An Overview of the Successes and Failures of the Mexican Revolution
As French historian Fernand Braudel once said, “History may be divided into three movements: what moves rapidly, what moves slowly, and what appears not to move at all.” This was certainly true of the Mexican Revolution. Some changes happened quickly, such as the overthrow of Porfirio Diaz. Other changes happened more slowly, such as the modernization of life for rural peasants and solidifying the government. This begs the question of whether the Mexican Revolution was a success or a failure. On the one hand, it could be argued that the revolutionary government did not move quickly enough in enacting reforms. On the other hand, it could be argued that the revolutionary government brought slow but steady change that departed from the Porfiriato Era, eventually leading to a stable government that better represented the will of the people. This paper argues that the Mexican Revolution was successful in three ways. First, it succeeded in its original goal of deposing President Diaz. Second, it created a long-lasting constitution and government which worked to balance change with tradition and the rights of the poor. Third, it paved the way for revolutionary values to become commonplace, which eventually lead to the presidency of Lázaro Cárdenas and the Mexican Miracle.
When the revolution began, its primary goal was to remove President Diaz from power. The Antirelectionists, led by Madero, had no other political platform. In 1908, Diaz, the de facto dictator of Mexico, was interviewed by Heroes of the Americas. In the interview, Diaz said, “I have no desire to continue in the Presidency. The nation is ready for her ultimate life of freedom.”[1] However, he reneged on his statement in 1910 when he announced he was running for president yet again. In addition, he imprisoned his main political rival, Francisco Madero. Understandably, this caused an uproar among the Mexican population. In an attempt to win against Diaz, the Antirelectionist party was formed and threw its support behind Madero. The members of the Antirelectionist party had many different political views, but they all agreed, as is apparent in its name, to keep Diaz from getting re-elected in 1910. Despite their efforts, and after imprisoning his main political opponent, Diaz declared victory in the 1910 election. In response, Madero published the Plan de San Luis de Potosi, inciting the people of Mexico to revolt against Diaz’s “violent and illegal system”[2].
The primary goal of the Mexican Revolution was achieved: Diaz was removed from power and exiled to Cuba. The revolution was also successful because the Antirelectionists ensured their influence would dominate Mexican politics by electing their leader President. However, Madero’s presidency was not as revolutionary as his allies had hoped. Madero kept Diaz’s military and governmental structure in place, meaning that many of the problems under Diaz’s regime persisted. Moreover, Madero betrayed his followers by letting Porfirian judges settle land disputes. This signaled that Madero was not going to take the lower classes seriously in their desire for land reform and greater economic opportunities. Madero had made some progress but was not able to solidify his power by uniting the revolutionaries behind a common set of new goals. As a result, he fell victim to a coup and was assassinated in 1913.
With Diaz removed and the first goal of the revolution achieved, but with no unified government in place, the opposing revolutionary forces came together at the Convention of Aguascalientes to discuss Mexico’s political goals and future government. Ironically, this convention only deepened the divides already present in the revolutionary forces, causing a civil war and the death of a million Mexicans. I agree with the argument that the revolution was too successful too quickly. The revolutionaries successfully seized power before their views had time to coalesce. There was no way to move forward without conflict because the tensions between the elites and the poor, as well as the conflict between the modern and traditional, had not yet been reconciled. Rather than unifying the revolutionary factions, the Convention of Aguascalientes caused the two opposing sides to solidify into the Constitutionalists and the Conventionalists. To decide whether each group’s goals were achieved, this paper will analyze them separately.
The Conventionalists were led by Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa. Their goal was to enact “lofty ideals of political, economic and social emancipation”[3] with the purpose of removing the rich’s perception that “the poor may not aspire to the enjoyment of this earth”[4] without hurting the rich. In other words, the Conventionalists wanted to enrich the poor, both in literal wealth and in rights. Within this overarching group, Villa’s and Zapata’s goals varied. Zapata’s primary goal was the redistribution of the land controlled by wealthy foreigners to the poor Mexican population. Zapata’s goal was enacted slower than he would have liked, but as quickly as was possible given the fractured political situation. The constitution of 1917 paved the way for Carranza to begin land redistribution. Although Carranza only redistributed one million acres, subsequent presidents continued the slow and steady distribution of land; 25 million acres were distributed over the next 20 years. Cárdenas brought this goal to fruition by redistributing 49.5 million acres in 1938.
The other great Conventionalist, Pancho Villa, was more interested in social reform than land reform. He wanted the poor to have greater economic opportunities through fundamental social change. This goal was not fully realized because it could not have been given how fractured the revolutionary consciousness was and how extreme Villa’s goals were. However, the Constitution of 1917 did work toward many of these goals, such as education and labor reform. The Constitution of 1917 enacted laws that created a minimum wage, a right to strike, child labor laws, and equal pay laws. Additionally, the constitution provided for free secular education for all Mexicans. Labor protections, as well as education, are critical for granting opportunities to the poor as Villa desired. These reforms took some time and were not universal, but they were a step in the right direction and set the stage for Cárdenas to be able to fully realize them 20 years later.
The Constitutionalists did not advocate broad social reform suggested by the Conventionalists, preferring to keep the power among the Sonorans, or wealthy landowners. The Constitutionalist’s main goal was to create a new, stable government that would spread political power among the educated Sonoran population. They wanted to establish a Mexican government and political identity that was free from foreign influence. The Constitution of 1917 worked towards this goal. Although they also believed that land needed to be redistributed, through the ejido system, they did not put as much importance on this as the conventionalists did. They mainly focused on making Mexico Mexican again. Diaz had changed the Mexican identity by inviting foreign industry and influence into Mexico. The Constitutionalists wanted to reverse this process by nationalizing foreign-controlled Mexican land. They enacted this change with one main article in the constitution of 1917. Article 27 states that “the ownership of lands and waters comprised within the limits of the national territory is vested originally in the nation.”[5] In addition, Mexico claims ownership of all minerals and all other materials within its boundaries. And finally, article 27 states that only Mexicans can own land in Mexico. The provisions in article 27 lay out a plan for achieving the goals of the Constitutionalists. Originally, this did not occur, mainly because of the influential American oil companies who didn’t want their land taken away. However, this goal was largely fulfilled in 1938, when Cárdenas nationalized foreign-owned oil properties and established PEMEX. Additionally, the Constitutionalists were successful in their revolutionary goals because they established a new Constitution and a new Government that obtained legitimacy and survives to this day.
The revolution didn’t bring all the change it promised quickly. However, there was slow and steady change over the next 20 years until “the Mexican Revolution reached its zenith of reform”[6] during the presidency of Cárdenas. Cárdenas enforced articles in the Constitution of 1917 that hadn’t been fully enforced for political reasons, such as reclaiming Mexican minerals, which angered the politically powerful American businesses. He also oversaw the redistribution of nearly 50 million acres to the poor, nearly doubling what had been redistributed in the previous 20 years combined. Cárdenas also implemented socialist education, which realized a rise in literacy and higher education which paved the way for the Mexican Miracle. The advances made under the Cárdenas regime were only possible after 20 years of small but consistent strides toward these revolutionary goals.
Some changes happened quickly, while others took longer, but they did occur. The revolution was at first almost too successful at removing Diaz before a coalesced revolutionary view had emerged. The successes of the revolution can only be seen by examining the long-term impacts on the country. The Constitution and the government it set up have lasted till the modern day, which on its own is a measure of success. The Constitution of 1917 represented a fundamental shift toward a government that addressed the needs of both sides of the revolution. Changes that benefit both sides are never easy or fast. The Constitution of 1917 put in place the laws that were needed and eventually implemented to revolutionize education, labor protections, and land reforms that benefited the poor, all while adding protections and power for the wealthy.
[1] James Creelman, “President Diaz: Hero of the Americas,” Pearson’s Magazine, Vol. 19, No. 3 (March 1908).
[2] Francisco Madero, “Plan de San Luis de Potesí,” in Revolutions in Mexico, United States Congress, Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Relations, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1913), pp. 730-736.
[3] Ricardo Flores Magón, Land and Liberty: Anarchist Influences in the Mexican Revolution, ed David Poole (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1977), 1.
[4] Ricardo Flores Magón, Land and Liberty: Anarchist Influences in the Mexican Revolution, ed David Poole (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1977), 1.
[5] The Mexican Constitution of 1917 Compared with the Constitution of 1857, trans. H. N. Branch (Philadelphia: The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1917), 15.
[6] Mary Kay Vaughan, “Women School Teachers in the Mexican Revolution: The Story of Reyna’s Braids,” Journal of Women’s History, Vol. 2., No 1 (Spring 1990), 144.