Unrevolutionary Mexico
The idea of the continuing revolution in Mexico has been explored by many writers, including all that we have read. The revolution is fascinating due to its complexity, instability, and eventual survival as the justification for a one-party system. Gillingham explores this post-revolutionary era largely by analyzing two regions of Mexico. He argues that Mexico moved beyond its revolutionary era.
Guerrero and Veracruz were utilized to represent all of Mexico due to their stark differences. Guerrero was the poorer region, with less economic development. This reality is seen in the lack of infrastructure in the region, particularly the poor communication in the region. Guerrero was marked by fragmentation and violence. In fact, political involvement was less to the violence. Veracruz, on the other hand, was more economically developed. The infrastructure was better, particularly communication. These two regions, so vastly different, serve to frame Mexican politics and society during this era. I believe his utilization of these two regions does in fact capture the larger snapshot of Mexico that he hoped to capture. The marked contrast in development alone makes these two regions sufficient to compare two regions as exemplars of a larger state.
Guerrero and Veracruz serve to supply specifics to the discussion of the dictablanda in Mexico that developed after the revolution. The dictatorship, which would appear at first glance to run counter to a revolutionary period, moves Mexico out of some of the staples of the revolutionary era. Violence, both political and societal would appear on the surface to decline. The political leaders no longer were supplied by the military. Most importantly, there seems to be some level of stability occurring during this era through Mexico’s one-party system. The dictatorship, complete with accusations of stolen elections, assisted in moving Mexico from revolutionary to unrevolutionary.
Despite the Gillingham argument of an unrevolutionary period, Gonzales would argue that the revolution continued and, therefore, “had legs” as some might say. I believe that the Gonzales discussion of the utilization of the revolution by the dictators in Mexico’s history is the reason the revolution has legs. Gillingham correctly notes the stability that arrives with presidencies beginning in the 1940s. The military coups cease. However, what we learn from Gonzales is that this stability and the long lasting nature of the one-party system in Mexico is largely based on the ability of the government to legitimize itself as the successor and protector of the revolution. In conclusion, the revolution continues to cover Mexican politics, even to the point of necessitating a study of the unrevolutionary period of the 1940s and 50s.
