INTRODUCTION
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.
The former political parties today in Mexico are the National Action Party (PAN), Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), Labor Party (PT), Ecologist green party of Mexico (PVEM), Citizens movement (MC) and New Alliance. Although there are a lot of political parties in Mexico, In terms of their congressional representation and share of the national vote, only PRI, PAN and the PRD can be considered major parties. The minority political parties have played role in the success of the majority because they tend to support one of the major political parties making it easier for voters to narrow their votes. This makes it easier for the major parties to win electoral support from its citizens.
The PAN used to have the majority in the center and tends to be the right of center party along with being a member of Christian Democracy. The Ecologist Green Party of Mexico or PVEM, a minor party with an environmental platform has allied with the PAN before to elect the first non-PRI president in almost seven decades but ever since it ha...
... middle of paper ...
... argue that no because Private sectors are still in control and now with the drug war imposed on the cartels the question of accountability arises. Whom should take accountability and what can the government do to set internal controls within the system?
Works Cited
Gordan F. Ewell. (2005). Mexico immigration, US Economic Issues. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Harry E. Canden. , & Gary Prevost, (2012). Politics Latin America. (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Padgett, L. V. (1966). The Mexican political system. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Peter H. Smith. , & , (2012). Democracy in Latin America. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Robert Wesson. (1986). The Mexican ruling party. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Serrano, M. (1998). Governing mexico: Political parties. London: The Institute of latin American Studies University of London.
This paper will be exploring the book The Vanguard of the Atlantic World by James Sanders. This book focuses upon the early 1800 to the 1900 and explores the development of South American political system as well expresses some issues that some Latino counties had with Europe and North America. Thus, Sanders focus is on how Latin America political system changes throughout this certain time and how does the surrounding countries have an effect as well on Latin political system. Therefore, the previous statement leads into some insight on what the thesis of the book is. Sanders thesis is, “Latin American’s believed they represented the future because they had adopted Republicanism and democracy while Europe was in the past dealing with monarchs
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
The author of Mexican Lives, Judith Adler Hellman, grapples with the United States’ economic relationship with their neighbors to the south, Mexico. It also considers, through many interviews, the affairs of one nation. It is a work held to high esteem by many critics, who view this work as an essential part in truly understanding and capturing Mexico’s history. In Mexican Lives, Hellman presents us with a cast from all walks of life. This enables a reader to get more than one perspective, which tends to be bias. It also gives a more inclusive view of the nation of Mexico as a whole. Dealing with rebel activity, free trade, assassinations and their transition into the modern age, it justly captures a Mexico in its true light.
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.
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
Burns, E. B., & Charlip, J. A. (2007). Latin America: an interpretive history (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
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 ...
LaFeber, Walter. Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. New York: W.W. Norton, 1984. Print.
Various political groups and parties have attempted to appropriate the Revolution of 1910 as their own. The "official party"—the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI—has both claimed credit for implementing the ideals of the Revolution as well as received constant criticism for abandoning them. The Revolution was always an idea as much as it was a historical process. The "idea" of the Revolution is still very much at the center of Mexican politics today.
Maclachlan, Colin M., and William H. Beezley. Mexico's Crucial Century, 1810-1910. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2010.
The significance of the Mexican revolution lies not in the repercussions this insurrection exerted on the international level, but rather in the way it served as a precursor to the direction the 20th century would follow. For while Mexico had gained significance internationally by being a leading exporter of raw material under Porfioro Diaz, it was not the only Latin American, or Luso-American country to follow this route. One must also bear in mind that the materials being exported out of Mexico were not exclusive to the region. Even within it’s geographic hemisphere, the Mexican revolution did not lead to the massive changes that the American Revolution had caused. Yet that is not to say that the Mexican revolution is not a significant event, for it established the rebellious pattern the 20th century would take. Disparities in classification of the revolution arise from the numerous factions and ideological assumptions advocated for the overthrow of Diaz’s rule, hence one can argue that it was a political, social, or economical revolution. Carlos Fuentes argued in his book, The Death of Artemio Cruz, that the form Mexico’s revolution can best be described as social.
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews
Puzzle Question: How have the practices, institutions, legal norms established by Mexico’s dominate party (PRI) affected levels of corruption?
En conclusión, los partidos políticos en México han surgido gracias a muchas políticas impuestas por los 80 años del PRI en el poder. El PAN surgió gracias a la inconformidad de muchos políticos durante el Maximato. El PRD surgió gracias a tantas contradictores que han estado unidos alguna ves en el PRI. Durante todo el siglo XX existieron diversos partidos de izquierda en México, pero en mi opinión, gracias a la cercanía de Estados Unidos, y la guerra fría. Estos no pudieron avanzar. Porque si analizamos a fondo, durante todo el siglo XX, en América Latina predomino el socialismo y comunismo, pero en México no.
Booth, J. and Richard, P. (1998). Civil society, political capital, and democratization in Central America. The Journal of Politics, 60(03), pp.780--800.