-
3. Decentralization and Democratization
- Penn State University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
In the 1980s and 1990s, the Mexican state underwent a gradual decentralization at the same time the single-party-dominant state was givingwaytogreaterpoliticalplurality.Amassiveeconomiccrisisthatlastedfrom approximately 1982 until 1997 helped bring about these changes by undermining the legitimacy of the postrevolutionary political order and unraveling the bases of many of the political pacts that had sustained it. The crisis also strengthened citizen demands for greater democratic space and emboldened opposition parties to challenge the regime. These changes, in turn, drove institutional innovation as the regime sought to hold onto power, and civic and political opposition movements pushed to open new spaces for political contestation. Among the most important institutional innovations pursued by both sides, for different reasons, was decentralization. Opposition political parties and civic organizations saw empowering local government as a means of expanding their presence in the political process, and as they gained a foothold in local governments ,oppositionleaderssoughttoincreasethefunctions,powers,andresources of local governments. At the same time, leaders within the official party saw decentralization as a way of deflecting demands for democracy from the national tothelocallevelandforestallinggreaterpoliticalchange.Decentralizationbecame, at different times, a banner of all political parties, though often for very different reasons. Mexico’s gradual process of institutional change helped ensure an orderly transformation from a centralized authoritarian state to a decentralized democracy built on consensus among key political actors. Mexico went into the new millennium with a strong party structure while many countries in Latin America lackedstablepoliticalparties.Statesandmunicipalitiesoftenhadtimetodevelop 3 Decentralization and Democratization the capacities necessary to assume their new responsibilities, unlike the experience of more rapid decentralization reforms elsewhere. Opposition parties also developed leadership at a local level before taking the reins of national power. However, the exclusive reliance on pacts among political elites meant that their interests were largely preserved in the political system that emerged, and this happened at the expense of changes that might have further opened the democratic process. The electoral changes, for example, kept the prohibition on immediate reelection to any public office and on independent candidacies, which meant that elected officials continued to owe their future careers to party leaders. The municipal structure, with party list elections for municipal council, also remained largely intact. Few attempts were made to create clear rules and procedures for policy making in the federal Congress or most state congresses, leaving legislation subject to informal rules and backroom procedures that are difficult for citizens to monitor. In short, party elites secured their role in the new order—and the preservation of informal channels for wielding power— even as they negotiated changes to the formal structure of the state. This chapter analyzes the formal changes that took place in the state’s structure , with a specific emphasis on the interplay between democratization and decentralization.1 It looks at the legacies of this period of institutional change to assess the current structure of subnational governments, particularly municipalities , as the period of rapid change draws to a close. In the subsequent chapters, we will look in depth at the way these changes affected the relationship between citizens and the state and whether they produced more accountable and responsive government at the local level. Changing to Stay the Same (1982–1994) Mexico’s process of institutional change—that took its first steps in the 1980s and accelerated dramatically in the second half of the 1990s—had its roots in the nature of the system itself. Although the political system that prevailed from the late 1920s through the 1990s was, without a doubt, both authoritarian and 48 State Formation and Political Change 1. Several studies have covered Mexico’s democratic transition thoroughly, so we will not analyze this process in depth here. The emphasis instead is on the interplay between democratization and decentralization . For studies of democratization, see Selee and Peschard, Mexico’s Democratic Challenges; Magaloni, Voting for Autocracy; Camp, Politics in Mexico; Merino Huerta, La transición votada; and Middlebrook, Dilemmas of Political Change. [107.23.85.179] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 02:24 GMT) highly centralized, there were significant spaces of political contestation both inside and outside the official party, and the centralized structure of the state coexisted with a highly diffuse distribution of real power. Elections were largely meaningless as a method for selecting leaders since the PRI almost always won. Nevertheless, the party allowed for leadership circulation within it and tolerated a degree of popular mobilization outside of it, as well.2 Although the federal governmentcametodominatestateandmunicipalgovernmentsandassumedalmost all their official functions, local political leaders continued to enjoy a...