The Eternal Mexican Dark Ages
Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero
When reflecting on the history and political reality of Mexico, one cannot help but feel that the nation, in its quest to consolidate itself as a political community, remains trapped in a kind of perpetual Dark Ages.
The comparison with historical examples such as Attila, Genghis Khan, or the Confederates of the southern United States in the 19th century is illustrative: all of them were defeated by the centralized force of a state, a monarchy, or a strong government that managed to impose order, control, and unity.
In the Mexican case, however, this confrontation has never effectively materialized.
Here, the local strongmen and the Catholic Church, with its clericalized vision of the Motherland, tenaciously oppose the idea of a modern nation, a political community based on rights, equality, and popular sovereignty.
In Latin America, and in Mexico in particular, the tendency to fragment the political community into regional micronationalisms, cultural tribes, and outdated power relations hinders the construction of a cohesive nation.
The local strongmen, with their local power and territorial control, wield an authority that does not seek integration into a common project, but rather the perpetuation of their homeland, their lineage, and their particular interests.
Catholicism, both institutional and social, in its feudal, curialized vision, reinforces this fragmentation by promoting a community of the faithful who obey and obey, instead of citizens who participate in and build a collective destiny. This scenario is reminiscent of ancient societies where feudal power reigned, where loyalty was not directed toward a political community, but toward a local lord, a family tradition, or a religious authority; loyalty was servitude and vassalage.
The modern nation, on the other hand, requires a common narrative, a shared identity founded on citizenship, rights, and popular sovereignty.
But in Mexico, this narrative has yet to take hold, and instead, fragmented stories persist, fueling micronationalism, loyalty to region, family, or the church, to the detriment of a national project.
This conflict of identities and loyalties is evident in the persistence of historical privileges, castes, special legal statuses, economic agreements, and old power structures that, instead of facilitating integration, further fragment the State.
The history of viceroyalties, regional privileges, and pacts of convenience shows how local elites prefer to maintain their homeland, their ancestral power, rather than join the nation that requires a project of unity and progress.
Examples like Genghis Khan, Attila, or the Confederates of the American South teach us that empires and strong states managed to impose their order through centralization and force, defeating the old fragmented structures.
In Mexico, however, this confrontation has not yet occurred.
The reason is that the local strongmen and the Church, with their narratives of the Motherland and their clericalized vision, have managed to maintain their power in a latent state, resisting any attempt at confrontation with the national state. In this perpetual Mexican Dark Age, no one wants to challenge these power structures.
The region, in its eagerness to maintain its privileges, resists the construction of a sovereign, modern, and civic nation.
The consequence is a kind of stagnation, a fragmented community living on ancient myths and loyalties, incapable of moving toward true integration.
As in feudal societies, loyalty is directed toward lords, lineages, or institutions that, in reality, hinder the creation of a strong and unified state.
Mexican history and politics seem condemned to an endless struggle between the forces that seek centralization and unity, and those that want to preserve their particular Motherland.
The defeat of the Confederates and their warlords in the past was achieved thanks to the strength of the centralized state.
Mexico needs, now more than ever, that confrontation that will break the cycle of the Middle Ages and build a modern nation, where the political community is a space of rights, equality, and popular sovereignty.
