Blog Post for the Week of March 3
Similar to last week, I found our continued discussion on the Mexico during and after its revolution to be interesting. The particular question that I was thinking about was "what does a nation do after a revolution?" I think the post-revolution time for any nation is extremely difficult. Mexico had spent years with constant fighting and battles, and now it was supposed to return to some semblance of peace or normality. I would argue this period of time right after a revolution is just as impactful as the revolution itself. If a nation cannot find some sort of direction based on the goals of the revolution it just fought, it could never achieve what it had been fighting for. I think something very similar to this happened in Mexico. In the 1920's and 1930's, Mexico, with its new leaders, had the opportunity to implement the reforms that revolutionaries had been fighting for. These leaders seemed somewhat reluctant, however, to radically change the system. It wasn't until Lazaro Cardenas became president that major land reforms and redistribution, one of the important goals of the revolution, were enacted. I think this general reluctance among leaders in Mexico to work on radical reform after the fighting of the revolution is what contributed to Mexico's return to authoritarian leadership in the 1940's. Because intense political and economic reform was not carried through, Mexico reverted back to the type of leadership it had originally revolted under, meaning the original goals the revolution never came to full fruition.
Thank you, Joe, for your post. As you point out, failure to implement radical reforms after the revolution may have contributted to the return authoritarianism. Why do you think Mexican leaders were reluctant to enact the reforms people had fought for?
ReplyDelete