Power and Politics in University Governance: Organization and Change at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (review)

The Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) is known throughout Mexico as la máxima casa de estudios (the nation's university), primarily because of the preeminent role that it plays in supporting the country's scientific and cultural systems. With an enrollment of more than 250,000 students, UNAM is the largest and most important university in the country; indeed, estimates suggest that UNAM accounts for as much as 50 percent of the nation's university research. Further evidence of the importance of UNAM is the fact that the university houses the National Library and the National Botanical Garden, runs the country's seismological system, and manages institutions comparable in scope to the Smithsonian and the National Observatory in the United States. Because of the prominent role that UNAM plays within the broader society, governance and control of the university has been a source of intense conflict over the years, and at times has led to numerous student strikes and closings of the university's main campus in Mexico City. Given the cultural and political significance of UNAM, a recent work by Imanol Ordorika warrants serious attention.

In his book, Power and Politics in University Governance: Organization and Change at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ordorika takes a critical look at the last 100 years of Mexican political history and its intersection with governance and politics at UNAM. Ordorika constructs a political theory of conflict within higher education by integrating theories of the state, education, and politics. His goal is to develop a "conceptual frame [that] builds a bridge between the university and its societal context" (p. 6). Accordingly, he draws upon numerous critical, neo-Marxist, and conflict theorists, including Antonio Gramsci, Nicos Poulantzas, and C. Wright Mills and presents a "hegemonic model of politics and governance in higher education" (p. 31).

To more fully comprehend the complexity of the state's relationship to UNAM, Ordorika begins by looking at the historical development of Mexico and the role of authoritarianism after the Revolution of 1910. He identifies three critical periods in Mexican history that serve as defining points in the development of UNAM: emergence (1917–1944), consolidation (1944–1968), and crisis (1968 to present). Emergence is described as a period following the Revolution in which "the revolutionary elite" sought to situate power and control within central authorities, while limiting the power and influence of democratic electoral processes. Consolidation follows the creation of the Partido de la Revolución Mexicana (PRM) in which the contest for power was successfully limited to a small inner circle affiliated with the PRM and known as the "revolutionary family." The third period describes major challenges to Mexican authoritarianism, beginning with the student movement of 1968. As Ordorika notes, "The [student] movement itself and the violent response by the government initiated a long crisis of the political system. The phase of crisis has evolved in the midst of vast social and political conflicts up to this day" (p. 40). A contemporary example of the crisis of authoritarianism is the July 2000 election in which the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), formerly the PRM, lost the presidential election to Vicente Fox and the Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN).

In relating these broad national periods to UNAM, Ordorika notes several key developments. First, UNAM was officially founded within the context of the emergence of authoritarianism following the Revolution, and thus the university's early years were framed by direct subordination to the federal government. However, federal authoritarianism often was met by subaltern forces and movements, as students sought to advance more democratic policies and practices. Thus, a second key development in the historic trajectory of UNAM was the 1929 student movement, which opposed new evaluation procedures and sought student participation in the University Council. Ultimately, Mexican President Emilio Portes Gil responded to the students' demands by...