Francisco I. Madero — the Conservative Revolutionary
The dictatorship of General Porfirio Diaz saw many improvements across a variety of industries. Agriculture, mining, railroads, textiles, and the petroleum industries all benefited greatly from his administration’s openness and encouragement of foreign investment. Likewise, Mexico’s infrastructure benefited considerably from this introduction of foreign capital. Many of these actions had a beneficial aspect to the economy of Mexico, however, the poor and working-classes felt disenfranchised by the measures and viewed the economic growth as coming at their expense.
Widespread discontent with these policies, and the resulting economic crises they ushered in, were major factors that led to the beginning of the Mexican Revolution. Francisco Madero appeared on the political scene as a bit of a centrist. He came from an upper class background and his stances on issues of social and economic change appealed to the middle and upper classes. Although there seemed to be massive public support for his candidacy, Diaz had him arrested and it strongly appeared that the election was stolen.
Madero, later escaping to Texas, believed that violent revolution might be his only recourse and drafted the Plan de San Luis Potosi. In this document he outlined his vision of the Revolution. The focus of this document “sidestepped the social and economic concerns of peasants, workers, and nationalists” and instead emphasized “political reform.”[1] The plan seemed to understate land reform, an issue of central importance to many, and highlighted what Gonzales titles “the liberal principles of midcentury — the holy trinity of no-reelection, decentralization, and free-market capitalism.”[2] These actions showed, I believe, that Madero was too dispositionally conservative and his goals not radical enough for the solutions that many in Mexico felt were needed. Additional evidence of his conservative bent, early on, could be seen in his valuing of political stability in the nation. These foundational disagreements, between Madero and the other revolutionary leaders, appeared early in the Revolution.
Despite these underlying political philosophical divisions, Madero emerged as the “titular head of a revolutionary movement tenuously and temporarily held together by the common goal of overthrowing the dictator.”[3] As Gonzales highlights, this coalition was loosely held together primarily with the goal of overthrowing Diaz. Beyond that, it seemed there was vast disagreement of the needed political and social changes. Land reform was a major sticking point for revolutionary leaders, especially for Zapata. On this issue, Madero felt it would be better handled in court rather than through brute force. Although the leader of a revolution, Madero seemed to be somewhat un-revolutionary. He continued to compromise with the elite, shared their unease over social upheaval, and “favored only modest political reforms and cooperated with the old guard to achieve social, economic, and political stability.”[4]
As well as compromising with the elites, Madero appointed many conservatives to fill political positions within the country. Gonzales asserts that these conservative appointees “jumped on the revolutionary bandwagon at the last moment….[and] had little sympathy for the plight of the rural masses.”[5] As Madero increasingly appeared to be too conservative and too cozy with the elites, and was slow to make the meaningful social reforms the revolutionaries wanted, those “who brought Madero to power now sought to overthrow him.”[6]
As with many other political and social revolutions, a pattern of the conservatives versus progressives emerges. This is readily observable in the beginnings of the Mexican Revolution. After the initial rebellion, groups to the left of the political spectrum push for more meaningful, sweeping, and sometimes radical changes. While those on the conservative side, like Madero I would argue, seek minor changes and want to move more slowly. Progressives see major, systemic problems and call for upheaval of the established government, institutions, and power structures. While conservatives, cautious of too much change too quickly and the accompanying social chaos, think the existing system merely needs reform rather than total change.
Placing Madero on the conservative side of the spectrum is an interesting point, given that he was a (the?) major impetus for starting the Mexican Revolution. This early period of revolution and counter-revolution were significant because it got the ball rolling, so to speak. Although Madero ended up being less revolutionary than what many wanted, which led to his downfall, he was integral to starting the reforms that many felt were needed. Without his initial rebellion and calls for revolution, I don’t know how the subsequent events would have unfolded, or if they would have ever even happened.
