Mexico: between Calles, Cardenas and Salvador Allende
By Diego Velázquez
http://quoruminformativo.com.mx/index.php/2015/11/11/entre-el-mexico-de-calles-de-cardenas-y-de-salvador-allende/
A few days ago there was talk of a clash of national projects in our country. Multiculturalism that distinguishes Mexico is not the only condition for more responsible government officials assert, to folly, there is only one Mexico. Structural, regional reality, language and racial, tells us that there are many nations and suddenly oppose each other. The Mexico of the North, Center and South, for example, are just the first signs of a conflict that appears constant and evidence that the nation is just a pipe dream.
With political and economic projects it happens something similar. For the factions and cliques there is a different Mexico. A few days ago, following the article "The Two Mexicos" which was published in the American newspaper The Economist, an analyst stated that such differentiation evident in the country's fight between Mexico Cardenas and Miguel Aleman. The first signficaba as the country's social project, and reconciling the corporatist structures of town and country; but also responsible for the underdevelopment of paternalism. The Aleman warned as the modernizer, the developer, civilization and university, in short, the history of neoliberal and technocratic project. If the country aspires to modernity and development, then, it is necessary to choose the political project of the alemanista descent in the State.
The issue is more complicated. These models are not completely distinguish the only policy options. There, in each, features that should be mentioned to observe in more detail the proposal. The Cardenas Mexico is also the sacred presidentialism and Mexico Aleman is legitimizing corruption as lifestyle of the political class.
If you do it contrasts in national projects, it is necessary to draw a comparison between projects that marked one of the most significant breaks: Plutarco Elias Calles and Lazaro Cardenas. Both projects are modernizing and configure the Mexican presidency radically. However, while the administration pedicure can see a project that promoted a radical political nationalism and state supremacy at any cost. The Cardenas model, based on a corporatist and social policy, cohered the country by setting up a match delayed hegemonic mass democracy and political participation of the middle classes.
The General Plutarco Elias Calles tried to enforce the Mexican constitution without qualms and, indeed, had to pay very high application of certain legal provisions. So high was the price of the project had to yield to US interventionism and abandoning the idea of a secular, industrialized and semiagrícola Mexico. Maximato configuration Streets rise to the figure of the autocrat, and one of the internal factions of his group would set a different political project that decided to make a legitimating structure of paternalism in the future of the Mexican political system.
In the end, it should be considered Calles and Cardenas are the characters that represent the poles of the most serious options of regime that keeps our society towards modernization: order and paternalism. Of course, both in the authoritarian axis.
The callismo and cardenismo, inserted in the Official Party over time as the pendulum of succession and interaction, incorporated a growth path which rose to the poor and the quality of caste citizens. The dominant party would dress liberal, nationalist, conservative, populist neoliberal and perhaps to PAN. It was the chameleon of political ideologies. Revolutionary nationalism democracy inhibited several decades; however, it isolated the country from the catastrophic effects of the market, institutional design and political confrontation of the many Mexicos.
The moment of economic openness showed how the model was exhausted. Political liberalization has put the country on the path of the risks of Latin American presidentialism, to say Juan Linz, and the political class does not seem to understand the risks of democratic chaos.
Plutarco Elias Calles set his government based on the submission of party factions and supporters of the extermination of political dissent. He ruled with military force and when the Cristero rebels almost defeated, only outside support its institutions remained standing. It was this kind of gravities that allowed build the National Revolutionary Party. Gen. Lazaro Cardenas came to power riding on the structure of the newly created official match; however, his political break led him to govern with decrees and exceptional mechanisms to set up a regime that would safeguard the order of the country at the expense even of State institutions. Military violence, political decrees, populism and electoral fraud built roads authoritarian governance in Mexico's PRI.
And things do not seem to have changed much after the alternation of the Presidency of the Republic. In fact, in a kind of eternal return, it seems that the country is heading, again, the prospect of a Calles or attempting to make government Cardenas. The point is that democracy has taken root in Mexican society and the international context observed unpunished violence that has come to conduct the state.
Pragmatic alliance multiparty requested in the context of the presidential succession Mexico placed in the path of Salvador Allende and Francisco I. Madero, rather than on the historical experiences of Plutarco Elias Calles and Lazaro Cardenas. Not the same control dozens of deputies and mayors, locally, to bear the increased capacity for influence and blackmail acquire small parties and pragmatic factions nationwide. An example of the failure of this model for the governance of the country is the Pact for Mexico.
Political processes have just experienced some Latin American nations like Guatemala and Argentina demonstrate the weakness of electoral coalitions in government. The newly elected President Jimmy Morales will have less than twenty deputies in Congress and there is little hope that other partisan allies maintain their support. Salvador Allende and Francisco I. Madero arrived driven by a plurality of parties that abandoned the principle of disagreements. Presidentialism in a democratic and highly fragmented partisan context becomes inoperative, conflict and failed, to say Juan Linz.
The model of pragmatic alliances put into a situation of ungovernability severe the mexican presidentialism, as that been felt since divided governments were inaugurated. The spacious and large coalitions of parties are not enough structures to withstand the crisis and problems that occur in a presidential system of emerging democracy and an unequal social structure.
Mexico's social problems accrue pressure on the presidential institution and, if not addressed, will continue in the attempted extra-settlement mechanisms of government paralysis. The Army no longer has the ability to stronger US violence and not send another Dwight Morrow. The complicated scenarios painted Juan Linz and the dangers of presidentialism increasingly they seem to make sense. Maximum use of state capacity to maintain governance and party control, was exceedingly weaken the presidency of the republic. As it has been the case since the previous presidential administration: Felipe Calderon wanted to emulate Plutarco Elias Calles and institutional attrition was impressive. Enrique Peña Nieto wants to retrain Miguel German but in reality, this project never existed.
Political reform in Mexico must generate collaborative arrangements between parties and branches of government. The panorama of the Mexican presidency has been complicated and pragmatic alliances polipartidistas contribute to the problem. Urge raise the appointment of a Head of Government and the likely removal thereof, the dissolution of the Federal Congress and a new system of proportional representation in most districts.
Consider that model of pragmatic alliance can support a President forced to imagine a style of government like Maximino Avila Camacho, Alvaro Obregon, Porfirio Diaz and perhaps Francisco Franco.
See more at:http://quoruminformativo.com.mx/index.php/2015/11/11/entre-el-mexico-de-calles-de-cardenas-y-de-salvador-allende/#sthash.AW7NIMuO.dpuf
By Diego Velázquez
http://quoruminformativo.com.mx/index.php/2015/11/11/entre-el-mexico-de-calles-de-cardenas-y-de-salvador-allende/
A few days ago there was talk of a clash of national projects in our country. Multiculturalism that distinguishes Mexico is not the only condition for more responsible government officials assert, to folly, there is only one Mexico. Structural, regional reality, language and racial, tells us that there are many nations and suddenly oppose each other. The Mexico of the North, Center and South, for example, are just the first signs of a conflict that appears constant and evidence that the nation is just a pipe dream.
With political and economic projects it happens something similar. For the factions and cliques there is a different Mexico. A few days ago, following the article "The Two Mexicos" which was published in the American newspaper The Economist, an analyst stated that such differentiation evident in the country's fight between Mexico Cardenas and Miguel Aleman. The first signficaba as the country's social project, and reconciling the corporatist structures of town and country; but also responsible for the underdevelopment of paternalism. The Aleman warned as the modernizer, the developer, civilization and university, in short, the history of neoliberal and technocratic project. If the country aspires to modernity and development, then, it is necessary to choose the political project of the alemanista descent in the State.
The issue is more complicated. These models are not completely distinguish the only policy options. There, in each, features that should be mentioned to observe in more detail the proposal. The Cardenas Mexico is also the sacred presidentialism and Mexico Aleman is legitimizing corruption as lifestyle of the political class.
If you do it contrasts in national projects, it is necessary to draw a comparison between projects that marked one of the most significant breaks: Plutarco Elias Calles and Lazaro Cardenas. Both projects are modernizing and configure the Mexican presidency radically. However, while the administration pedicure can see a project that promoted a radical political nationalism and state supremacy at any cost. The Cardenas model, based on a corporatist and social policy, cohered the country by setting up a match delayed hegemonic mass democracy and political participation of the middle classes.
The General Plutarco Elias Calles tried to enforce the Mexican constitution without qualms and, indeed, had to pay very high application of certain legal provisions. So high was the price of the project had to yield to US interventionism and abandoning the idea of a secular, industrialized and semiagrícola Mexico. Maximato configuration Streets rise to the figure of the autocrat, and one of the internal factions of his group would set a different political project that decided to make a legitimating structure of paternalism in the future of the Mexican political system.
In the end, it should be considered Calles and Cardenas are the characters that represent the poles of the most serious options of regime that keeps our society towards modernization: order and paternalism. Of course, both in the authoritarian axis.
The callismo and cardenismo, inserted in the Official Party over time as the pendulum of succession and interaction, incorporated a growth path which rose to the poor and the quality of caste citizens. The dominant party would dress liberal, nationalist, conservative, populist neoliberal and perhaps to PAN. It was the chameleon of political ideologies. Revolutionary nationalism democracy inhibited several decades; however, it isolated the country from the catastrophic effects of the market, institutional design and political confrontation of the many Mexicos.
The moment of economic openness showed how the model was exhausted. Political liberalization has put the country on the path of the risks of Latin American presidentialism, to say Juan Linz, and the political class does not seem to understand the risks of democratic chaos.
Plutarco Elias Calles set his government based on the submission of party factions and supporters of the extermination of political dissent. He ruled with military force and when the Cristero rebels almost defeated, only outside support its institutions remained standing. It was this kind of gravities that allowed build the National Revolutionary Party. Gen. Lazaro Cardenas came to power riding on the structure of the newly created official match; however, his political break led him to govern with decrees and exceptional mechanisms to set up a regime that would safeguard the order of the country at the expense even of State institutions. Military violence, political decrees, populism and electoral fraud built roads authoritarian governance in Mexico's PRI.
And things do not seem to have changed much after the alternation of the Presidency of the Republic. In fact, in a kind of eternal return, it seems that the country is heading, again, the prospect of a Calles or attempting to make government Cardenas. The point is that democracy has taken root in Mexican society and the international context observed unpunished violence that has come to conduct the state.
Pragmatic alliance multiparty requested in the context of the presidential succession Mexico placed in the path of Salvador Allende and Francisco I. Madero, rather than on the historical experiences of Plutarco Elias Calles and Lazaro Cardenas. Not the same control dozens of deputies and mayors, locally, to bear the increased capacity for influence and blackmail acquire small parties and pragmatic factions nationwide. An example of the failure of this model for the governance of the country is the Pact for Mexico.
Political processes have just experienced some Latin American nations like Guatemala and Argentina demonstrate the weakness of electoral coalitions in government. The newly elected President Jimmy Morales will have less than twenty deputies in Congress and there is little hope that other partisan allies maintain their support. Salvador Allende and Francisco I. Madero arrived driven by a plurality of parties that abandoned the principle of disagreements. Presidentialism in a democratic and highly fragmented partisan context becomes inoperative, conflict and failed, to say Juan Linz.
The model of pragmatic alliances put into a situation of ungovernability severe the mexican presidentialism, as that been felt since divided governments were inaugurated. The spacious and large coalitions of parties are not enough structures to withstand the crisis and problems that occur in a presidential system of emerging democracy and an unequal social structure.
Mexico's social problems accrue pressure on the presidential institution and, if not addressed, will continue in the attempted extra-settlement mechanisms of government paralysis. The Army no longer has the ability to stronger US violence and not send another Dwight Morrow. The complicated scenarios painted Juan Linz and the dangers of presidentialism increasingly they seem to make sense. Maximum use of state capacity to maintain governance and party control, was exceedingly weaken the presidency of the republic. As it has been the case since the previous presidential administration: Felipe Calderon wanted to emulate Plutarco Elias Calles and institutional attrition was impressive. Enrique Peña Nieto wants to retrain Miguel German but in reality, this project never existed.
Political reform in Mexico must generate collaborative arrangements between parties and branches of government. The panorama of the Mexican presidency has been complicated and pragmatic alliances polipartidistas contribute to the problem. Urge raise the appointment of a Head of Government and the likely removal thereof, the dissolution of the Federal Congress and a new system of proportional representation in most districts.
Consider that model of pragmatic alliance can support a President forced to imagine a style of government like Maximino Avila Camacho, Alvaro Obregon, Porfirio Diaz and perhaps Francisco Franco.
See more at:http://quoruminformativo.com.mx/index.php/2015/11/11/entre-el-mexico-de-calles-de-cardenas-y-de-salvador-allende/#sthash.AW7NIMuO.dpuf