-
8. Back to Centralism, 1920–1940
- Texas A&M University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
ChaPTeR 8 Back to Centralism, 1920–1940 Carlos Martínez Assad introduction In this era of change, of a profound review of our history, we have to ask ourselves once again about the actions of the victors and the vanquished, the former consecrated in officially sanctioned history, and the latter still seeking their place in it. All of them come together, however, to demonstrate again the richness of Mexican history, which can reveal the existence of several truths as opposed to a single truth. My purpose here is to relate the other side of the story of the period that has been defined as cardenismo, when Lázaro Cárdenas headed the country’s government between 1934 and 1940. To be precise, cardenismo’s legacy lasted longer than just that period. The expropriation of the British and US oil companies strengthened Mexico’s sovereignty when the country later had to successfully deal with pressure from abroad, particularly from the United States. It is not an exaggeration to state that it was not until the fourth decade of the twentieth century that Mexicans fully understood the meaning of nationalism. When General Cárdenas took office as president, he was firmly convinced that to achieve a lasting peace, he had to anchor his administration in a sweeping social-justice program on behalf of the most beleaguered: the workers and peasants. His activism became as vast as his energy. Moreover, just as he forged a broad consensus that allowed him to implement extensive land distribution and award significant concessions to wage earners, he also had to face the discontent, disagreements, and dissidence of those who distanced themselves from his project and who contrasted it with their own cultural values, points of views, and histories produced in the various Mexican regions, particularly in the north and south. Cárdenas’s administration faced difficulties prompted by profound causes rooted in poverty, in established practices of domination, in ignorance, and in the urgent desire to find reasons for the hope that Mexico’s elites denied 188 • carlos martínez assad the people. He took office with two very clear commitments: reinforcing presidentialism to avoid crises like the one the country had just gone through with the Calles-dominated maximato that Calles put together after the 1928 assassination of Álvaro Obregón1 and advancing political centralization that, according to precedent, would guarantee the order that would allow the country to develop. Central Mexico versus the Regions Relations between Central Mexico and the regions had in practice been a tense, informal link in Mexico’s history. This is expressed colloquially with a sense of identity in the saying “Outside of Mexico City, everywhere is Cuautitlán,” alluding to the existence of two great spaces; the country’s capital and its rural areas. The “center” meant domination, and the regions, the subordinate party to the relationship, because generally the big decisions that have given the country historicity have been made in Mexico City.2 Various regimes coincided in seeking political centralization as a means to integrate the country and keep it peaceful. The Porfirio Díaz regime (1876–1880 and 1884–1911), or porfiriato , put mechanisms in place that allowed it to rather successfully exercise strong centralism until the outbreak of the revolution swept them away. An institutional order had to be designed based on the 1917 Constitution to again achieve a centralized political authority. That is why Mexico’s postrevolutionary presidency had the aim of achieving this key element for exercising power. In apparent contrast to the federalist system, which by law gave autonomy to the states, the 1917 Constitution reinforced centralism, and President Cárdenas gave it the dimensions that it has had since then. That was in the state’s interest, but in practice it eliminated the possibility of forming regional power structures headed by local strongmen (known in Mexico as caciques).3 The senate was created to give each of the states representation in congress; it is supposed to be the seat of geographical representation that the deputies do not necessarily have because, although they are elected in a specific state, their links to a political party have more weight. Mexican legislation does not formally stipulate a dichotomy between the center and the regions. National geographical-spatial and political-legal, economic , and social distribution is alluded to in constitutional norms based on the categories “federation,” “the states,” and “the municipalities,” establishing an operational interrelationship among these three levels of government. This tripartite system functions above...