In the years from 1911 to 1934 Mexico witnessed fifteen presidents1 appearing and vanishing
after short periods of rule. The political, economic and social reasons for such a rapid change
in governmental affairs will be discussed in this essay. Governments can be defined as
“institutions responsible for making collective decisions for society. More narrowly,
government refers to the top political level within such institutions” (Hague R., p. 5). It is
suitable to evaluate the question of governmental survival on the background of an official
period of four years till 1926 and from then on of six years. This makes it possible to
recognise that the rulers in Mexico during the first 33 years following the revolution were not
capable of remaining in power for a whole term and/or did not survive their removal from
office in a literal sense. All those governments never reached the political stability in order to
consequently produce a lasting regime. This essay will firstly deal with factors which can be
applied as reasons for all regimes to some degree such as competition for power, opposition,
failure to reform and a discontent population. Secondly some remarkable impediments weigh
more heavily on specific regimes such as personal incompetence or foreign and clerical
pressure, which made it even more difficult for them to persist. To answer the addressed
question of this work, I will focus on President Madero, Huerta, Carranza, Obregón and
Calles in order to represent convincing explanations for their failure to survive, exemplifying
arguments for all regimes till Lazaro Cardenas. The reasons, which should be considered of great albeit varying significance for the failure of
all the disappointing and short lived rulers succeeding the dictator Díaz, will be discussed in
the first part of this paper. Power struggles within the ruling elite, severe opposition,
economical difficulties and the failure to reform, a discontent population and its resulting
political obstacles caused the problem of unsolved political instability which was those
governments undoing. [...]
1 15 presidents from Francisco Leon de la Barra (interim) 1911 to Abelardo L. Rodriguez (interim) 1932-1934;
http://www.northcoast.com/~spdtom/rev3.htm
Table of Contents
1. Why did the first revolutionary governments in Mexico fail to survive?
Objectives & Topics
This essay explores the political, economic, and social factors that contributed to the systemic instability and frequent collapse of Mexican governments during the period from 1911 to 1934. It investigates why leaders were consistently unable to remain in power for their full terms and examines the interplay between internal power struggles, opposition movements, and ineffective reform efforts.
- Internal power struggles and elite competition within revolutionary administrations.
- The impact of widespread socio-economic discontent and land reform failures.
- Political challenges posed by major opposition movements like those led by Villa and Zapata.
- The role of foreign pressure and clerical conflict in destabilizing regimes.
- The transition toward centralized, more stable governance under Cárdenas.
Excerpt from the Book
Regimes were doomed to fail because power struggles emerging inside the ruling elite made unobstructed rule impossible.
Many revolutionaries betrayed their loyalty to a specific leader or a revolutionary ideal in order to achieve executive power. Such opportunistic allies made it difficult for a president to secure his authority and political stability, leaving the government vulnerable to further attacks and without the necessary support to act efficiently. The unfortunate choice of political partners made the regimes susceptible towards unforeseeable fast power changes.
President Franciso Madero, who came to power in 1911, relied on the wrong people to be his associates. Calero, for instance, being an intimate friend of the dictator Díaz, had changed sides to become Madero´s ally. “Rebels and conservatives alike agreed that with Calero, Madero had picked for his cabinet one of the most opportunistic politicians in the history of the country” (Ruíz R., p. 151). Other ambitious man like Reyes, an ex-Porfirian general, however unsuccessfully, left the government vulnerable to further attacks.
Summary of Chapters
1. Why did the first revolutionary governments in Mexico fail to survive?: This chapter analyzes the fundamental causes of political instability in post-revolutionary Mexico, focusing on the lack of institutional control and the recurring failure of administrations to secure power. It sets the stage for a detailed evaluation of specific presidencies and the common hurdles they faced, such as elite rivalry, economic strife, and social unrest.
Keywords
Mexican Revolution, Government Stability, Madero, Huerta, Carranza, Obregón, Calles, Land Reform, Agrarian Movements, Power Struggles, Political Instability, Discontent Population, Clerical Conflict, Foreign Pressure.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper examines the reasons behind the rapid succession of Mexican governments between 1911 and 1934 and why these regimes struggled to maintain long-term stability.
What are the primary thematic areas?
The work focuses on elite power struggles, economic mismanagement, opposition from rural movements, and the destabilizing influence of foreign and clerical entities.
What is the central research goal?
The primary goal is to provide a comprehensive explanation for the failure of early revolutionary leaders to survive their terms and to identify the conditions that allowed for later state stabilization.
Which methodology is applied?
The author uses a historical-analytical approach, evaluating the tenures of key figures like Madero, Huerta, Carranza, Obregón, and Calles to derive broader arguments about systemic political failure.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main part analyzes the impact of elite betrayal, the insufficiency of agrarian reforms, the persistent opposition of figures like Villa and Zapata, and the specific pressures exerted by the Church and the United States.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Mexican Revolution, political instability, agrarian reform, caudillo politics, and institutional challenges.
How did Madero's moderate stance contribute to his downfall?
Madero's inability to reconcile the demands of the landed elite with the desperate need for agrarian reform left him without a solid base of support, ultimately rendering his administration fragile and vulnerable to betrayal.
Why is the Cárdenas administration cited as a turning point?
Unlike his predecessors, Cárdenas established a more effective apparatus for central control and genuinely addressed social grievances, which enabled his government to survive its full term and move beyond the prior cycle of collapse.
- Quote paper
- Lucia Schuster (Author), 2002, Why did the first revolutionary governments in Mexico fail to survive, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/13834
