|
MEXICO |
|
Society
Introduction | Political Regime | Political Conflict and Competition | Society | Political Economy | Case and The World | Current Issues
Ethnic and National Identity
Alan Riding has described Mexico as a nation proud of its Indian past but ashamed of its Indian present. 1 Under the PRI, Mexico glorified and embraced its indigenous ancestry and inculcated pride in the mestizaje, or blending of cultures produced by the conquest. Indigenous peoples who have not assimilated into mestizo Mexico have been politically marginalized and have been victims of Mexico's worst poverty, while Mexico's wealthy elite have tended to be lighter skinned and of European origins.
The PRI's success in perpetuating the myth of mestizaje may help explain how it avoided the kind of ethnically based violence that plagued Guatemala, its neighbor to the south, as well as other Latin American nations. But that myth was violently shattered on January 1, 1994, when a rebel army made up mostly of Mayan Indians, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), occupied several towns in Mexico's southernmost state of Chiapas. 2 Many viewed the EZLN as solely an indigenous group seeking greater autonomy for Mexico's long-neglected Indian population.
However, it soon became clear that the EZLN included among its demands the democratization of the Mexican political system and an end to neo-liberal reforms that had ravaged the indigenous poor. Chief among the EZLN's concerns was the abrogation of Article 27 of the Constitution which had mandated land reform in Mexico. On a more general level, the EZLN reacted against the devastation caused by neo-liberal trade policies that had exposed the inefficient peasant farmers to competition from cheaper foreign imports. The call for democratization was partly a response to the political lock that the PRI maintained in some of Mexico's poorest and most heavily indigenous regions.
Comandante Marcos
When the Zapatistas burst into the public in 1994, their spokesperson was a masked rebel known only as Comandante Marcos. He was later identified as a former university professor, a mestizo. The enigmatic rebel leader captured the imagination and support of Mexicans with his unconventional style and his regular dispatches from the jungle that were often filled with wit and humor. In many ways Marcos can be viewed as the first post-Cold War guerrilla. Under his leadership the EZLN relied heavily on electronic media and the Internet to disseminate its political message. The EZLN continues to maintain a website at http://www.ezln.org/
The Zapatista uprising was surprisingly popular within Mexico and, together with the economic crisis, helped erode PRI political dominance and to accelerate electoral reforms. In 1996 the Zedillo government signed the San Andrˇs Peace Accords with the EZLN, which promised protection of indigenous languages and granted indigenous communities political autonomy. However, these provisions were never implemented, and Vicente Fox, who claimed he could resolve the Chiapas conflict "in 15 minutes" has not yet been able to make peace with the Zapatistas. Fox's recent proposed constitutional amendment was watered down by Congress, and the Zapatistas rejected the outcome. As of this writing, the standoff between the government and the Zapatistas continues.
Ideology and Political Culture
Perhaps the most important aspect of Mexican political culture is a profound distrust of the state and the government. Opinion research demonstrates that Mexicans have a far more negative view of their political system and state than their U.S. counterparts do. In 2000 Congress was viewed favorably by only 20 percent of Mexicans, compared with about 80 percent in the United States. 3 Mexicans' high level of disenchantment with their state and political system has been exacerbated by the government's poor response to many national crises over the last two decades. A high-profile split within the PRI, the massive electoral fraud of 1989, corruption charges against former president Salinas, the Chiapas uprising, and the murder of the PRI's designated presidential candidate were all factors that helped to erode popular confidence in the Mexican system.
These scandals, and decades of authoritarian rule, may explain why a majority of Mexicans express little or no interest in politics, notwithstanding a temporary surge of interest around the historic 2000 presidential elections. Mexican men express far more interest in politics than women do, and interest in politics increases with levels of education and income. Mexicans on the left of the political system (supporters of the leftist PRD) generally express much higher levels of interest in politics than Mexicans in the center and right do.
A serious problem confronting Mexico's attempt to construct a stable democracy are the very low levels of political efficacy (the belief that one can make a difference) expressed in opinion polls. Whereas about a third of U.S. respondents claim to have no ability to influence political outcomes, over half of Mexicans express this view. One positive sign is that the 2000 PRI electoral defeat appears to have restored Mexican's faith in the fairness of elections, and recent data show that levels of electoral efficacy have risen dramatically.
Unlike Communist regimes, which actively promoted political mobilization, Mexico under the PRI was an authoritarian regime that sought to contain and limit popular participation in politics. Mexico's political culture continues to show the political effects of decades of authoritarian rule; the country has very low levels of participation in politics, party membership, and political activism. In the United States, where declining levels of political participation are a source of concern, the turnout is still four to five times higher than in Mexico. On a positive note, there is evidence of a steady increase in popular political activity since the 1980s.
During the authoritarian regime of the PRI, the majority of Mexicans professed sympathy for no political party. The erosion of PRI hegemony and the increasing competitiveness of elections have led far more Mexicans to identify with a political party. By 2000 the PRI and PAN each enjoyed the support of about a third of the electorate, while the PRD was supported by about 10 percent. Opinion data show quite clearly that the Mexican electorate is anchored on the center-right. The leftist PRD suffers from the fact that only about 20 percent of Mexicans identify themselves as being on the left. Although more Mexicans define themselves as being on the left or right than do U.S. respondents, Mexicans have been steadily gravitating toward the center.
The erosion of PRI political hegemony has also been accompanied by a dramatic shift in the social class basis of Mexico's parties. Wealthy and middle-class Mexicans abandoned the PRI in droves between 1989 and 2000. By 2000 the PRI depended mostly on the support of lower-class Mexicans, though the PAN had nearly the same amount of support among poor voters. Indeed, one of the remarkable changes between 1989 and 2000 was the PAN's ability to garner support from all classes.
Opinion research reveals that most Mexicans favor democracy over authoritarianism. However, when compared to U.S. respondents, Mexicans are far more likely to define democracy in terms of equality than freedom. The inability of democracy to remedy Mexico's staggering inequality could potentially undermine Mexican support for democracy.
|  |
