economic developments.
Before becoming a revolutionary, Francisco Madero was a successful businessman, who was intrigued by political developments in Mexico. He decided to enter politics, with the agenda to remove Porfirio Diaz from the seat of the President, as he believed that administrative, political, and economic policies were hurting Mexico.
During the Mexican Revolution, he propagated popular political notions and issues with a certain angle, which aimed to dismantle the autocratic central government. Francisco was the binding force of the revolution, which kept in different forces together and did not allow political objectives to dilute.
Zapata
In the south of Mexico, which was known for its large farms and robust agrarian economy, Emiliano Zapata committed himself to the cause of overthrowing the Diaz’s regime. When he answered the call for revolution, he was already up in arms against large farm owners, who had benefitted enormously under Porfirio Diaz’s regime. Zapata’s history, political and non-, makes him an extraordinary figure. For instance, he was once elected mayor of his hometown, Anenecuilco, where he attempted to stop the exploitation of poor peasants. These actions, of Zapata, increased his popularity among the marginalized people. Therefore, when Zapata decided to fight against the regime, he was able to recruit a large number of people for his militia. The militia has had heavy clashes with pro-regime forces, and Zapata was able to reduce the military prowess of pro-regime forces. Zapata also added a certain element to the revolution. For instance, his views regarding the feudal class gave direction to the armed political movement. The anti-feudal system notions and sentiments, which were mostly contained to the south, became national political precepts and notions.
Pancho Villa
In North of Mexico, which was a dry and arid place, Pancho Villa decided to join the revolution against the regime. He was a bandit, who got inspired by the socio-political and political-economic propaganda of Francisco Madero. Pancho Villa, a bandit, turned revolutionary, eventually commanded Division of the North of Revolutionary army and was able to impair pro-regime forces. It is essential to understand that the major figures of the Revolution (pro or anti) knew that victories on the battlefield would decide political outcomes. Therefore, the history of Pancho Villa did not become an obstacle to rise to the position of commander of the Northern Division. As he was a master battle-tactician, he was able to defeat pro-regime forces in a small period, allowing the anti – regime or pro-revolutionary forces to capture and consolidate power in the north.
WHAT WERE THEY FIGHTING FOR?
Francisco, Zapata, and Pancho had their objectives; however, the core objectives of all three converged. One of the core objectives was to oust Dictator Diaz, who was considered the cause of all problems by all three. Francisco strongly opposed the brutal tactics used by the regime to subdue opposition. He was also against the concentration of power and an individual holding absolute power. His objectives were very political, and less of the emphasis was on the economy.
Zapata, on the other hand, wanted to end the system of exploitation, which was hurting poor peasants. He wanted to make the system fairer and just for all. Pancho was a learned man, with great battle experience and understanding, who was against oppression. From the study of his life history, we can presume that Pancho was fighting for a stable north, with less interference from the center.
ALVARO OBREGON AND PLUTARCO CALLES
The post-revolution period was bloody and politically unstable, which gave opportunities to various militias to capture power and consolidate it. However, stability came, when Alvaro Oregon Salido, a former general in the Mexican Revolution, became president. He invested a lot in electoral politics and ran a very successful campaign, which produced results for him. The reforms he introduced, such as Education and Land reforms allowed him to consolidate power. These developments were seen as the implementation of the revolution’s agenda, which increased acceptance of Obregon’s presidency.
Plutarco Calles, who was the interior minister of Alvaro Obregon, also ran a very popular and successful presidential campaign. Also, his campaign was a populist campaign, which produced the desired results for him. He continued to implement the political agenda of his predecessor, which made him a statesman. However, his religious views affected his political career and eventually, some of his policies became a reason for the Cristero War (civil war) (Kerr).
LAZARO CARDENAS
Mexican Revolution had three factions and one of the factions was Constitutionalist Army. Lazaro was a general in the Constitutionalist and had very nationalistic perceptions and views. It is the culmination of the Mexican Revolution, as one of the less prominent groups came to power. Also, the Lazaro Cardenas rises to power allowed Francisco Madero’s precepts and notions (political) to translate into policies, such as Mexico or Mexicans and Nationalization of resources (Cumberland).
CONCLUSION
In the end, it can be concluded that Mexican Revolution was a radical/strong political reaction towards the policies of Diaz’s regime. However, the Revolution was an amalgamation of various radical notions, and there were various factions, which were participating in the Revolution. After the ousting of Diaz, almost all pro-revolution factions came to power and implemented their agendas (to the extent possible).
Work Cited
Cumberland, Charles C. Mexican Revolution: The Constitutionalist Years. University of Texas Press, 2010.
Edmonds-Poli, Emily and David A Shirk. Contemporary Mexican Politics. 3. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2015.
Kerr, Sarah. “The Two Faces of Mexico.” New York Times. New York Times, 1997. Web. 18 July 2018. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/07/27/reviews/970727.27kerrkt.html.
Krauze, Enrique. “A Tale of Two Revolutions.” New York Times. New York Times, 25 October 2017. Web. 25 July 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/opinion/mexico-soviet-russian-revolution.html.
Wilkie, James Wallace. The Mexican Revolution: Federal Expenditure and Social Change Since 1910. 2. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1970.
+447462439809