According to Stoner and McFaul when the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was defeated and voted out of office in 2000 this turnout allowed for a completion of a successful transition to democracy in Mexico (264). Although a transition did occur and Mexico does have solid democratic foundations, bewildering corruption, poor rule of law, and narco related violence have halted Mexican democratic consolidation.
The current state of Mexican democracy is seemingly difficult to analyze because Mexico is still a relatively new democracy. The Mexican government has come a long way and still has a lot to work on order to improve its democracy. The Mexican government has been successful at upholding substantive and procedural methods of government yet it has been failing in participation and responsiveness. The current government allows elections and reforms to be implemented when civil society has called for them, but civil society, although becoming more active,has not been able to keep the privileged elite political class accountable (Nytimes 1). The electoral reform laws that took place in 1994-1996 allowed for better transparency and fairness while voting (Stoner and Mcfaul 263). These laws as well as the devaluation of the peso had voters turn against the PRI which inevitably let voters to form a new party (Stoner and Mcfaul 262). The success of a new party in 2000 allowed for a democratic transition but the inertia has been lost and democratic consolidation isn’t possible unless certain problems are addressed.
The PRI party that had run Mexico for 71 years by using an unfair system of corruption was defeated, but the remnants they left behind are creating more challenges for democratic consolidation. In 2000, af...
... middle of paper ...
...e to be brought under control and civil society were to be more engaged in establishing a rule of law, democratic consolidation could take effect in Mexican governance in the long term.
Works Cited
Emmerich, Gustavo E. "The State of Democracy in Mexico." Idea.int. Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, n.d. Web. 10 Jan. 2014.
Gonzalez, Francisco. Countries at the Crossroads. Freedom House, 2013. Web. 10 Jan. 2014.
"Mexico Drug War Deaths over Five Years Now Total 47,515." BBC News. BBC, 01 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Jan. 2014.
"Mexican Democracy’s Lost Years." New York Times, 23 June 2012. Web. 9 Jan. 2014.
O'Neill, Shannon K. "Mexico: Development and Democracy at a Crossroads." A Markets and Democracy Brief. Council on Foreign Relations, Feb. 2011. Web. 9 Jan. 2014.
"Mexico." Countries at the Crossroads. Freedom House, n.d. Web. 9 Jan. 2014.
Diaz offered foreign investors to start business in Mexico and encouraged utilization of the country’s natural resources through the investment of foreign capital (284).
Nevertheless, the movie undoubtedly mirrors many of the current socio-political time in which the film was made. The title itself refers to a famous quotation from the Nobel Prize-winning author Mario Vargas Llosa, who once referred to Mexico's ruling party, the PRI, as a "camouflaged dictatorship," thereby making it "the perfect dictatorship." In this way, the movie is directly acknowledging its relevance to modern Mexico and its politics and is clearly very self-aware. The plot itself was based on the real life perceived Televisa controversy during the 2012 Mexican presidential election, in which Mexican citizens believe that the media was unfairly showing a preference for the PRI candidate, Enrique Peña Nieto. While it could be argued that the movie takes this idea of favoring one candidate over another to extreme lengths (although perhaps it isn’t showing anything unduly unrealistic – there’s no real way to know) and hyperbolizes the effect of the media in Mexican politics, there is clearly a strong element of truth and reality there. The movie would not have had nearly the same effect if it was not at least somewhat grounded in reality. And I think that, while the media does not have absolute and final control over politics, they do to a very large and important extent and this extends far beyond the movie alone, especially in today’s age of fake
Mexican Lives is a rare piece of literature that accounts for the human struggle of an underdeveloped nation, which is kept impoverished in order to create wealth for that of another nation, the United States. The reader is shown that the act of globalization and inclusion in the world’s economies, more directly the United States, is not always beneficial to all parties involved. The data and interviews, which Hellman has put forth for her readers, contain some aspect of negativity that has impacted their lives by their nation’s choice to intertwine their economy with that of the United States. Therefore it can only be concluded that the entering into world markets, that of Mexico into the United States, does not always bring on positive outcomes. Thus, one sees that Mexico has become this wasteland of economic excrement; as a result it has become inherently reliant on the United States.
The Porfirio Diaz first had good intentions for Mexico. He at first bettered Mexico exponentially in his first few years. His main goal for the government was to be more industrial. He thought that agriculture didn’t matter as much as industry. The only problem was that most of the people living in Mexico depended on the agriculture. Diaz was well aware of the problem and ignored the people’s needs. Eventually his popularity started to drop. People where then looking for anyway to take him out of office. Once he realized that his presidency was being threatened; he did everything in his power to ensure he won. That is; until “People started noticing that he was rigging elections” (Source b2).
The United States has no more important foreign relation ship than that of which it enjoys with Mexico, and vice versa. These two countries share interwoven societies and economies. Although there have been disagreements and turbulence between the two countries, which partnership is without these? The Strength of each country’s democracy is fundamental to the other’s. This relationship that the two countries share directly affects that lives of millions of Mexican and United States citizens everyday. Recently these two countries have become even more unified than ever before. Tackling issues such as Border Control, Countering Narcotics, Dealing with multiple Law enforcement agencies, Human Rights laws, trade and development, etc. There are many issues that they are mutually interested in and must deal with. Yet, there are some vast differences in which these two countries are run. There are also many similarities, which we must take into account. Both Democratic Governments have similar structures, containing a legislative, judicial, and executive branch. Yet, these structures are very different internally, containing specific duties that the other country’s branch may not have.
For the 71 years that the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was in power, Mexico saw great political, social and economic upheaval. This can be seen in the evolution of the PRI party, whose reign over Mexican society came at the expense of true democracy. “A party designed for power, the PRI's mechanisms for success involved a combination of repressive measures. The party professed no specific ideology, enabling it to adapt to changing social, economic and political forces over time. It attached itself virtually all aspects of civil society, and in this way, it become the political extension and tool of the government.” In 2000, however, the PRI’s loss of its monopoly on political power and institutional corruption gave rise to inter-cartel violence that was created in the political void left after the PAN won the national presidential election. These conditions gave rise to the Zetas: a new type of cartel that changed the operational structure of previous drug cartels. The Zetas operate in a new militant structure associated with a higher brand of violence, which has led it to branch out beyond a traditional drug smuggling enterprise common under the PRI government. Simply put, the electoral defeat of the PRI in 2000 was supposed to usher in a more democratic era in Mexican politics. Instead, the PRI party’s defeat created a state of chaos that gave rise to inter-cartel violence and the birth of the Zetas cartel.
Peeler, John A. Latin American Democracies. Chapel Hill, NC and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985. Print.
From the Institutional Revolutionary party (PRI) to the National Action Party (PAN) to the Party of Democratic Revolution (PRD), Mexico has had many political parties in the past and present but many have questioned the fact that how has PRI manage to stay in power and maintain its place as the dominant party in the past. In this short research paper I am going to be talking about Partido Revolucionario Institutional (PRI) and Mexico. I want to discuss the history of PRI and how it came about during and after the Mexican Revolution. I will also touch upon the party’s weaknesses and precursors that might have signaled its loss in the elections of 2000.
There was a huge revolution in the country of Mexico that started in the year 1910, led by Porfirio Diaz, the president of Mexico in 1910. In the 1860’s Diaz was important to Mexican politics and then was elected president in 1877. Diaz said that he would only be president for one year and then would resign, but after four years he was re-elected as the President of Mexico. Porfirio Diaz and the Mexican revolution had a huge impact on the country of Mexico that is still felt in some places today.
When we hear discussions or read articles about drug wars, killings, and illegal immigration into the United States, many of us immediately think of Mexico. As a nation, Mexico is a much greater country than these commonly referred to issues. Mexico is a country with a broad history, deep family culture, and an economy fueled by oil and tourism. The United States Department of State (USDS) offers a broad range of information on countries outside the US, including Mexico. I found a wealth of information about Mexico through the USDS Background Note provided on their website located at www.state.gov. I will outline for you the key information found in this report, and others, related to the Mexican economy, culture, and more.
The Mexican Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. The Web. The Web. 09 Nov. 2013.
n.p., 25 Sep. 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. Corcoran, Katherine. “Mexico’s Drug War Strategy Remains Unchanged With New Government.”
...t up. This group of young leaders believed that they could assume their proper role in Mexican politics once President Díaz announced publicly that Mexico was ready for democracy. Although the Mexican Constitution called for public election and other institutions of democracy, Díaz and his supporters used their political and economic resources to stay in power indefinitely.”
The history of political instability in Mexico and its need for revolution is very complex and dates back to the colonization of Mexico by the Spaniards in the 1500s. However, many aspects of the social situation of Mexico when the Revolution broke out can be attributed to the thirty-year dictatorship of President Porfrio Diaz, prior to 1911. The Revolution began in November of 1910 in an effort to overthrow the Diaz dictatorship. Under the Diaz presidency, a small minority of people, primarily relatives and friends, were in ...
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews