Porfirionism
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Porfirionism or Porfirismo (Spanish: Porfirismo) is an authoritarian and personalistic political ideology rooted and developed during the dictatorship of Mexican general Porfirio Díaz in which it ushered a period of right-wing and far-right politics to Mexico. Porifirionism is characterized by its Conservatism, Militarism and Nationalism. Under Díaz, the country experienced a long-lasting peace called "Pax Porfiriana" often due to its militarization of the rurales and elimination of political opponents which helped achieve foreign investments into the country, rapid industrialization, militarization, and modernization of social culture adopting the phrase "Order and Progress" to achieve these ideals at all costs.[1]
History
[edit]| Part of a series on |
| Conservatism |
|---|
 |
Political Order
[edit]Starting with Díaz's second term (1884–88), following the interregnum of President González, the regime has been characterized as a dictatorship, with no opponents of Díaz elected to Congress and Díaz staying in office with undemocratic elections. Congress was Díaz's rubber stamp for legislation. Internal stability, sometimes called the Pax Porfiriana, was coupled with the increasing strength of the Mexican state, fueled by increased revenues from an expanding economy. Díaz replaced several independent regional leaders with men loyal to himself and quelled discontent by coopting political "outs" by making them intermediaries with foreign investors, allowing their enrichment. To further consolidate state power, Díaz appointed jefes políticos ("political bosses") answerable to the central government, who commanded local forces. The policies of conciliation, cooptation, and repression allowed the regime to maintain order for decades.[2] In central Mexico, indigenous communities that had exercised political and economic control over their lands and populations were undermined by the Díaz regime through the expropriation of lands and the weakening or absence of indigenous leadership. Expropriation of village lands occurred as landed estates (haciendas), often owned by foreign investors, expanded. Díaz used coercion to repress democratic power, using the pan o palo or "bread or bludgeon" policy. This allowed him to appoint state governors who could do what they wanted to local populations, so long as they did not interfere with Díaz's operations.[3] This process is known for the state of Morelos before the Mexican Revolution when Emiliano Zapata emerged as a leader in Anenecuilco to defend village lands and rights. Since the Díaz regime aimed to reconcile foreign investors and large estate owners, foreign and domestic, indigenous villages suffered politically and economically.[4][5]
When Díaz came to power in 1876, the northern border of Mexico with the U.S. became a region of tension and conflict, which had to be resolved for Díaz's regime to be recognized as the sovereign government of Mexico. Indigenous groups and cattle thieves marauded in the border region. The Apache did not recognize the sovereignty of either the U.S. or Mexico over their territories, but used the international division to their advantage, raiding on one side of the border and seeking sanctuary on the other. Thieves stole cattle and likewise used the border to escape authorities. The U.S. used the border issue as a reason to withhold recognition of Díaz's regime and a low-level international conflict continued. The issue of recognition was finally resolved when Díaz's government granted generous concessions to prominent U.S. promoters of investment in Mexico, who pressured President Rutherford B. Hayes to grant recognition in 1878. It was clear to Díaz that order was to be maintained over all other considerations.[6]
The turmoil of over a decade of war (1857–1867) and economic disruption gave rise to banditry. To combat this, during the administration of civilian president Benito Juárez, a small, efficient rural police force under his control, known as the Rurales, was a tool to impose order. When Díaz became president, he expanded the size and scope of the Rurales; they were under his command and control in a way the Mexican army was not. The slogan of the Porfiriato, "order and progress," affirmed that without political order, economic development and growth—progress—was impossible. Investors would be unwilling to risk their capital if political conditions were unstable.[7][8]
The construction of railways gave the government more effective control of many regions of Mexico that had maintained a level of independence due to their distance from the capital. The construction of telegraph lines alongside railroad tracks further facilitated the government's control, so that orders from Mexico City were instantly transmitted to officials elsewhere. The government could respond quickly to regional revolts by loading armed Rurales and their horses on trains to quell disturbances. By the end of the 19th century, violence had almost completely disappeared.[citation needed]
Social ideals
[edit]The societal ideals during Díaz's presidency can be linked to the phrase "Order and Progress", the progress aspect of the phrase is attributed to the adoption of a new social concept of masculinity and also the establishment of new class distinctions.[9]
Neoporfirionism
[edit]_(1).jpg)
Porfirionism and its legacy are still debated in Mexican society. President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador published a book titled "Neoporfirismo: Hoy como ayer" in which he states that Díaz's policies never went away after the Mexican Revolution but adapted and were implemented in the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) following the acquisitions of Neoliberal stances in the 80s. he also draws a comparison between the PRI One-Party rule and the National Action Party administration of the 2000s as the form of a "Neoporfiriato".[10]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Porfiriato | History, Facts, & Mexican Revolution | Britannica". www.britannica.com. 2023-12-01. Retrieved 2024-01-08.
- ^ Katz, "The Liberal Republic and the Porfiriato", pp. 81-83.
- ^ Meade, Teresa (2016). A History of Modern Latin America. West Sussex: Wiley. p. 162. ISBN 9781118772485.
- ^ Katz, "The Liberal Republic and the Porfiriato", pp. 95–98
- ^ Womack, John Jr. Zapata and the Mexican Revolution. New York: Vintage 1968.
- ^ Katz, "The Liberal Republic and the Porfiriato", pp. 67–68
- ^ Vanderwood, Paul J. Disorder and Progress: Bandits, Police, and Mexican Development. Revised edition. Wilmington DL: Scholarly Resources 1992.
- ^ Coatsworth, John H. "Obstacles to Economic Growth in Nineteenth-Century Mexico," American Historical Review vol. 83, No. 1 (Feb. 1978), pp. 80–100
- ^ Navarro, Hector (2017). "Creating Masculinity and Homophobia: Oppression and Backlash under Mexico's Porfiriato". schoolarcommons. Retrieved January 9, 2024 – via Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History.
- ^ "México vive un neoporfirismo que significa el predominio del PRIAN, alerta López Obrador – AMLO" (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-01-08.